Student participation in Irish primary schools

ABSTRACT

This research explores the perceptions of 125 primary school students (ages 8–12) in two Educate Together schools in Ireland. As a national network, established over 40 years, Educate Together schools are characterised as equality-based, child-centred, participative and democratic. This ethos is set out in the Educate Together Charter and clarified through the recent development of the Educate Together Ethos Quality Framework. This article explores the understanding of student participation in literature and what it means in practice for Educate Together schools. Using a survey to gather data, the key research questions are as follows: How do students perceive their participation in school: (1) in the classroom; (2) outside the classroom and (3) in decision-making at the whole school level. This research attempts to build on the small number of previous studies where student participation in school was explored from the student's perspective. The descriptive quantitative and qualitative findings indicate a relatively high level of participation across these key arenas of school life, and the findings differentiate between those participation activities that are experienced, more or less commonly among students. The study considers the enabling environment created by Educate Together to ensure that student participation is part of school culture.

KEYWORDS:

• Student participation
• primary school
• decision making

Introduction

Student participation describes the involvement of students in classrooms, extracurricular activities, democratic decision-making processes, and other interactions between students and between students and staff. Much ambiguity exists in relation to a definition of student participation, and therefore this matter is explored in the literature review. Beyond the debate about definition, Graham et al. (2018) highlights the need for further research on how student participation operates in the daily life of the school. This study attempts to shed light on the perceptions of 125 students from two Irish primary schools, aged 8–12. Both schools are part of an equality-based national network of schools in Ireland known as Educate Together, a school patron body and membership network of 96 primary and 21 post-primary schools across Ireland, including over 38,000 students. Of importance to the study, these schools are characterised as equality-based, child-centred, participative and democratic. These values are enshrined in the Educate Together Charter (Educate Together 2023) and further illuminated in the Quality Framework for Ethos in Educate Together Schools (O'Brien 2020) which sets out standards and statements of effective practice for ethos. This framework provides a systematic approach to the internal evaluation by schools of how they live their ethos, including aspects related to student participation. Of relevance to the study are the following statements of effective practice, which all Educate Together schools aspire to achieve:

• ‘Members of the school community positively identify with the school, and very high levels of participation in school life are encouraged. Differentiated supports are consistently provided, in so far as it is possible, to those who need them so as to ensure the participation of all students and their families’ (O'Brien 2020, 7)

• ‘Student voice is experienced through formal democratic structures and participative processes’ (O'Brien 2020, 10)

• ‘There is an understanding of barriers to the participation of underrepresented groups in the formal democratic processes of the school and systematic measures are in place to address such barriers and support participation’ (O'Brien 2020, 11)

• ‘The school curriculum integrates opportunities for all students to learn about and experience democratic processes as a norm. Students are empowered to develop skills of listening, questioning and respectful dialogue in order to develop as informed, responsible and participative members of society. Students are provided with opportunities to lead initiatives in the school’ (O'Brien 2020, 13)

• ‘The school provides opportunities for all stakeholders to develop a sense of belonging to the school and the Educate Together network through participation in events and processes’ (O'Brien 2020, 13)

The key research questions that are explored in this article are as follows: How do students perceive their participation in school: (1) in the classroom; (2) outside the classroom; and (3) in decision-making at the whole school level. This study is not an evaluation of student participation as described by Educate Together in their Ethos Quality Framework, instead, it delves deeper into students’ perspectives on their own participation in these three areas. However, the findings may be understood better through the lens of the Educate Together ethos, which describes the school environment. The literature review explores the meaning of the term ‘student participation’ as used in this study. In this endeavour, the emphasis lies in highlighting what it is not as much as describing what it is, given widespread misunderstandings and the conflation of analogous terms.

Literature review

As outlined above, there is no agreed definition of the term ‘participation. Many definitions relate to the notion of expressing views (verbal or non-verbal) such as through ‘information sharing and dialogue’ (Horgan et al. 2015). Frequently, definitions of participation emphasise the importance of impact such as: ‘all of those times and places when pupils have a chance to influence decision making and bring about smaller or more significant change’ (Mannion, Sowerby, and I’Anson 2015, 7). In a later study Mannion, Sowerby, and I’Anson (2022, 3) frame participation as ‘dialogic, intergenerational, collective, inclusive and capable of making a difference through being “transgressive”’ and more than ‘taking part’.

In contrast, the term ‘participation’ in the current study does not necessarily equate with this definition but instead claims that student participation may or may not include the elements outlined. The authors agree with Percy-Smith (2010) who claims that the preoccupation with participation as decision-making is a major problem as it ignores the ‘wider spectrum of activities which characterise how young people engage with and make sense of their worlds’ (110). Taking part or even being present can be of value, and even ‘tokenism is sometimes a start’ (Lundy 2018, 353). This is not to say that the authors do not recognise the importance of meaningful decision-making and impact. On the contrary, they argue that the capacity for students to do so evolves over time and in different arenas as a student develops their knowledge, skills and confidence. Everyday participation can provide a useful scaffold for students as they develop their capacity to participate in more impactful ways and to develop their self-awareness and self-belief which may lead to empowerment and agency.

Further, it is important to recognise that students participate in school for various reasons, and the purpose of student participation can also inform its nature. The purpose of student participation relates very much to the purpose of schooling. Fielding’s typology of partnership highlights the instrumental and fellowship dimensions as two opposing views in this regard (Fielding 2012). In terms of the former, student participation is used as a ‘neoliberal tool for engendering compliance’ (Graham et al. 2018) and to enhance school and individual student performance in a competitive society, exemplified by the use of students as data sources in school improvement (O’Brien et al. 2019) and accountability mechanisms (Fleming 2015). The fellowship dimension emphasises a person-centred democratic approach to schooling, and therefore ‘a school committed to this way of working sees its main task as one of developing an inclusive, creative society through a participatory democracy which benefits everyone’ (Fielding 2012, 9). Further, student participation is advocated for a range of specific reasons including: achievement and attainment (Mannion, Sowerby, and I’Anson 2015); health and wellbeing (Anderson et al. 2022; de Róiste et al. 2012; John-Akinola and Nic Gabhainn 2014); school governance (Cheng et al. 2020) and democracy/citizenship education (Fielding 2012; Zyngier 2012).

Various models of student participation suggest lower and higher levels of participation (Fielding 2012; Hart 1992; Shier 2001) which reflect variations in the levels of: awareness among students about the purpose of participation, power sharing, responsibility and ownership of the process. Participation can be representative and occasional in such forms as participation in school teams or committees, or it can be more democratic and frequently experienced as a normal feature of everyday life in the school. Interestingly, what is considered a higher level of participation appears to relate to its purpose. If the purpose is to improve wellbeing, providing opportunities for students to work together is considered a higher level of participation, whereas individual student voice activities, regardless of their impact, are considered a lower level of participation (Anderson et al. 2022). This is because student participation is linked to wellbeing via recognition and therefore participation opportunities that foster meaningful, respectful, and caring relationships where students feel recognised are more likely to promote student wellbeing. González et al. (2021) provide a further example to highlight that what is considered effective participation differs according to its purpose. When the goal of participation is to raise grades, this can be done by making the students feel heard. However, student participation must have an impact on school norms when the goal is to lessen anti-social behaviour. Therefore, there is no single type of participation that is considered most effective or of a higher level in all scenarios.

Based on the above discussion, this study adopts a very broad understanding of student participation, acknowledging that it can take place for a variety of purposes, in a variety of spaces and may be driven by the school and/or by the student/s. Within this framework, student participation operates along multiple continua, which recognise varying levels of engagement, frequency and impact. The authors argue that this understanding reflects more realistically, how students themselves may perceive and experience participation at school and recognises the evolving capacity of students to participate. However, further consideration is required to provide clarity on terms that are commonly conflated with student participation such as ‘student voice’, ‘student agency’ and ‘student engagement.’

The concept of ‘student voice’ can be an aspect of student participation in a school. Numerous commentators have acknowledged that the enactment of Article 12 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) goes beyond ‘student voice’. Lundy (2007) conceptualises participation as Space, Voice, Audience and Influence, which, to be effective and meaningful should be understood as a process rather than a once off event. Such a process can mean providing ongoing opportunities for students to verbally and physically participate in the life of the school, in all kinds of ways. However, Lundy underscores participation as the articulation of opinions, diverging from the other delineated forms of participation. Thus, while Lundy's model remains pertinent to significant facets of participation within and beyond the classroom, as well as in school-wide decision-making, it may not comprehensively account for every form of participation.

It is also important to state that in this study, student participation is not the same as ‘student agency’. In the editorial (Baker and Le Courtois 2022) of Education 3–13 special issue on Developing Children’s Agency in Theory and Practice, student agency is defined ‘as a force for thoughts and actions originating in the learner, when individuals are acting deliberately rather than through automatisms, and which stems from control, participation, and willingness to engage (or not) in activities’. Student participation in school is not necessarily due to student agency, as student participation may include both deliberate acts and automatisms. The current research study on student participation does not explore whether students consider themselves to be agentive or not, but rather their perception of the opportunities provided to them to participate in school. However, the authors recognise the positive relationship between the development of student agency and the opportunities for participation that are offered to students in schools. As Jerome and Starkey (2022) points out, student agency can be ‘thickened or thinned’ and that teachers ‘need to address both the development of children’s personal skills and the opportunities for participation’ (446) if they are to build student’s capacity to exercise more agency.

It is important to also attempt to differentiate between the term ‘participation’ and ‘engagement’, although there is understandable confusion in the meanings ascribed to these terms. Fredricks, Blumenfeld, and Paris (2004) emphasise different types of engagement such as behavioural, emotional and cognitive. They claim that behavioural engagement involves participating in academic and social activities. Emotional engagement relates to reactions towards teachers, classmates and the school, affecting ties to the institution and motivation for work. Cognitive engagement involves investing thought and effort to understand complex ideas and master challenging skills. As such they claim that the term ‘engagement’ is a useful construct that brings together the three interrelated components in a meaningful way and claim the usefulness of examining them together rather than as separate concepts. However, the authors persist with the use of the term ‘participation’ for this study with its focus on student’s perspectives on their own participation in the school and opportunities offered to them to participate, rather than exploring student’s perceptions of their motivations, emotions, or cognition. The authors also do not choose the concept of ‘behavioural engagement’ for the study, which they believe is problematic in this context, as it suggests participation that is separate from emotion or cognition. Rather they favour the concept of participation as the overarching concept which may indeed result in engagement of an emotional and/or cognitive nature.

Enabling environments in the school can nurture and support a sustained and embedded student participation culture (Crowley, Larkins, and Pinto 2021). Such ongoing participation, both physical and verbal, can build the student’s capacity and confidence to engage in the life of the school as a precursor to becoming engaged citizens, as agency and impact relate to personal experiences of inclusion and connections with adults (Larkins 2022). If schools wish to increase student participation they should ‘address school culture, internalize participation and see the value of participation’ (Müller-Kuhn et al. 2021, 50).

Participation arenas

Mannion, Sowerby, and I’Anson (2015) presented four overlapping arenas of school life, including places and practices in which student participation can take place, as follows: the formal curriculum; the extended curriculum; decision-making groups; and other places of informal contact among peers and adults. Graham et al. (2018) drew from these to identify different spatial arenas of student participation in school life which included: the classroom; co-curricular activities (including formal participatory structures); and informal spaces. Drawing on these, the current study explores three arenas of participation as follows:

• student participation in the classroom;

• Student participation outside the classroom;

• Student participation in decision-making at the whole school level.

While this is a useful framework, particularly in terms of helping students to navigate the survey content and structure more easily, it also provides the reader with a clear demarcation of the findings related to each arena. However, it is important to recognise its limitations. Some activities might fall into multiple categories, for example a student may learn about debating in class and participate in debating as an extracurricular activity outside of the classroom. In addition, this framework excludes other potential arenas of participation such as the informal contact among peers and adults as highlighted by Mannion, Sowerby, and I’Anson (2015). The study also neglects to focus on the impact of participation such as the potential impact on cognition and emotion (Fredricks, Blumenfeld, and Paris 2004), personal achievement or connection with the wider community (Education Scotland 2020). Cross, Mannion, and Shanks (2022) claim that the notion of ‘arenas’ is rooted in grounded theory, situated learning and the sociology of ‘public space’. Within the realm of school life, these arenas represent socio-material spaces shaped by interaction. The three outlined arenas were chosen as pivotal participation avenues that the school could offer, facilitate, or encourage among students.

Student participation in the classroom

As students spend most of their school time in a classroom, it provides significant opportunities for student participation at a variety of levels and for a variety of purposes. Overwhelming evidence supports the benefits of active pedagogy and student participation in lessons (Aguillon et al. 2020; Sawyer 2022). Learning is seen as a social process (Vygotsky 1930; Wenger 1998). Subsequently, it has become a feature of the modern, learner centred classroom (Gardner 2019; Schnitzler, Holzberger, and Seidel 2021) as highlighted in the current Department of Education, quality framework for primary schools in Ireland which:

views pupils as active agents in their learning who engage purposefully in a wide range of learning activities, who respond in a variety of ways to different learning opportunities, and who are afforded the opportunity to engage in meaningful discussions with teachers to inform learning and teaching. (Department of Education 2022, 9)

Within the quality framework effective teaching and learning involves, ‘pupil engagement’; ‘productive pupil participation’; ‘substantial student responses’; and teachers are expected to ‘engage with pupils’ opinions’ (Department of Education 2022, 26–33).

The teacher clearly plays an important role in facilitating student’s experiences of participation in the school. The development of strong student-teacher relationships correlates strongly with participation (McNally and Slutsky 2018; Müller-Kuhn et al. 2021) and participation opportunities depend on ‘the capabilities and personal preferences of the teacher’ (Müller-Kuhn et al. 2021, 46). Participation should not be seen as an occasional event but rather as a daily feature of the classroom experience for students. Classroom participation may be verbal (asking and answering questions, providing opinions, decision-making, small and large group discussion, conversations, making presentations, singing), physical (movement, playing games, writing, drawing), and even appear to be non-participation (listening, thinking). As with all learning, regular and incrementally more challenging and impactful opportunities to participate can lead to the many benefits for students outlined previously. Lansdown, Jimerson, and Shahroozi (2014) claim that ‘the more children participate, the more effective their contributions, and the greater the impact on their development’ (6) and Decristan, Jansen, and Fauth (2023, 11) found that ‘students’ prior achievement consistently predicts the frequency of students’ classroom participation’.

Therefore, teachers should try to ensure that students have positive experiences of participation, starting with non-threatening, low stakes activities that are enjoyable and building on this over time. However, the degree to which students participate may not only relate to teacher related factors. Students can be inhibited for many other reasons, such as the lack of friends or peer rejection, which inhibits children’s classroom participation (Ladd, Herald-Brown, and Reiser 2008) and may be due to dispositional shyness or social anxieties (Crozier 2020; Nyborg et al. 2022).

Student participation outside the classroom

Student participation outside of the classroom may involve whole school and extracurricular activities. These may include participation in representative roles, such as school level committees. It may involve leading school level initiatives, representing the school in various competitions (e.g. enterprise, sports, debating). Extracurricular activities include non-academic and sometimes academic activities and clubs. These may include groups, teams or clubs that focus on skill development based on student interests such as sport, drama, music or subject related interests. Blomfield and Barber (2010) compare structured and unstructured leisure time in school environments. The former is generally associated with school organised activities while the latter is associated with leisure activities that are more passive, such as ‘hanging out’ with friends and listening to music. Their research found that student participation in extracurricular activities correlates positively to school attendance, academic success, university attendance, having more friends and school belonging. Mannion, Sowerby, and I’Anson (2015) found that students valued non-structured activities in informal spaces, such as before and after classes, in corridors, and social spaces. Involvement in extracurricular activities builds a connection between the academic and social dimensions of education (Seker 2020). According to Abro, Shah, and Shah (2018), there is concrete evidence that co-curricular activities can improve important twenty-first century soft skills like teamwork, goal setting, self-confidence and creative thinking. They also discovered that having opportunities to participate in extracurricular activities and try new things leads to greater self-knowledge and aids students in developing a more well-rounded sense of self.

Student participation in decision-making at the whole school level

Participation in this context refers to students having an impact on how a school is governed and may involve students influencing decisions in relation to school policy and practice as well as future planning. According to Anderson, Graham, and Thomas (2019), findings from research on the outcomes of young people’s participation in different governance settings illustrate that their participation may lead to improved services, enhanced intergenerational relations, better practical and communication skills, personal development, and improved citizenship and social inclusion. The participation of children has been equated in many cases with participation in decision-making through inclusion in consultation, regardless of impact (Percy-Smith 2010). The increasing emphasis on ‘influence’ and not simply ‘voice’ (Lundy 2007), suggests that schools should make students active allies in all decisions that affect them (Afzal Tajik and Wali 2020).

School self-evaluation (SSE) is a key improvement process within the Irish education system and internationally (OECD 2013) that provides opportunities for students to be consulted and to feed into whole school decision-making. There is mounting evidence that school reform requires student involvement in any change process (Brasof 2015) as they offer a unique perspective on the operation of the school and a detailed knowledge of what happens in individual classrooms (Chapman and Sammons 2013). However, efforts to involve Irish students in SSE rarely go beyond gauging their opinions through questionnaires (O’Brien et al. 2022). Operational norms in Irish schools indicate that an SSE Team is typically comprised of authority figures such as teachers and school leaders who consult stakeholders such as parents and students, but who ultimately are the key decision makers in the process (Brown et al. 2020; O’Brien et al. 2019). An Irish study from Horgan et al. (2015) found that Irish students were generally dissatisfied with their level of input into decision-making in school, which they believed was due to their age and maturity, the hierarchical nature of schools, and the lack of opportunity provided. In contrast, school staff believed the opposite to be the case, although such inputs referred mainly to formal participation structures.

Despite the growing popularity of student participation, it is not without its critics, and issues have been highlighted in this regard, including concerns relating to student immaturity and ability (Jones and Bubb 2021; Rudduck and Fielding 2006); reliability and validity of student data (Burr 2015); and lack of realism (Bragg 2007). Students are not a homogeneous group with a single viewpoint on any given issue, and detractors also raise the question of ‘whose voice’. Students’ speaking, debating, and persuasion skills vary, according to Gunter and Thomson (2007), raising issues of equity and a concern that decision-making opportunities may be ceded to the elites (Mockler and Groundwater-Smith 2015). This point echoes the concerns raised by (Fielding 2012) regarding representative structures, such as student councils, which ‘privilege those who are already politically mature’. Representative structures for student participation are common in schools but have been criticised for facilitating the involvement of only a small number of very often elite students who very often are responding to adult-led agendas (Mannion, Sowerby, and I’Anson 2022). An alternative mechanism through which decision-making in school may occur, is through general whole school meetings in which students and staff come together as equals (Fielding 2010). Cheng et al. (2020, 7) concluded that ‘school values, practices, and ethos’ are key factors in the promotion of school governance, and they recommend that school leaders nurture ‘a culture of shared decision making, develop a participatory school management structure and formulate school policies regarding student participation in school governance’.

Methodology

This research involved gathering data from 125 students on their perception of participation in two Educate Together primary schools (71 from school A and 54 from school B). The use of a survey in this study allowed for the efficient gathering of data from a larger sample size in a relatively short timeframe. It helped to ensure consistency in the questions and responses, reducing potential interviewer bias and allowing for easier analysis of quantitative data. It allowed for anonymity and confidentially in a manner that could not be achieved by use of an interview or focus group. In addition, it aimed to ensure that there would be less influence by the interviewer. As this study involved collecting data from children, who were all aged between 8 and 12 years, specific steps were taken to safeguard this vulnerable group. Ethical approval for the study was provided by the DCU Research Ethics Committee. Before any student could take part in the study, parental approval was required. Using a student friendly plain language statement, students were made aware that their own participation was voluntary and that their response was anonymous.

The closed survey questions included a series of statements for which students were asked to rate their level of agreement. There were 20 items relating to participation in the classroom, 13 items relating to participation outside of the classroom, and 20 items relating to participation in decision-making. In addition, open ended questions asked students what supports and prevents participation and in which outside-classroom activities they participate. The survey design drew from pertinent elements identified in the previously discussed literature review and was presented in language suitable for the students’ age group. Appendix delineates the quantitative survey items, each employing a four-point scale prompting students to express their agreement levels. The number of items in respective sections varied based on the researchers’ assessment of relevance to the study's three focal areas. The survey was tested for content validity through expert reviews, referencing content to the literature, and piloting the survey with a class group comprising 31 students of a similar age from a primary school not included in the study. Subsequent revisions primarily focused on refining the language used.

Distribution of the survey occurred online, facilitated by a teacher in each school who assisted in clarifying any unfamiliar terms for the students. The advised completion time was 20–25 min. The survey yielded mainly descriptive quantitative and some qualitative data. Quantitative data was analysed using SPSS and NVivo was used to analyse qualitative data. The large quantity of quantitative data included an analysis of each individual item in terms of the frequency and percentage agreement for each point on the scale, as well as an analysis of the items in order of the level of agreement. The analysis of qualitative data involved the initial coding of each segment of data before codes were clustered according to identified themes. A constant comparative approach was used to compare coded segments, allowing for the refinement and validation of emerging themes against the entirety of the qualitative dataset. NVivo was used to quantify the occurrence of specific codes within the identified thematic categories. This allowed the researchers to identify more and less frequent responses to each qualitative question. Each student in the survey was assigned an identification code, P1–P125. These codes are used in the findings below to present quotations from the qualitative data.

Findings

The findings are presented under three headings: (1) student participation inside the classroom; (2) student participation outside the classroom; and (3) student participation in decision-making at the whole school level. Under each heading, quantitative descriptive data is presented first, followed by related qualitative data.

Student participation inside the classroom

There was a high level of agreement among students that they were being taught skills that would support their participation and were also offered opportunities to participate. A high level of agreement or strong agreement was evident in relation to the following statements: students are taught how to speak and listen to others respectfully (95.2%); I get opportunities to work with other students in class (89.6%); my work is displayed in the classroom/ school (84%); teachers encourage students to speak in class (82.4%); I am asked to answer questions in class (79.2%); I take part in group discussions in my class (74.4%); my teacher asks my opinion in class (66.4%). Much of this type of participation relates to active pedagogies and student participation in learning activities. However, a lower number of students agreed or strongly agreed that they usually get to say what they think about: how they learn best (52.8%); how they are taught (43.2%): how classrooms are organised (32.8%); and the classroom rules (29%). Only 43.2% of students agreed or strongly agreed that they get to choose activities in class. This indicates that student experiences vary considerably in terms of being consulted about teaching and learning processes, suggesting perhaps varying teacher attitudes in this regard.

With respect to statements about students’ perceptions of their class participation levels, the percentage of students who agreed or strongly agreed is outlined as follows: I normally take part in classroom activities (84%); I have become more confident to speak out in class (66.4%); I like to be asked for my opinion in class (58.4%). It is interesting to consider the notion that students may choose not to participate through speech in class but may participate in other ways such as through listening. Considering statements that relate to how students perceive their influence in class, the percentage of students who agree or strongly agree is as follows: in class, student opinions are listened to by teachers (80%); in class, student opinions are considered by teachers (64%); the opinions of students make things change in class (65%). The levels of agreement in relation to perceptions of influence are relatively high considering that lower numbers that appear to influence teaching and learning processes, as outlined earlier. This suggests that the opinions listened to and considered by teachers may relate to the content of what is being taught.

When asked what could help students participate more in class, the vast majority of comments related to actions that teachers could take to improve student participation, such as providing more opportunities for students to actively participate in class, e.g. more group work, pair work, practical activities, games and fun activities. Students suggested that the school could provide ‘more games as in matches, games to learn tables or stuff like that’ (P7) and ‘if teachers make work fun for example maths games or doing stuff on the white board instead of doing work from the book’ (P10).

Several responses suggest that teachers can encourage students to participate, if the ‘teacher forces students to speak more’ (P17) particularly those who are normally quiet. Students also suggested that teachers can provide rewards for participation and take opportunities to use students as sources of information. However, students recognised that participation is not only the responsibility of the teacher, but that student’s themselves could do more to increase their participation e.g. ‘if they put their hands up more’ (B3). Several students suggested that they would be more willing to participate in classroom activities if they could do so if ‘accompanied by friends!’ (P125) or if ‘you can go up with someone to tell the class stuff’ (P85).

Correspondingly, when asked what would prevent students from taking part in class, students referred to factors that were within the control of the teacher, such as poor classroom management, poorly planned classes with little or no participation activities planned, and uninspiring and unclear teaching. These points are exemplified by the following quotations: ‘doing boring things’ (P20) and ‘If the subject that the student is studying is not explained properly’ (P21). Students also claimed that the personality of the teacher would prevent them from taking part, such as: ‘mean teachers’ (P29); ‘strict teachers’ (P30); and experiences of ‘punishment and humiliation’ (P120). Also, students were aware that if teachers do not act on the ideas and suggestions proposed by students this would result in less student participation as explained by P44 ‘teacher not doing children's ideas’. Students were very concerned with peer pressure and the possibility of embarrassment in front of their peers claiming, ‘if a student is nervous about speaking with others listening and they have no reason to participate, they will most likely not participate’ (P26) and ‘being scared of being wrong’ (P4) or ‘other people telling them (like their friends) not to do it’ (P91).

From these qualitative responses, a notable observation emerges although most students agree on their active involvement in class across various activities and levels, they also demonstrate a clear understanding of teacher practices that either facilitate or impede student participation. This may be informed by current and/or prior classroom experiences.

Student participation outside the classroom

Students generally agreed that the school provided opportunities for student participation outside of the classroom, with high levels of agreement indicated for the following statements: students have opportunities to get involved in different activities/events, outside of class (87.2%); I have opportunities to get involved in different activities/events, outside of class (81.6%); the school provides opportunities for students to play on school sports teams (73.6%); the school has clubs for students to become involved in outside of class (60%).

Students were asked about their own level of participation in activities/ events outside the classroom. Students agreed or strongly agreed to varying degrees with the statements below: I have spoken or performed at a school event (63.2%); I have represented my school in some activity or competition (54.4%); I have been involved in a school campaign (49.6%); I am involved in a club or team in my school (43.2%); I have had opportunities to lead projects in the school (40%); I have been involved with the Student Council/Union (24%): I have been on a school committee (24%). Conversely, 61.6% of students disagreed or strongly disagreed that the school does not have clubs or teams that reflect their interests, and 74.4% of students disagree or strongly disagree that they are not interested in joining any club or team in their school.

When students were asked to list activities or events in which they had participated outside of the classroom, they listed 35 distinct activities or events. Fourteen of these were sports related activities and clubs, the most popular being Gaelic football, hurling, running, camogie and table tennis. In addition, students frequently mentioned outdoor lessons, school tours, concerts, school committees, and a range of arts-based activities and clubs.

However, several factors were put forth as to why students might not participate in such activities or events, such as: a lack of knowledge that such opportunities exist; a lack of interest in the activity, particularly sporting activities; a lack of knowledge of how to play the sport or carry out the activity; and a lack of choice offered by the school. Interestingly, several comments referred to feelings of fear, nervousness, anxiety, stress, lack of confidence, and self-consciousness as reasons for a lack of participation in outside class activities, as exemplified by the following quotes: ‘Maybe if they are quite shy or if they get overwhelmed very easily, or if they don't like being around other people’ (P9); ‘Not bothering to include themselves, not bothering to try new things, being afraid that they will be bad’ (P13); ‘Being nervous that they are going to embarrass themselves around people they don't know’ (P23).

It is striking that participants mainly attribute non-participation in outside classroom activities to students’ preferences and feelings rather than to school or teacher related factors. This may suggest that attempts by schools to increase student participation in such activities may require provision of safe or unthreatening opportunities for students develop confidence and to try out new activities rather than simply providing more options.

Participation in decision-making at the whole school level

Overall, survey respondents generally agreed that they had multiple opportunities to voice their opinions regarding school-related matters and contribute to decision-making processes within their respective schools. The percentage of students who indicated that they agreed or strongly agreed with the following statements indicates a high level of opportunity in this regard: Students know who to talk to if they have a concern about the school (79.2%); I am aware of the work of the Student Council (69.4%); the Student Council asks students what they think about different issues (60.8%); all students in the school have a way to have their opinion heard on matters that affect them (60.8%); the school actively seeks student opinion when making a decision about something that will affect students (58.4%); the school provides a safe space in which students can express themselves freely (58.4%); there is a procedure in place in the school to ensure that student opinion is taken seriously (50.4%); students are involved in the school self-evaluation process (43.2%). There is a lower level of agreement, or strong agreement, that students meet with staff on the running of the school (36.8%) and that students often get to speak to people in charge of the school (Principal or Deputy Principal) (33.6%).

In terms of providing feedback to students on what students collectively are saying to the school or providing feedback on the impact students have on decision-making, it is interesting to see the percentage of students that either agree or strongly agree with the following statements: The school gives feedback to students explaining decisions taken (66.4%); when students are asked their opinion, the school lets them know how the students’ opinion has influenced decisions in the school (48%); when students complete a survey for the school, they get to find out the overall feedback received from students (43.2%).

When asked about the perceived level of impact that students have on decision-making in the school, students are generally positive in this regard. The percentage of students that agree or strongly agree with the following statements is an indication of this finding: Students make decisions in meetings with teachers about how things will happen in the school (68.8%); students influence important decisions made in the school (60.8%); student opinion influences decisions made by the school (56%); staff take students’ opinions seriously (52.8%); students work together outside of class time to get things changed at school (52.8%); students influence school policies (51.2%); when students are asked their opinion, the school Principal is made aware of what students have said (44.8%).

When students were asked to provide examples of how they were involved in decision-making about matters that affect them, most students left this question blank (n = 84). However, the Student Union, school committees, assemblies, and class discussions were all mentioned as mechanisms through which students were involved in decision-making.

Several students offered feedback in relation to the issues on which their input has impacted decisions made by the school. These include: the development of the school garden and the green school plan, the provision of additional time for wellbeing, the purchase of PE and art equipment/ supplies, sports in the school, and mental health.

Discussion

The findings indicate that students report generally high levels of participation across each of the participation arenas, of classroom, outside of the classroom, and in decision-making at the whole school level. A ‘wide spectrum’ (Percy-Smith 2010) of participation opportunities is provided to students, ranging from those that could be described as simply taking part, to those that have a significant impact on the operation of the school (Lundy 2007; Mannion, Sowerby, and I’Anson 2022). It appears that such participation took place for a variety of reasons, including teaching and learning; school governance (Cheng et al. 2020); and school improvement. In addition, its purpose appeared to be for the deliberate growth of students': sense of agency, belonging and wellbeing (Anderson et al. 2022; John-Akinola and Nic Gabhainn 2014); empowerment and self-esteem; capacity for participation (Jerome and Starkey 2022) civic competencies. Many of these purposes correspond with the Educate Together ethos as set out in the Ethos Quality Standards and Statements of Effective practice (O'Brien 2020). From the perspective of students, it appears that participation is not an occasional experience but rather is woven into the daily lives of most students.

As might be expected in a modern Irish primary school classroom, the students experience classrooms as places where they are taught how to listen and speak to others and where opportunities to participate in learning activities are plentiful. Their perception of their own level of participation in class is high. This reflects expectations for teaching and learning in Irish primary schools as set out by the Department of Education (2022) as well as research evidence regarding effective teaching and learning (Aguillon et al. 2020; Gardner 2019; Sawyer 2022; Schnitzler, Holzberger, and Seidel 2021). The findings relating to the percentage of students who agree that their teachers encourage them to speak in class and whose opinions are listened to are similar to those of de Róiste et al. (2012), who found that 75.8% of 10–11 year-old students in Irish schools are encouraged to express their own views. Considering Lundy’s (2007) participation model, it's evident that most students are offered safe and inclusive opportunities to engage in classroom discussions. Teachers play the role of attentive listeners, actively seeking students’ opinions, leading to a perception among many that their input holds weight and drives change. However, fewer students have input regarding the learning process, such as classroom rules and organisation. While a significant number of students have a say in selecting class activities and are consulted about their preferred learning methods, echoing Graham et al.'s (2018) findings, this highlights varying approaches practices among educators. Nonetheless, the teacher-student relationship emerges as a crucial factor, as students’ express reluctance to engage with less approachable teachers.

Students generally believed that it was the teacher's responsibility to provide opportunities for student participation, and they suggested approaches that teachers could employ to increase student participation, including measures to increase the involvement of those who are normally quiet. This perspective aligns with the claim by Müller-Kuhn et al. (2021) that participation opportunities depend on the capacity and preferences of the teacher, and among the students surveyed, it appeared to be a regular feature of classroom practice. The likelihood of embarrassment in front of classmates was clearly viewed by students as a significant deterrent, and students felt that there is much that a teacher could do to ensure a safe classroom environment that would support student participation (Crozier 2020; Ladd, Herald-Brown, and Reiser 2008; Nyborg et al. 2022).

Students reported overwhelmingly that school provides opportunities to participate in outside of class activities or events, of which they identified thirty-five different kinds. Similar to the co-curricular options discovered by Graham et al. (2018), these include extracurricular activities, school events and committees. This wide range of participation activities reflects Educate Togethers’ aim to ensure that students feel they belong and where the school ‘value and celebrate the range of students’ talents, efforts and achievements’ (O'Brien 2020, 7). Despite this wide range of activities, a significant number of students agreed that the school does not have clubs or teams that reflect their interests, suggesting the challenge of facilitating all interests and the opportunity for belonging that exploring such interests may provide. While performance at school events and representing the school in an activity or competition were very common, fewer students had participated in a student council or school committee. This is understandable, as representative structures provide limited opportunities for participation among the vast majority of students (Fielding 2012; Mannion, Sowerby, and I’Anson 2022). Interestingly, a significant number of students had opportunities to lead projects in the school, although it is not known if these were student or adult initiated (Graham et al. 2018). The findings also highlight reasons why students may not participate in outside of class activities, including lack of awareness, interest and knowledge of how to engage. Lundy’s (2007) model of participation relates less to this arena of participation as outside of class activities such as those discussed here are not primarily for the purpose of facilitating voice and having an influence on the school, although that may be the case.

Generally, students have numerous opportunities to have their voice heard in relation to school issues and to input into decision-making. This finding is in stark contrast to the high level of dissatisfaction among Irish students in relation to their level of decision-making in school, as reported by Horgan et al. (2015). This change could be explained by policy changes such as the introduction of SSE as a mandatory school improvement process in Ireland since 2012, which opened the door for student consultation as a normal practice in Irish schools (Department of Education and Skills 2016) as well as an increased emphasis on student wellbeing in school (National Council for Curriculum and Assessment 2017). Despite the SSE policy, less than half of students agreed they were involved in the SSE process. Although students in Irish schools generally serve as data sources in the SSE process (Mockler and Groundwater-Smith 2015; O’Brien et al. 2019), students in the study appear to be involved in decision-making at a whole school level, suggesting that these opportunities occur outside of the SSE process.

It was clear that most students were aware of processes through which they could have their opinion heard and through which decisions were made. Strongly, reflecting Lundy’s (2007) recommended model of participation, over half the students agreed that the school seeks their opinion on relevant matters and provides them with a safe space to do so, and significant numbers of students are involved with staff in the running of the school. Evidently, there is a culture of providing feedback to students in relation to how their input has impacted decision-making within the school. Students perceive that they have a strong impact on decision-making in the school, especially through collective decision-making with teachers (Ireland Department of Children and Youth Affairs 2015; Lundy 2007; Mager and Nowak 2012; Müller-Kuhn et al. 2021). A variety of decisions affecting the physical design of the school, the curriculum, the purchase of equipment, and a wide range of extracurricular activities were made with the input of the students.

While the study is not an evaluation of the implementation of participation-related aspects of the Educate Together Ethos Quality Framework, it does present compelling evidence of extensive student engagement within the school community. Students actively partake in democratic decision-making processes, believing their involvement makes a difference. Many students also mentioned leading initiatives within the school. Further research would be required to explore participation from the school perspective in terms of the school curriculum, and measures to address barriers to participation. Students provided valuable insights in relation to what would support and hinder their participation, which teachers and schools could consider moving forward.

Conclusion

A limitation of the study is that it offers the student perspective, which Muller-Khun (2021) claims is generally more limited than the teacher perspective. Also, important aspects of student participation are not explored in this study, such as the driving force (students or staff) behind participation activities, particularly those related to outside class activities and decision-making at a whole school. In addition, the study does not explore the impact of participation on the student, emotionally or cognitively. Despite the limitations, this research does provide some insights into the perspectives of Irish primary school students on student participation in school across three key arenas. It could be argued that Educate Together are attempting to build effective student participation at school, in line with recommendations made by Graham et al. (2019) which they advise should involve: commit; establish firm foundations; build student participation; monitor, evaluate and progress. Educate Together is an example of how a national network of schools established as policy, the centrality of student participation to how schools’ function. Having made this commitment, it is currently in the process of building student participation through its ethos quality framework which provides schools with quality standards and statements of effective practice which are used by schools to create expectations for members of the school community, evaluate, monitor and improve key aspects of their ethos including student participation. Although it is still a work in progress, this cohesive approach to student participation across a national network of 114 schools may serve as a model of what may be described as an ‘enabling environment’ (Crowley, Larkins, and Pinto 2021) which may inform schools internationally on how to nurture effective student participation at school.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Data availability statement

The participants of this study did not give written consent for their data to be shared publicly, so due to the sensitive nature of the research supporting data is not available.

Additional information

Funding

This research project is partly funded by the Irish Teaching Council under the John Coolahan Research Framework.

Appendix: Quantitative survey items with level of agreement

Participation inside the Classroom – Primary schools

Table

	Strongly Agree	Agree	Disagree	Strongly Disagree	Total
1. Teachers encourage students to speak in class	20 (16%)	83 (66.4%)	20 (16%)	2 (1.6%)	125 (100%)
2. Students are taught how to speak and listen to others respectfully.	67 (53.6%)	52 (41.6%)	3 (2.4%)	3 (2.4%)	125 (100%)
3. I have become more confident to speak out in class.	34 (27.2%)	49 (39.2%)	32 (25.6%)	10 (8%)	125 (100%)
4. I get opportunities to work with other students in class	39 (31.2%)	73 (58.4%)	12 (9.6%)	1 (0.8%)	125 (100%)
5. I usually do not speak much in class.	15 (12%)	36 (28.8%)	39 (31.2%)	35 (28%)	125 (100%)
6. Students usually don’t speak much in class.	5 (4%)	9 (7.2%)	43 (34.4%)	68 (54.4%)	125 (100%)
7. My work is displayed in the classroom /school.	43 (34.4%)	62 (49.6%)	15 (12%)	5 (4%)	125 (100%)
8. I am asked to answer questions in class.	29 (23.2%)	70 (58.4%)	20 (16%)	3 (2.4%)	125 (100%)
9. My teachers asks my opinion in class.	17 (13.6%)	66 (52.8%)	35 (28%)	7 (5.6%)	125 (100%)
10. I normally take part in classroom activities.	35 (28%)	70 (56%)	17 (13.6%)	3 (2.4%)	125 (100%)
11. I take part in group discussions in my class.	33 (26.4%)	60 (48%)	26 (20.8%)	6 (4.8%)	125 (100%)
12. I like to be asked for my opinion in class.	21 (16.8%)	52 (41.6%)	35 (28%)	17 (13.6%)	125 (100%)
13. Students usually get to say what they think about how classrooms are organised.	9 (7.2%)	32 (25.6%)	56 (44.8%)	28 (22.4%)	125 (100%)
14. Students usually get to say what they think about how they learn best	14 (11.2%)	52 (41.6%)	34 (27.2%)	25 (20%)	125 (100%)
15. Students usually get to say what they think about how they are taught.	11 (8.%8)	43 (34.4%)	45 (36%)	26 (20.8%)	125 (100%)
16. Students often get to choose activities in class.	13 (10.4%)	41 (32,8%)	48 (38.4%)	23 (18.4%)	125 (100%)
17. Students usually get to say what they think of the classroom rules.	6 (4.8%)	31 (24.8%)	49 (39.2%)	39 (31.2%)	125 (100%)
18. In class, student opinions are listened to by teachers.	29 (23.2%)	71 (56.8%)	20 (16%)	5 (4%)	125 (100%)
19. In class, student opinion is considered by teachers	18 (14.4%)	62 (49.6%)	30 (24%)	15 (12%)	125 (100%)
20. The opinions of students makes things change in class.	13 (10.4%)	52 (41.6%)	43 (34.4%)	17 (13.5%)	125 (100%)

Participation outside the classroom – Primary School

Table

	Strongly Agree	Agree	Disagree	Strongly Disagree	Total
1. Students have opportunities to get involved in different activities/ events, outside of class.	45 (36%)	64 (51.2%)	12 (9.6%)	4 (3.2%)	125 (100%)
2. I have had opportunities to get involved in different activities/ events, outside of class.	44 (35.2%)	58 (46.4%)	18 (14.4%)	5 (4%)	125 (100%)
3. I have had opportunities to lead projects in the school.	13 (10.4%)	37 (29.6%)	49 (39.24%)	26 (20.8%)	125 (100%)
4. I have been involved in a school campaign.	28 (22.4%)	34 (27.2%)	36 (28.8%)	27 (21.6%)	125 (100%)
5. I have been involved in the Student Council/ Union.	18 (14.4%)	12 (9.6%)	37 (29.6%)	58 (46.4%)	125 (100%)
6. I have been on a school committee.	13 (10.4%)	17 (13.6%)	34 (27.2%)	61 (48.8%)	125 (100%)
7. I have represented my school in some activity or competition.	36 (28.8%)	32 (25.6%)	24 (19.2%)	33 (26.4%)	125 (100%)
8. I have spoken or performed at a school event.	36 (28.8%)	43 (34.4%)	32 (25.6%)	14 (25.6%)	125 (100%)
9. The school has clubs for students to become involved in outside of class.	42 (33.6%)	33 (26.4%)	29 (23.2%)	21 (16.8%)	125 (100%)
10. I am involved in a club or team in my school.	31 (24.8%)	23 (18.4%)	38 (30.4%)	33 (26.4%)	125 (100%)
11. The school provides opportunities for students to play on school sports teams.	40 (32%)	52 (41.6%)	21 (16.8%)	12 (9.6%)	125 (100%)
12. I am not interested in joining any club or team in my school.	13 (10.4%)	19 (15.2%)	31 (24.8%)	62 (49.6%)	125 (100%)
13. The school does not have clubs or teams that reflect my interests.	26 (20.8%)	22 (17.6%)	36 (28.8%)	41 (32.8%)	125 (100%)

Decision Making – Primary schools

Table

	Strongly Agree	Agree	Disagree	Strongly Disagree	Total
1. The school actively seeks student opinion when making a decision about something that will affect students.	11 (8.8%)	62 (49.6%)	33 (26.4%)	19 (15.2%)	125 (100%)
2. Student opinion influences decisions made by the school.	14 (11.2%)	56 (44.8%)	34 (27.2%)	21 (16.8%)	125 (100%)
3. Students are involved in the school self-evaluation process in the school.	11 (8.8%)	43 (34.4%)	51 (40.8%)	20 (16%)	125 (100%)
4. When students are asked their opinion, the school Principal is made aware of what students have said.	12 (9.6%)	44 (35.2%)	42 (33.6%)	27 (21.6%)	125 (100%)
5. When students are asked their opinion, the school lets them know how the students’ opinion has influenced decisions in the school.	11 (8.8%)	49 (39.2%)	39 (31,2%)	26 (20.8%)	125 (100%)
6. When students complete a survey for the school, students get to find out the overall feedback received from students.	15 (12%)	39 (31.2%)	49 (39.2%)	22 (17.6%)	125 (100%)
7. The school provides a safe space in which students can express themselves freely.	36 (28.8%)	37 (29.6%)	29 (23.2%)	23 (18.4%)	125 (100%)
8. Students often get to speak to people in charge of the school (Principal or Deputy Principal).	13 (10.4%)	29 (23.2%)	39 (31.2%)	44 (35.2%)	125 (100%)
9. Students know who to talk to if they have a concern about the school.	42 (33.6%)	57 (45.6%)	19 (15.2%)	7 (5.6%)	125 (100%)
10. Staff take students’ opinions seriously.	18 (14.4%)	48 (38.4%)	41 (32.8%)	18 (14.4%)	125 (100%)
11. Students work together outside of class time to get things changed at school.	9 (7.2%)	57 (45.6%)	33 (26.4%)	26 (20.8%)	125 (100%)
12. Students make decisions in meetings with teachers about how things will happen in the school.	26 (20.8%)	60 (48%)	19 (15.2%)	20 (16%)	125 (100%)
13. Students influence important decisions made in the school	8 (6.4%)	68 (54.4%)	34 (27.2%)	15 (12%)	125 (100%)
14. I am aware of the work of the Student Council.	28 (22.2%)	59 (47.2%)	28 (22.4%)	10 (8%)	125 (100%)
15. The Student Council asks students what they think about different issues.	31 (24.8%)	45 (36%)	34 (27.2%)	13 (10.4%)	125 (100%)
16. Students meet with staff about the running of the school.	13 (10.4%)	33 (26.4%)	47 (37.6%)	32 (25.6%)	125 (100%)
17. There is a procedure in place in the school to ensure that student opinion is taken seriously.	14 (11.2%)	49 (39.2%)	43 (34.4%)	19 (15.2%)	125 (100%)
18. Students influence school policies.	15 (12%)	49 (39.2%)	35 (28%)	26 (20.8%)	125 (100%)
19. All students in the school have a way to have their opinion heard on matters that affect them.	12 (9.6%)	64 (51.2%)	36 (28.8%)	13 (10.4%)	125 (100%)
20. The school gives feedback to students explaining decisions taken.	23 (18.4%)	60 (48%)	30 (24%)	12 (9.6%)	125 (100%)