Towards a

CENTRE FOR RADICAL

STATE EDUCATION

BEYOND STUDENT VOICE

TO DEMOCRATIC COMMUNITY

Michael Fielding

An exploratory paper
focussing on
Radical inclusion - involving those whose voices are seldom heard
Reversing roles - students as agents of adult professional learning
Co-constructing the common good - remaking public spaces in schools
where adults + young people can have an open dialogue

presented at the day conference

New Developments in Student Voice:
Shaping schools for the future
Thursday 12 June 2008
Birkbeck College, University of London
11.00 - 15.00

Supported by a grant from the Esmée Fairbairn Foundation

We warmly invite and welcome your response

Professor Michael Fielding Email m.fielding@ioe.ac.uk

Educational Foundations & Policy Studies Tel: 0207.612.6919
Institute of Education, University of London, Mob: 07952.267.050
20 Bedford Way Website : www.ioe.ac.uk/crse
London WC1H 0AL
 Acknowledgements

My thanks to the Esmée Fairbairn Foundation for financial assistance

supporting this work.

My thanks to Gill Mullis, Student Voice Co-ordinator at the Specialist Schools

& Academies Trust, for her support and for putting me in touch with some of
the outstanding examples of innovative work mentioned in this paper.

My thanks, too to the teachers and headteachers and Local Authority

colleagues who responded so swiftly and so helpfully to my phone calls and
emails, in particular, Ceddy de la Croix (Sandringham School), Leora Cruddas
(London Borough of Waltham Forest), Elizabeth Draper (formerly of Haywards
Heath Sixth Form College), Alison Peacock (the Wroxham School), and
Cassie Shorey (Harding House).

My further thanks to Graham Hanscombe, Principal Advisor, Best Practice &

Research, Essex Standards & Improvement Service and to Dr Jane
McGregor for many hours of dialogue over a number of years from which this
paper and this project emerged.

Lastly, my thanks to Fiona Carnie, Visiting Research Fellow at the London

Institute, who works with me on the Esmée Fairbairn Foundation project: her
patience and encouragement are beyond measure.
 Introduction

This conference paper addresses three issues which provide new and
exciting challenges for all those working in ways which further develop a
democratic way of life in the field that has come to be known as Student
Voice. These issues concern

1 Radical inclusion - involving those whose voices are seldom heard

2 Reversing roles - students as agents of adult professional learning

3 Co-constructing the common good - remaking public spaces in schools

where adults + young people can have an open dialogue

The intention of the paper and of the 12th June conference is to explore these
matters together and to invite further exchanges of view.

The next phase of our work will involve volunteer schools working with our
colleague, Perpetua Kirby, in follow-up conversations, visits and the write up
of case studies during the Winter Term 2008 and Spring Term 2009.

These conversations and case studies will then form the basis of a practical
resource which we hope will be helpful for schools wishing to develop work in
these three domains.

1
 1 Radical inclusion
involving those whose voices are seldom heard

1.1 Current contexts, imaginative responses

It is a measure of the coming of age of this phase of what has come to be

known as Student Voice that we have gone far beyond the singularity of
student ‘voice’ and are beginning to confront some of the hard and serious
issues. These not only challenge those of us working in this field, but also
challenge all those in our society committed to a more just and more joyful
future. Thus, issues of class, race, gender and learning difficulty are now
beginning to be taken more seriously and it is aspects of these challenges
that this first section of our Esmée Fairbairn Foundation work seeks to
understand better and to respond to more wisely.

In Rehearsing for reality – young women’s ‘space to deal with ourselves’ we

look at some of the work of Leora Cruddas and colleagues from the London
Borough of Newham who supported marginalised young women – girls with
EBD – in a range of highly inclusive ways which seem to us to have a wide-
ranging resonance across many different contexts and circumstances.

The Teenage Parents Program (TAPP) that Deidre Kelley explores in her work
shares some common ground with the Newham project and provides
additional insights into the importance, not just of offering safe spaces for
marginalised or stigmatised persons in our schools, but also countering and
challenging, individually and collectively, dominant presumptions and
prejudices.

The last two examples in this section of the paper look, firstly, at some of the
ways in which students with Special Needs can not only contribute in
groundbreaking ways to mainstream school practices, but also develop highly
imaginative, holistic forms of engagement that many outside special schools
would wish to emulate. COPS, creativity and the absolute necessity of
inclusion gives a brief account of ways in which a major, five year, cross-city
student voice initiative in Portsmouth was transformed by the active
participation in mainstream contexts of Special Schools students.

The highly innovative work going on at Harding House Special School

not only gives us a feel for what a passionate level of commitment and
tenacity can achieve. Student autonomy at Harding House School also
reminds us of the importance of developing and co-developing practices
which acknowledge difficulty, confront it collectively, and in so doing elicit an
energy and joy of response that moves the work forward in ways that could
not have been anticipated at its inception.

2
 1.2 Boundary practices: opening up new territory

Rehearsing for reality – young women’s ‘space to deal with ourselves’

Leora Cruddas’s work with the London Borough of Newham’s two year action
research project focussing on the needs of girls with emotional and
behavioural difficulties provides a number of imaginative and successful
examples of ways in which a group of marginalised students in an already
marginalised sub-community can be better understood and supported within a
mainstream context. In phase one of the two year project, members of staff
were seconded from the LA and developmental work took place in five
secondary schools: three single-sex girls’ schools and two co-educational
schools. In the second year part of the funding was delegated to schools who
appointed a link member of staff who was released to work with the young
women.

A range of different groups were formed in project schools. These included

peer mentoring groups, conflict management groups, focused group work
around a particular topic or theme, groups workshops, Circle Time groups,
and outdoor activity-based and problem solving groups. However, one of the
most successful strategies involved the use of ‘developmental group work’
which provided a vehicle for reflection, evaluation, action and change and
helped to make clear what the young women felt they needed in order to learn
and how they wanted their schools to change in order to meet those needs.
The intention was to create a space that liberates, one which, in the words of
Augusto Boal whose work inspired Leora and her colleagues, ‘a reflection on
reality and a rehearsal for future action.’ Although similar to Circle Time, which
has its origins in developmental group work, the latter is much less directive
and teacher-led.

Not only did the project help to support the young women involved to name
and deal with some of the key barriers to learning and participation in school
like
 emotional problems e.g. isolation and lack of self-confidence
 relationship problems e.g. friendships, parents, romantic relationships,
death and loss
 academic issues e.g. transitions, lack of oracy opportunities, pressures to
succeed
 health issues e.g. pregnancy, mental health, body image
 stereotyping e.g. sexuality, being used as agents of social control,
domestic responsibilities, reputations.

It also highlighted a number of recommendations for institutional development

and change. These were that these young women felt they needed to
 be listened to
 be heard above the boys
 be treated as equals
 have emotional space

3
 have friends
 share problems with each other
 be supported by better pastoral systems

Essentially, in Leora Cruddas’s words, what was being asked for was, ‘the
need for a voice and for space (in curricular, material and psychological
senses) to explore social and emotional issues – what one young woman
referred to as “space to deal with ourselves”’. In some instances the project
led, not only to the development of a range of groups and practices, some of
which, like workshops on understanding the needs of girls, targeted staff as
well as students. It also led to the establishment of things like ‘Girlspace’, a
classroom space within a mixed sex school where girls could go at lunchtime.

Teenage Parents Program (TAPP)

Deirdre Kelley’s account of the Teenage Parents Program (TAPP) in a

Canadian high school approaches issues of inclusion primarily through a
concern to understand how a diverse, constantly changing society might
further develop practices that not only enable marginalised groups to develop
confidence in their identities, but also to enable them to take part in and
contribute to a participatory democracy. Support for minority groups inside and
outside schools is, thus, not about creating separate enclaves, but rather
about creating confidence, capacity and desire to engage in wider dialogue,
discussion and action with peers and adults.

TAPP participants were young women and mothers, mostly living in poverty,
many labelled as having learning and emotional disabilities, some of color or
immigrants or both, who lacked proficiency in English. All had been
stigmatised as teen mothers. TAPP provided on-site day care, a full time
teacher who acted as an inclusion facilitator, and a full-time support worker.
The programme itself included workshops dealing with a range of pertinent
issues.

What is particularly interesting about TAPP is that it did not just provide a safe
place for withdrawal and support. It also sought to equip the young mothers
with the power to (a) deal with e.g. stigmatisation or derogatory comments
and also (b) challenge the prejudices and presumptions they experienced, as
often from public welfare organisations as from fellow students. Furthermore,
on occasions it provided a radical space within which to explore alternative
views of citizenship, including those that saw empowerment, not just as an
individual aspiration but as a collective strategy focussing on the need for
social change.

COPS, creativity and the absolute necessity of inclusion

In their five year partnership with the City of Portsmouth the University of
Sussex co-developed a significant strand of work round student voice as a
key strategy for educational renewal. The explicitly stated values of the

4
Sussex team and the inclusive perspectives and inclinations of many of the
Portsmouth staff with whom they worked laid the basis of some of their more
successful work.

Early on in development of the Portsmouth Learning Community (PLC) work a

cross-city Student Voice Day was held at one of the city’s Special Schools.
Their hosting of the event, together with their full participation in it reinforced
and deepened understandings and aspirations, not just of the Sussex
University team, but of all students and staff who attended. Those felt
encounters and bonds that grew out of that early event subsequently had an
enormous effect on the way things developed over the four years’ work that
followed. Not only were all subsequent cross-city Student Voice Days co-
planned and eventually co-led by a group of students that included young
people from Special Schools, some of the most innovative and adventurous
PLC work owed its dynamism, creative insight and tenacity to the significant
involvement of Special School students.

Two points of particular importance emerge from the inclusive commitment of

these developments. Firstly, the active involvement of special school students
and staff (one of the key citizenship ASTs in the city and was deputy head of a
special school) helped the work to develop a person-centred, social justice
orientation that is unlikely to have been so pronounced or so persistent had
they not been involved. Secondly, because of special school involvement the
Sussex University and Portsmouth LA student voice team were forced to
confront difficult issues and through doing so develop responses that were
wiser, more effective, more inclusive and, on occasions, much more creative
that they would otherwise have been.

Perhaps one of the most compelling examples concerns the developing work
of what became known as COPS (Council of Portsmouth Students). This is a
city-wide group of students whose remit is to encourage a range of student
voice activity in all schools, link with student councils, and offer a young
person’s perspective on matters of importance to students themselves and to
officers, councillors and community groups. Inevitably one of the issues with
which COPS wrestled was how they developed effective forms of two-way
communication between themselves and students across the city. With regard
to how they let schools know what they were about and how they were getting
on their realisation of the inadequacy of sending schools minutes of COPS
meetings was immediately made clear by the deputy chair. This young man
was from a Special School and he quickly pointed out that many of his peers
would not be able to read the minutes and discuss the key issues, even if they
were inclined to do so. This led to a wide-ranging discussion about issues of
student-friendly communication and the importance of developing an inclusive
approach that used modern technology and contemporary culture in
imaginative ways.

The upshot was remarkable. With the enthusiastic help of a member of the
Sussex University team, the COPS group developed an audio-visual form of
communication which incorporated the written minutes on one side of the
screen and video clips of dialogue illustrating the topics under discussion on

5
the other. The key point here is that none of this would have been tackled as
quickly or as imaginatively had the deputy-chair of the COPS group not been
from a Special School and the culture of the COPS group not been committed
intellectually and interpersonally to inclusion.

Student autonomy at Harding House School

Part of Booker Park, a special school in Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire, Harding

House Sixth Form caters for SLD / PMLD students aged 16 -19. Commitment
to student autonomy is central to its work and expresses itself in a range of
ways, including IEP targets, the Student Council and Annual Reviews.

There has been a strong drive to increase student involvement in target

setting. There was considerable awareness of the institutional dangers of low
staff expectation and tokenism; of ‘delayed teaching’ where the impetus of
more active decision making in Early Years and Foundation Curriculum is
diminished; of a lack of appropriate communication strategies / resources
leading to easy options or not bothering at all; and of the inevitably time-
consuming nature of the process. There was also awareness that challenges
for students included suggestibility; dependency and the attraction of the safe
option; patchy presence of the skills of self-knowledge, negotiation and
prediction. These dangers for staff and students were addressed in a variety
of ways including students having more allocated time with personal tutors to
discuss personal goals, the accrediting of the action planning process through
OCR on National Skills Profile and Learning Skills modules, and for PMLD
students the more intensive involvement of families and staff in the actual
setting and recording of goals.

With regard to the School Council there was a recognition that it was not
effective in enabling current Harding House students to contribute to the
running of either their class or the whole school. For some students the
School Council was meaningful and important and for others not. The school’s
response, at various stages of development and implementation includes the
introduction of class councils dealing with everyday issues such as choosing
break time drinks, playground games, seating arrangements, and celebrating
achievements of class members, both at home and in school. Also planned
are ‘department councils’ dealing with bigger issues such as fundraising
activities for local and national charities, whole school assemblies and
celebration, schools outings, and issues round school rules and discipline.
The recording of School Council Meetings and their recommendations in an
accessible format is also taken seriously and adequate time given to review
and discuss issues.

The approach to Annual Reviews is equally impressive. Moving from a

situation which was strong in a number of areas there were, nonetheless
some gaps and a need to develop an even greater degree of engagement
and agency. Thus, students were not originally involved in the running of their
own review meetings and were not invited or empowered to make decisions
about location, who to invite, refreshments, seating plan and so on. The norm

6
now is that they are involved in every stage of the planning for the review and
are active participants in it. Students have an initial meeting in the office with
an administrator and their Personal Tutor to discuss who should be invited to
the meeting and why. Having been shown exemplars, students designed their
own invitations, produced them in ICT, and sent them out.

Pre-review questionnaires have been further developed so that they are

appropriate to all students and distributed prior to the meeting. Students
review their IEP paperwork with their Personal tutor before the meeting and
have a copy with symbols, photos or objects of reference as appropriate.

Above all, experience suggests every student is highly motivated and excited
by presentation of their contribution to the Review via video and/or
PowerPoint presentation on interactive whiteboards. Part of this excitement
has to do with the freedom they are given to create their own presentations
which embrace their lives and hopes as persons, not just their aspirations as
skilled adults. Part also has to do with the vibrancy and support that comes
from sharing and developing their work with their peers. The warmth and
humour combine with a seriousness of purpose that is life-affirming and
practically enabling.

After the meeting students receive a summary of review notes in a meaningful

form and, in order to ensure they have the capacity and motivation to engage
in an ingoing way with the kind of agency illustrated in these examples,
students have ongoing, explicit teaching on relevant communication,
negotiation and decision-making skills.

1.3 Deepening our understanding, developing our practice

There are a number of issues that currently strike us as important, through we

hope very much that you will help us add to and/or rethink these suggestions
in the light of your own experience and the dialogue at the 12th June
conference.

Q1.1 How can schools co-create with disadvantaged young people a range
of ‘spaces where they can deal with themselves’?
Q1.2 How can we ensure those spaces do not become ghettoised?
Q1.3 How can we find out more about whether some safe spaces unwittingly
foster dependency and others are more able to bridge to other groups
and wider ‘public’ spaces, cultures and practices in schools?
Q1.4 What does this kind of ‘bridging’ look like and feel like?
Q1.5 What does it require of those on both sides of the ‘divide’?
Q1.6 How do we help dominant assumptions, cultures, and practices within
schools to be more open to alternative perspectives and
understandings?
Q1.7 How might we create circumstances, occasions and ongoing practices
that help individuals and groups to re-see each other?
Q1.8 How might this apply within the student body, between students and
staff, and between students, staff and community?

7
8
 2 Reversing roles
students as agents of adult professional learning

2.1 Current contexts, imaginative responses

There is a very remarkable range of work currently going on under the broad
heading of student or pupil voice. Thus, we have

 activities that suggest young people benefit, both socially and

academically, from listening to each other’s voices whether individually,
e.g. buddying, coaching, mentoring and peer teaching, or more
collectively, e.g. prefects, pupil leaders and class and schools councils
 activities in which pupils are given responsibility for working alongside
teachers e.g. pupil-led learning walks, pupils as co-researchers and lead
researchers, pupil ambassadors, and lead learners
 activities in which pupils express their views on a range of matters,
sometimes after collecting and interpreting data, either on individual
members of staff, schools teams or departments, or the school as a
learning community e.g. pupils as observers, pupils as informants in
teacher consultation about effective teaching and learning, pupils on staff
appointment panels, pupils as governors, Junior Leadership Teams, pupil
focus groups and surveys, and pupils as key informants in the processes
of external inspection and accountability.

From this impressive range of activity there are two areas of development we
would like to pursue in our Esmée Fairbairn work. These have, firstly, to do
with how we co-create practices that enable young people to develop the
dispositions and capacities to present their insights in spaces traditionally
shaped and controlled by adults. The second, companion, area has to do with
how adults develop their dispositions and capacities to be open to learning
from young people within the context of formal schooling. Both challenges are
substantial and, despite the proliferation of examples alluded to earlier, there
is much we still have to learn if we wish to develop approaches to education
animated by the values and aspirations of participatory democracy, not just
the current imperatives of performance.

In developing our understanding of the first of the above development areas -

i.e. how we co-create practices that enable young people to develop the
dispositions and capacities to present their insights in spaces traditionally
shaped and controlled by adults - we explore two examples of Students as
learning partners.

The first draws on the work Elizabeth Draper at Haywards Heath Sixth Form
College in West Sussex. Student-led INSET describes and reflects on a
remarkable occasion in what turned out to be a catalytic event in the
development of student voice when a group of student researchers designed
and led a successful, but challenging, staff INSET session on successful
teaching and learning.

9
The second is taken from the work of Ceddy de la Croix, students and
colleagues at Sandringham School, St Albans, Hertfordshire and focuses on
their Year 7 Leading the Plenary Project. This, too, is remarkable, not only
because young people were involved in an ambitious form of peer teaching,
but also because they turned out to be key agents of professional change.

The second development area – i.e. how adults develop their dispositions and
capacities to be open to learning from young people within the context of
formal schooling - is explored through two examples of Student-led parents’
evenings. Parents’ evenings are traditionally constructed as primarily an adult
event, despite the fact that its focus is quintessentially the work of young
people themselves. Here, as we know, the work of a student over a
substantial period of time and across a range of subject and other domains is
the focus of both retrospective and prospective reflection. Even though, with
the advent of target-setting and the involvement of pupils in a number of ways
in reflecting in an ongoing way on their own progress, their actual attendance
at such events generally ranges from the benignly peripheral to the mildly
punitive.

There has, however, been a small but significant tradition in the USA of
moving towards a process in which not just the voices but the actions of
young people go beyond the remit of responsiveness and acquiescence to
something much more pro-active and student led. In recent years there have
been some very interesting examples of similar developments emerging in
both primary and secondary schools in England.

In Y5 & 6 Learning Review Meetings we explore Alison Peacock’s work at the

Wroxham School, a primary school in Potters Bar, Hertfordshire and in
Student-Led Review we engage with the work of Ken Cornforth, Andy
Williams, students and colleagues at Pudsey Grangefield School, in Leeds.

2.2 Boundary practices: opening up new territory

2.2 (a) Students as learning partners

Student-led INSET

One of the catalytic growth points in Elizabeth Draper’s student voice work at
Hayward’s Heath Sixth Form College was the 2002 Student-led INSET for all
college teaching staff. Student voice work at the college emerged from her
desire to involve young people in the development of equal opportunities work
for which she had a college responsibility. Making significant use of a
students-as-researchers approach, early work produced some important
student perspectives on what helped them to engage in teaching and
learning. As with any initiative of this kind, some of the key questions that
arose had to do with how findings might best be shared and explored with

10
staff with a view to developing a respectful dialogue. The chosen approach
was the development of a student-led INSET, designed and run by students
with Elizabeth’s support and guidance.

Once the group had arrived at a secure view of the meaning and potential of
their findings they set about designing the INSET and developing appropriate
resources including flyers headed ‘The Dream Teacher’ that listed ideal
qualities identified by students. Mindful of the sensitivities involved and of the
desire to produce a positive outcome, the structures and animating processes
of the session were dialogic, seeking, wherever possible, opportunities for
students and staff to identify and articulate their own values and perspectives
and listen attentively to the range of standpoints that would inevitably emerge.
Teachers were put in groups by the students and asked to respond to
questions about what students and then what staff bring to the teaching and
learning process. Students then shared their research findings in role play
scenarios and more conventional presentations that explained the Student
Voice project’s work and intentions. Further group work focussing on issues to
do with tutorials, teaching and learning, and college structures then led to a
plenary discussion which brought the session to a close.

Reflecting on the INSET Elizabeth emphasises the importance of creating

opportunities, spaces and places in which all can contribute to the teaching
and learning process: it is, as she says, ‘not a one-way process and it is this
process that matters as much as, if not more than, the “end” product’.
However, with processes as unusual and exploratory as this, there are
inevitable tensions and difficulties that accompany the positive learning that
undoubtedly emerged.

These are, in some cases, different for staff and for students. But there are
also issues that, whilst they have different articulations, nonetheless have a
common grammar of power and pre-occupation.

Firstly, there is the invasiveness of external constraints, usually emanating

from the requirements of exam performance, managerial / parental
expectation, and a dominantly instrumental system of schooling. Thus,
starting and sustaining student voice work of this kind is demanding of time for
students and it is often difficult to sustain peer involvement within the wider
institution. One member of staff partly echoed this when in their evaluation
response they wrote
From where can we find realistic amounts of time for student
dialogue? As subject staff, not as pastoral tutor? In the planned
timetable? Without restructuring further the breadth and depth of
our teaching? We used to be able to do this and much regret that
we currently cannot.
The fact that another colleague wrote, ‘I learned a lot … and feel that I
can take back what they said to improve my own teaching
approaches. This was the most challenging INSET I have ever
attended’ is reassuring. Nonetheless, the wider point still holds.

11
Secondly, acknowledging and positively addressing differential power
dynamics is significantly demanding for both students and staff. The nature of
the challenges include deeply held societal presumptions about (a) the
differential status and capacities of adults and young people and (b) the
equally resonant divide between professionally trained teachers and
adolescents. Not altogether surprisingly, both Elizabeth and her students
remark on ‘some difficult moments, particularly in the plenary. Power
dynamics were challenged … Students were formally the controllers of this
event.’ Whilst she felt it ‘was really quite mind-blowing actually and it
generated a blast of vitality and democracy’ some of her colleagues saw it
quite differently.

Despite these inevitable and proper difficulties it was also clear that, amongst
both students and staff, there was a substantial source of goodwill,
excitement, and desire for the process to continue in some form or other.
Once awareness of the inevitable and potentially creative interdependence of
any learning encounter had been publicly shown, individually and collectively
felt, and allowed time to personally connect with the passions and principles
that play such an important role in the work of teachers and the engagement
of students, it re-energised commitment and renewed hope. Students
commented on their increased understanding of and respect for the work of
teachers: teachers remarked on their greater openness to the potential of
young people as partners in learning. And through all this ran the thread of
increased understanding and the potential for more creative and productive
ways of working. In the words of one student involved, not just in the INSET,
but also in the Student Voice work of the college over two years,
I became sensitive to the way in which our findings were making
the student / teacher dichotomy more and more stimulatingly
complex. It was no longer a case of the teacher teaching the
student and the student absorbing information. (It was) more
about what the two separate bodies had to offer one another. If I
have learnt anything, it’s that teachers and students bring two
very different, but equally valuable, sets of experiences to the
classroom and college environment and when each is aware of
the other both can benefit hugely.

Year 7 Leading the Plenary Project

Central to Sandringham’s approach to Deep Learning is the Year 7 Leading

the Plenary Project in which twelve Y7 volunteers (two from each tutor group
initially recommended by their tutor) are trained in leading three different types
of plenary session at the end of lessons. The confidence and expertise of
students is supported firstly, through the two hour training sessions developed
and run by Ceddy de la Croix, a deputy headteacher at the school; secondly,
through the cumulative experience of running the plenary sessions in class;
thirdly through the engagement of all students in the plenaries; and, fourthly,
through the eventual involvement of all pupils taking turns as plenary leaders
themselves. Within a fortnight each student completes ten plenaries which are
recorded in their training books, thereby receiving a Headteacher

12
Commendation. After each plenary they receive brief feedback from the
member of staff. Once they have completed the ten plenaries they become a
coach for another student plenary leader in the class to whom they give
appropriate feedback and support.

There are six points to underscore from a student standpoint

 Firstly, the training is imaginative, good fun, practical and appropriately

attentive to relational and professional sensitivities
 Secondly, actual experience of running the plenaries is supported by staff
themselves (through agreeing to their taking place and through feedback
to the student afterwards), by the deputy head running the programme,
and, crucially, by all fellow students who not only engage in the plenary
activities, but subsequently become plenary leaders themselves.
 Thirdly, it is inclusive i.e. one that through its actual implementation in the
classroom and through peer coaching of new plenary leaders, involves all
members of the class
 Fourthly, the students’ efforts connect to the school’s rewards system
 Fifth, their work also draws on intrinsic motivational factors to do with
individual satisfaction of running plenaries well and enhancing their own
learning skills and dispositions. Indeed, some students adapt the plenaries
to create ones more suited to their interests and needs and those of their
peers.
 Sixth, it seems likely that their involvement in an undertaking which seeks
to develop creative approaches to learning also has a collective appeal, a
sense, not just that they are developing personal learning skills, but also
contributing to something that is worthwhile for their peers and for the
school as a learning community.

From a staff standpoint there are seven points that seem to be important in
helping them to develop a greater capacity to be open to professional learning
triggered by the active leadership of young people themselves.

 Firstly, the programme is voluntary

 Secondly, and I would suggest crucially, they respect and trust the deputy
headteacher running the programme and
* his ingoing informal engagement with staff and students and
* his use of formal occasions, e.g. morning briefings and staff CPD
sessions, to encourage and persuade – visually and experientially
through video-clips and student and staff testimony
 Thirdly, they know that the training students receive is worthwhile and in
the peer-led phase of the work where, on rare occasions training has been
less successful, issues can be picked up and addressed.
 Fourthly, teachers are actively involved in helping students reflect on the
success or otherwise of the plenaries
 Fifth, in many instances it gives teachers a breather at the end of lessons
 Sixth, it more often than not helps staff develop their unassisted
approaches to plenaries. Indeed, on a number of occasions students have

13
 been, in Ceddy de la Croix’s words ‘active carriers of good practice as they
take plenary ideas they have used in a lesson and transfer it to another’
 Lastly, evidence suggests this kind of student involvement helps to
positively develop the relationships and trust between students and staff.

2.2 (b) Student-led parents’ evenings

Y5 & 6 Learning Review Meetings

Alison Peacock’s pioneering work is at the forefront of radical progressive

education in this country, particularly with regard to matters of pupil
engagement, her steadfast refusal to label children by ‘ability’, and her
longstanding commitment to developing the school as a democratic
community. Of special relevance to this document is her insistence on placing
pupil agency at the heart of their learning, including their termly Review of
Progress.

Years 5 & 6 Learning Review Meetings take place once a term during the
school day. They last for twenty minutes and are attended by the child,
parent(s), the teacher, the TA and the headteacher. Prior to the meeting the
child fills in a questionnaire about their perceived successes, worries and
support needs. Crucially,
 not only does the child decide the focus of the Review Meeting,
 she also leads the meeting itself
The headteacher then writes a summary of the child’s view and this goes back
to the teacher and teaching assistant as a basis for action and subsequent
review.

The process is immensely helpful for parents, as well as for pupils, but it is the
insistence on requiring and supporting the child in taking control of the self-
review process that gives it its special significance. In Alison’s words, ‘It is
about self-assessing, about articulating the process, having a discussion and
about making decisions’ and about how the child’s control of the substance
and direction of the process leads to a remarkable quality of engagement and
occasionally to very substantial change. Alison again:
The occasion when Rob (11 years), previously noted for his
aggression on the playground, announced in a Review Meeting
that his favourite work was “writing poetry” was a milestone. We
knew then that the learning environment we were seeking to
create was beginning to taking shape.

What is especially interesting about this kind of commitment with children in

Years 5 and 6 is the bridge from consultation to participation and the
development of a widely shared, bindingly understood seriousness of purpose
that develops and celebrates, not just their capacity and their desire to make
serious choices, but also a genuinely shared responsibility that includes but
also goes beyond aspirant outcomes. This is also about the felt realities of
wider learning processes, of their development as persons, as young human

14
beings who have a special significance as members of the caring and creative
learning community of the school to which they belong.

There are, of course, important tensions and issues here that we would wish
to explore in our Esmée Fairbairn work. How, for example, how does one
enable and nurture the capacity and the desire of young pupils to develop this
kind of agency without being unduly intimidated or influenced by peers or by
adults, many of whom would regard such processes with a degree of
incredulity or mistrust? How does one develop in adults a companion set of
capacities and dispositions that retain adult responsibility whilst at the same
time reworking them in ways that accommodate a more adventurous
understanding of the powers and capacities of young people?

A small but significant part of the answer to both questions has to do with the
sheer multiplicity of occasions and opportunities children at Wroxham School
have, firstly, to make choices about the nature and direction of their work.
Secondly, and equally importantly, the principled commitment not to label
children, not to foreclose possibility presumptuously or prematurely is likely to
have a benign, wide-ranging influence in the kinds of direction the school is
seeking to travel.

Student-Led Review

The Student-Led Review approach at Pudsey Grangefield School in Leeds is

firmly rooted in the school’s commitment to personalising learning and has
been jointly developed by the Principal, Ken Cornforth, and Andy Williams, a
Learning Coach Professional and Co-director of Learning Environments at the
school. Prior arrangements, much like any other secondary school in England,
were seen as less helpful for all involved than they might otherwise have
been. The customary model involved ‘long and lonely preparation’ by
members of staff whose responsibility it was to drive and host the meeting. As
with traditional approaches to parents’ evenings up and down the country,
staff expectations of student commitment to its core purpose was lower than
they might have been and students themselves tended to feel less engaged,
less responsible and less prepared than the situation warranted.

The student-led model developed at the school goes hand in hand with the
emergence of new pastoral arrangements in which tutorial sessions involving
25+ mixed ability students are changed from four 15 minute daily periods with
an hour’s ‘student development day’ on a Friday to 30 minute sessions, three
days a week, in groups of not more than 15 students with ‘similar abilities and
goals’. Structural changes of this kind enable a cultural transformation with a
move away from a lecturing approach to one that is (a) much more dialogic
and interactive and (b) much better equipped to monitor student work against
their agreed targets.

In order to prepare for the student-led review young people receive eight slots
of training from an impressively wide range of staff coaches, all of whom have
themselves had appropriate training. Student training includes engagement

15
with substantial amounts of data, e.g.  How I learn best (‘learning-to-learn’
skills)  current grades or levels for each subject studied  target grades 
position in the Year Group  E/O/B [exceeding / on / below] level for each
subject  effort and behaviour grade  homework and independent learning
grade. Finally, on the basis of all this, the student is asked to identify three
tentative objectives.

The Review itself includes the student, the parent / carer, and the Learning
Coach. It is the student’s responsibility to set the scene, manage the process,
and engage in a dialogue within which tentative objectives are challenged and
firmed up. She is assisted in this by the presence of the Learning Coach who
acts as a benign resource, providing appropriate challenge and the task of
helping to elucidate the three objectives or learning goals to which all three
parties to the Review are jointly committed.

After the Review the emphasis is on action plans with the Learning Coach
facilitating and all participants taking a joint responsibility for evaluation.

At the time of writing we have not been able to have a dialogue with students
or staff at Pudsey Grangefield School so it is difficult to form an accurate
impression of the animating force behind this development. Nonetheless,
within the context of our Esmée Fairbairn work a number of challenges and
possibilities present themselves. Certainly, the school seems confident that
the new approach is one which not only makes the review process more
powerful and more meaningful to young people through appropriate training,
structures and support. It also believes in the positive, energising dynamic of
young people both celebrating their achievements and taking a shared
responsibility for shaping their future.

2.3 Deepening our understanding, developing our practice

These are exciting developments that not only put the student close to the
centre of the stage, they alter the position previously occupied by staff.

Two sets of questions suggest themselves. The first has to do with how young
people re-imagine their role in school and how they develop a companion set
of skills and dispositions to enable them to benefit and contribute in equal
measure

Q2.1 What kinds of new structural arrangements are required to enable this
kind of work to flourish?
Q2.2 What kinds of training do students need? How intense does it need to
be? Who does it? How often? When? How does it address the need to
re-see the roles of students and staff?
Q2.3 How do we develop a system that moves from elite / exotic status to
one that is inclusive in its involvement and its appeal?
Q2.4 How do we accommodate the time demands and pressures of these
new arrangements with existing requirements and imperatives, both
internal and external?

16
The second set of questions arise from the parallel reconfiguration of staff
roles in these developments

Q2.5 How are new systems to address issues of credibility (good quality)
and status (seen as worthwhile)?
Q2.6 How are deeply and widely held assumptions about differential
capacities, experience and status between adults and young people
effectively acknowledged and addressed?
Q2.7 How do we encourage adults to re-see and re-listen in these new kinds
of encounter with young people?

17
 3 Co-constructing the common good
remaking public spaces in schools
where adults + young people can have an open dialogue

This final section of our paper is quite different from the other two that precede
it, basically because it seeks answers to questions not often asked in our
education system, even though they lie only just beneath the surface of
territory we have been exploring earlier. They are questions that go to the
heart of our aspirations, not only to be a democratic society but also, through
our systems of schooling and education, to become more fully so. They have
to do with how adults and young people develop shared understandings,
dispositions and public practices that exemplify democracy as a shared form
of life.

If schools are to exemplify practices and create traditions that enable young
people and adults to live and learn together in ways which go beyond the local
engagements of classroom and playground,
 how do they develop formal and informal arrangements, appropriate
cultures and personal capacities that come to life in shared spaces that
transcend hierarchy and value difference?
In furtherance of these aspirations,
 how do schools create and nurture spaces where young people have the
confidence, capability and desire to explore matters that express their own
particular identities and aspirations, not only within the safety of their own
small groups and micro contexts, but also in the wider, diverse
commonalities of the school to which they belong?

Likewise, and, not withstanding their high profile in this paper, more often than
not unrecognised or undervalued,
 how do schools help adults develop the skills and dispositions to listen to
students in ways which are neither condescending towards the young nor
a self-inflicted eradication of their own adult experiences and
perspectives?

In sum,

 how does a community committed to the furtherance of a democratic

society collectively make meaning of the value, variety and adventure of
its daily work in and over time and give due weight and significance to
the quality and direction to its shared life?

There is exciting, emerging work, such as that of Morwenna Griffiths and her
colleagues at Edinburgh University and teachers and schools in Nottingham
with whom she worked within the Creative Partnerships scheme that begins to
address issues of how young people can be encouraged to ‘be’ in public

18
spaces, how they can learn to develop the dispositions and skills that are so
central to democracy as a public way of life. However, there are very few
examples of other work animated by the same concerns and it is to the radical
traditions of state education that we need to turn to begin to understand why
these aspirations are important and how they might variously be interpreted
and fulfilled.

We look, first at the role of young people in The Moot at Countesthorpe

Community College in Leicestershire between its inception in 1970 and its
demise in 1985 when that communal, democratic form of governance was
disbanded. We then touch, briefly, on my own work at Stantonbury Campus in
Milton Keynes in the mid to late 1980s when we involved Students in Hall
Meetings before looking at and on our recent our evaluation work at Bishops
Park College, Clacton where student involvement in the Research Forum was
central to the evaluation strategy. Finally, we describe at greater length a
remarkably ambitious and hugely successful example of radical secondary
education. It concerns the work of Alex Bloom at St George-in-the East
Secondary School, Stepney, London where his development of the Whole
School Meeting brought together one of the most imaginative and most
sophisticated unions of democratic learning and democratic governance this
country has ever seen.

3.1 The Moot

at Countesthorpe Community College, Leicestershire

From 1970 to 1985, despite the fact that it had a headteacher, all key
decisions of policy and practice, including the appointment and payment of
staff, were taken by the Moot. This was a communal gathering open to all in
the school, including non-teaching staff and students. All attending had one
vote each and anyone was entitled to call a Moot.

The rationale for these arrangements was rooted in the view of learning
developed at the College in the first phase of its development and it is worth
reproducing it in part here
Our system of internal government, in which every member of
staff and the student body has a part that can be taken, derives
from the system of learning. The more a student takes
responsibility for studying, the more a student will need a voice in
determining the conditions of study; the more teachers are
expected to coordinate their implementation of curriculum, the
more they will need to determine the organization of the available
resources and distribution of responsibilities.

The Moot set up various committees and the Standing Committee which met
every fortnight and was responsible for decision making not involving changes
in policy. Membership of staff was by rota and all staff were on the Standing
Committee during the course of an academic year. Membership was open to
students and two from each ‘team’ (the mini-schools that emerged as the key
communities of learning in the College) could be registered as having voting

19
rights, with anyone being entitled to attend meetings. However, in general,
student participation in the Moot and Standing Committee was minimal and
often confined to a small number of sixth form students and, for many
teachers, the informal structures and very significant way in which students
were involved on a day-to-day basis about their learning was what really
mattered.

3.2 Students in Hall Meetings

at Stantonbury Campus, Milton Keynes

Some of the reasons for minimal student involvement in the participatory

structures at Countesthorpe, e.g. lack of appropriate information, the
confusing and mystifying formal procedures, dominant and complex language
and behaviour by some staff, and the tendency for the decision making
process to be protracted or ineffective, led myself and a number of colleagues
at Stantonbury Campus, Milton Keynes, to develop a more limited, exploratory
model of involving students in Hall Meetings.

This development took place in Portway Hall, one of the five Halls or mini-
schools of about 550 students and 30+ staff that made up Stantonbury
Campus in the mid 1980s. Each Student Council form representative was
paired up with a member of staff, usually their tutor, whose responsibility it
was to meet beforehand, elicit issues the student felt important or which she
wished to raise at the meeting, explain agenda items, and make her aware of
some of the pertinent background issues. During the meeting paired student
and staff would sit together and after the meeting they would again meet to
talk things through

3.3 The Research Forum

at Bishops Park College, Clacton

A contemporary development in the spirit of the radical traditions of

Countesthorpe and Stantonbury Campus was the emergence of a Research
Forum that formed a key part of the major evaluation (Less is More? The
Development of a Schools-within-Schools Approach to Education on a
Human Scale at Bishops Park College, Clacton, Essex) of the initial phase of
the development of Bishops Park College, the first purpose built school-within-
a-school in England. Members of the Research Forum included parents,
governors, teachers, senior leadership members and four students (two Y7
boys and two Y10 girls). The key purposes of the Forum were, firstly, to
provide guidance for the evaluation team about the direction and validly of
their work and, secondly, to be key informants and, in the case of the
students, co-researchers. Thirdly, and equally importantly, at the request of
the college, the evalution team were tasked with developing a framework of
accountability more suited than OfSTED to the innovative aspirations of the
school, and the Research Forum played a pivotal role in that undertaking.

20
What is particularly pertinent here is the way in which the culture of mutual
learning and exchange that developed in the Forum profoundly changed the
way in which all participants understood each other. This was not an easy
process and it required skill, patience, the reaffirmation of inclusive,
democratic values, and, above all, generosity of spirit and time.

3.4 Whole School Meeting

at St George-in-the East Secondary School, Stepney, London

The last example we offer in this section of the paper is longer than those we
have considered thus far, partly because it is so compelling and, partly,
because, in the absence of contemporary models, a rich description of highly
innovative practice can inspire us and give us a feel for the authenticity of
what is being advocated.
The work of Alex Bloom between 1945 and 1955 at St George-in-the-East
Secondary School in Cable Street, Stepney, in the East End of London not
only provides one of the most compelling examples of a radical state
secondary school we have ever had in England. It also provides one of the
few examples of intended, public, intergenerational learning at the heart of a
school’s attempt to create a democratic learning community.

On 1st October 1945, Bloom set out to build what he described in his own
words as ‘A consciously democratic community … without regimentation,
without corporal punishment, without competition.’ The work of the school was
guided by an orienting set of perspectives that became known as ‘Our
Pattern’. Fundamentally, this was about the eradication of fear and the
creation of a context for human flourishing that valued the contribution of each
person and worked hard to develop a creative and responsive school
community worthy of the loyalty and commitment of all its students.

DEMOCRATIC VALUES + RELATIONSHIPS (1)

St George-in-the-East Secondary School, London (1953)
‘Our Pattern’
Staff working together to develop common understandings of guiding
principles about human flourishing within the context of education and
formal schooling
1. the child must feel that … he does count, that he is wanted,
that he has a contribution to make to the common good
2. the child must feel the school community is worthwhile
 Eradicate the influence of fear -
‘fear of authority, fear of failure, fear of punishment’
 Replace fear with
‘Friendship, security and the recognition of each child’s worth’
 No competition emulation / ipsative striving
 No marks / prizes intrinsic motivation + communal
recognition
 No streaming / setting all ability, sometimes mixed-age grouping
 No punishment restorative, communal response

21
The curricular and interpersonal opportunities the school offered emphasised
the importance of an approach to learning called the School Study in which
the majority of the formal curriculum was co-constructed within the context of
thematic work culminating in a School Conference in which work was
celebrated and reviewed in both mixed age and in form groups. The
remainder of the curriculum was negotiated through mixed age Electives in
which ‘children make up their own timetable’. There was thus substantial
emphasis, both on continuity of relationships with a class teacher and on
multi-facetted communal engagement with other students and staff. In
addition there was strong commitment to learning outside the physical
confines of the school, including regular residential experience in the form of
school camps on the south coast of England. Lastly, students’ own
evaluations of their curricular experience in both its broad and narrow senses
was sought and acted on through Weekly Reviews in which each student
commented on any aspect of learning and teaching they felt appropriate.

DEMOCRATIC VALUES + RELATIONSHIPS (2)

St George-in-the-East Secondary School, London (1953)
Partnership between teachers and students
Negotiate what you learn
 Learning in the community
 Electives (choose what to study after taster session)
 Art  Book-binding Creative writing  Debates
 Drama  Dramatic reading Fabric printing  French
 Housecraft  Italic writing Literature  Music
 Mythology  Needlecraft Poetry  Puppetry
 Recorder playing  Weaving What’s on?  Woodwork
Student initiated  Extra Maths Extra English
Non-groups group  absorb into existing group  include in new activity
 Residential camps
Learn from each other (students + staff)
 Relationships with class teacher
 Form meetings
 Weekly reviews
 School study (agreed theme) e.g Man’s Dependence on Man
 Thematic day conference where work is shared
 (Whole) School council

The formal democratic organisation of the school was, in many ways, equally
remarkable. There were three core channels of its work through the Staff
Panel, the Pupil Panel, and, at school level, the Joint Panel and the School
Council /School Meeting. The Staff Panel met every Monday lunchtime and
included all staff i.e. about 10 people. The Pupil Panel was comprised of the
Head Boy and Head Girl, their two Deputies and the Secretary, all of whom
were elected by students. It also included elected Form Reps. The panel met
every Friday morning in school time and considered all school matters. There
were reports from Form Reps and business sent by staff. It also appointed a
range of Pupil Committees which took responsibility for running various
aspects of school life e.g.

22
 dance - midday dancing in the Hall
 meals – organising break-time canteen and helping with midday meals
 sports – playground games, sports equipment, outside matches (Non
competitive! They did play matches with other schools but, even when they
‘won’ always requested they be recorded ‘friendlies’ and not count in the
league)
 tidy – appearance of the school
 social – concerts, parties, visitors
Each Committee was also linked to a member of staff who undertook a liaison
role. Form Meetings took place every Monday morning, in part to hear reports
of the previous Friday’s Pupil Panel meeting.

The Joint Panel met on the last Friday of the month. It was comprised of
members of both Staff and Pupil Panels and chairs of all Pupil Committees.
Reports were given by a member of staff for the Staff Panel, by the Head Girl
or Head Boy for the Pupil Panel, and by chairs of the various Pupil
Committees. On the Monday following the Joint Panel Meeting there was a
School Council / School Meeting presided over alternately by a member of
staff and by a member of the Pupil Panel agreed at the previous Full School
Meeting.

DEMOCRATIC STRUCTURES
St George-in-the-East Secondary School, Stepney, London (1953)
Staff Students School
Staff Panel Pupil Panel Joint Panel
 All staff (about 10)  Head Boy / Girl  Staff Panel Member
Deputy HB/G Form Reps  Head Boy / Girl
Secretary Headteacher  Chairs of Pupil Committees
 Headteacher
Weekly Meeting Schedule
Form Meeting Pupil Committees Staff Panel
Monday Morning Ongoing Monday lunchtime
dance  meals  sport
 tidy  social

Pupil Panel
Friday Morning
Monthly Meeting Schedule
Pupil Panel Staff Panel
▼ ▼
Joint Panel
Last Friday of the month
▼
(Whole) School Council [whole school: students + staff]
Monday following Joint Panel Meeting

It is not always clear, either from Bloom’s own writing or from accounts of the
school by others, whether use of the term ‘School Council’ referred to the
trivalent panel structure, or to the Joint Panel of teachers and students, or to
the gathering of the whole school as a democratic community in the School
Meeting. However, the broad point Bloom is making is that the structures of
democratic engagement promote intergenerational learning through lived,

23
communal responsibility and it is this which is particularly pertinent to this
strand of our Esmée Fairbairn work. Here we have a very useful account of
how young people and adults can come together as a community to reflect
on, celebrate and challenge the work they have jointly undertaken. It takes
seriously the importance within a democratic society of creating a public
space within which members of the community (in this case a small
secondary modern school of about 200 students and 10 staff) can make
meaning of their work and their lives together in ways which are rigorous and
respectful, challenging and caring, and utterly committed to a way of being
that sees individuality and community as both the condition and purpose of
living our lives well together.

One particularly interesting variant on the different forms the School Council /
School Meeting took in its ten year development under Bloom’s guidance was
the one described by E.R.Braithwaite, the Guyanan author whose
internationally famous book, To Sir With Love, was based on his brief
experience at the school in the early 1950s. Chapter 17 of the book opens
with an air of excitement: ‘The half yearly report of the Students’ Council …
was one of the most important days in the calendar of (the) school’ and
Braithwaite admits to ‘being as excited as the children as the day
approached.’ The proceedings begin with Bloom speaking ‘at length, re-
iterating the aims and policy of the school and of the important contribution
each child could make to the furtherance of those aims.’ After leaving the
stage ‘to tremendous applause’ Bloom is then followed by the Head Girl
explaining the purpose of the Council and its activities prior to each class,
through its chosen reps for each subject, reporting on their half-year’s work
with ‘the emphasis … on what they understood rather than what they were
expected to learn.’ Not only was the emphasis on what had been learned, it
was also on students’ own perspectives and judgment on the value of their
experiences.

What then transpires is a truly remarkable process in which students move

into a reciprocally demanding, sometimes critical, dialogue with three
randomly chosen members of staff who, with varying degrees of skill and
conviction, seek to justify and, in some case defend, the basis of the school
curriculum on which the student body had communally reflected in such detail.
In this instance, one of the older boys challenged the nature of PE that the
school offered:
‘He complained that the PT was ill-conceived and pointless, and the
routine monotonous; he could see no advantage in doing it; a jolly good
game was far better. Apparently, he was voicing the opinion of all the
boys, for they cheered him loudly.’
There then follows a series of impassioned, thought-provoking exchanges
between students and staff about the nature and possible justification of
compulsion, the necessity of recognising differences in need and capacity, the
importance of thinking about and helping others, and the relationship between
school and wider society, particularly with regard to preparation for adult life.

If we combine the spirit of this account with Bloom’s own writing on School
Meetings we begin to get a feel for the vibrancy of democratic engagement at

24
St. George-in-the-East and the potential similar approaches have for further
development at the beginning of the 21st century.

3.5 Deepening our understanding, developing our practice

Drawing on the successes and failures of the radical traditions of state

education we close by offering seven questions that begin to open up some of
the key issues that have emerged in the last half century.

Q3.1 How can we help all young people, not just the articulate or the
confident, to learn how to ‘be’ in public spaces?
Q3.2 How do we develop and value informal spaces for intergenerational
dialogue within schools?
Q3.3 How do we develop formal spaces for intergenerational dialogue?
Q3.4 How do we prepare young people and adults to learn how to use and
develop them?
Q3.5 What lessons can we learn from past examples that will support us in
future work?
Q3.6 What is the connection between successful use of formal
intergenerational spaces and opportunities within the curriculum for
student choice and co-construction?
Q3.7 What is the role of close relationships and feelings of significance in
developing the confidence and desire to challenge and celebrate each
other’s practice in a public space?

25
 Appendix 1

GETTING CLEAR ABOUT PUPIL CONSULTATION

5 key questions to ask of our practices and aspirations

Purposes and values

Key question:
‘Why are we doing this?’

 Why is this work being encouraged / resisted?

 In whose interests?
 Who benefits and why?

Power and control

Key question:
‘Whose voices are heard mostly clearly?’

 Who is allowed to speak? About what?

 Who gets heard? By whom?
 Who is listening? Why?

Capacities and dispositions

Key question:
‘What skills and attitudes do we need to develop to make this work?’

 How are the appropriate skills developed?

 How do people regard / care for each other?
 Are they taking it seriously?
 Do some people feel threatened?

Systems and structures

Key question:
‘How will the school support people committed to pupil voice?’

 Do we have appropriate systems and structures that support people

interested?
 Are there public / communal, as well as smaller, more intimate spaces to
make meaning of recommendations and decide what should be done?

Actions and responsibilities

Key question:
‘Does anything actually change?’

 What actually happens?

 Who decides?
 Who has responsibility for embedding the change?
 How do we hold ourselves / each other to account?

26
 How is the change monitored and evaluated? By whom?

27