Abstract
This paper discusses the sociological issues raised by a recent study on school councils in England. This study revealed a lack of clarity among policy‐makers and schools regarding the purpose of provision for pupil voice. The paper argues that this allows important questions about the functions of pupil voice to be avoided. While suggesting ways in which schools could refine their provision, the paper asks whether more effective pupil voice would make the concept less attractive to policy‐makers and schools in the first place. It goes on to highlight more fundamental questions raised by critiques of notions of ‘voice’. Connected to this, the paper outlines the potential for pupil voice to support neo‐liberal as well as progressive ends. It concludes by arguing that teachers must grasp the opportunities provided by pupil voice to ensure that it serves ‘collaborative’ rather than ‘managerial’ professionalism.
Acknowledgement
We would like to thank the Innovation Unit at the DfES for its support of the research that informs this paper. We would also like to thank colleagues who attended the International Sociology of Education conference for their comments on an earlier version of this paper. Adapted from a paper presented at the International Sociology of Education conference Policy, Curriculum and the Struggle for Change, London, January 2007.
Notes
1. This framework can be compared to Arnstein’s classic ‘ladder of participation’, which understands participation as building from co‐option to compliance, consultation, cooperation, co‐learning and collective action (Arnstein, 1969, cited in Gustafsson & Driver, Citation2005).
2. Again, there are parallels with parent voice: Martin and Vincent (Citation1999), for example, discuss schools’ concern to manage parental voice by working with—or, in the case of parents attending support workshops, developing—parents who consent to the values and purposes of the school.