Metodología de evaluación de ofertas

This section will explore further networks and relationships within the school system itself by focusing on the mechanisms for student voice and the communication between staff and students. The results of the ego social network analysis, outlined in sections 6.2.3-6.2.6, showed that Woodlands (engagement rank 3, education rank 4, embeddedness rank 2), Highbridge (engagement rank 1, education rank 1,

embeddedness rank 1) and Oakwood (engagement rank 2, education rank 3, embeddedness rank 4) Schools all reported that 100.0% of their interactions with students were extremely important, compared to 0.0% reported by Greenfield School (engagement rank 4, education rank 2, embeddedness rank 3), the school with the lowest level of engagement with SHRN. This will be further explored and contrasted with qualitative data from semi-structured interviews with case study staff, students and parents below.

Mechanisms for student voice

Staff in all schools felt that it was important to create mechanisms for student voice in order to understand students’ needs. Article 12 of the United Nations Convention for the Rights of the Child argues that children should have the right to have their

188 opinions taken into account when decisions are being made which affect them

(Unicef, 1989), and in line with mandatory requirements, all schools reported the presence of a student council, whilst they varied more in the mechanisms and structures that they put in place to capture representative student voice outside of this. However, there was less variation within this area compared with the staffing structures and wellbeing structures and processes. These mechanisms may alter the intrinsic factors (general dispositions and knowledge of how they should act) of individual agents by changing the power structures between teachers and students (Stones, 2005), thus increasing communication between these subsystems, which may in turn help to ensure that the health improvement mechanisms within school are perceived as relevant and appropriate by students.

“It’s just generally making that child as happy as they can be while they’re in school and safe and having that voice.” Highbridge School, Wellbeing Manager “I think it’s probably most important really, because I think sometimes professionals, teachers we think we know, but it’s hard to know what’s going on in the mind of a teenager particularly and they see things that you don’t see and they’re experiencing it so they have better insight into the things that are affecting their health, the things that are affecting their friendship groups, things that need changing within the school.” Greenfield School, Healthy Schools Coordinator

From the perspective of the Theory of Health Promoting Schools and Human Functioning, this may help to erode boundaries between staff and students and improve students’ capacity for practical reasoning. This may increase the likelihood that students can understand multiple realities through providing them with greater insight into both staff’s and each other’s realities. This, in turn, may increase students’ ability to fulfil their capacity for affiliation (Markham & Aveyard, 2003). However, only one parent from Woodlands School (engagement rank 3, education rank 4, embeddedness rank 2) expressed that students may feel more connected to the school if they feel they are listened to. This was not discussed by parents in the other case study schools.

189 “(…) Because if they are listened to then they are more likely to you know respect things that they’ve asked for or want, and they’re more likely to ask again and feel like they are being listened to (…)” Woodlands School, Parent interview 2, Female, Member of staff, role unknown

Perceptions of staff and students in all four case study schools were mixed in terms of the representativeness of the student council. For example, the Wellbeing Lead in Woodlands School (engagement rank 3, education rank 4, embeddedness rank 2) felt that certain minorities were not included, such as those who were wheelchair bound. This was contradicted by the Head of Student Voice and members of staff from other schools who felt that their election process did not result in just the typically engaged students, and produced a representative student council. However, this may be due to social desirability bias, whereby the Head of Student Voice has a vested interest in presenting student voice mechanisms as successful (Grimm, 2010).

“(…) I said, ‘well wouldn’t it be nice to have, because we’ve quite a number of children who have life-limiting diseases here, some wheelchair bound children, wouldn’t it be nice to have their perspective on the school council’ and they [students] really hadn’t thought about that.” Woodlands School, Wellbeing Lead and Assistant Head “(…) they cover the cross section of children that we have, I mean there is massive push now for free school meals in terms of PDG grants and so on at the moment isn’t there you know and I think a voice is heard for all of those, yes, all of those children I think so.” Greenfield School, Student Support Manager “(…) quite often they’re seen as being like the elite etcetera but we do get a full range of students. Some of the students when I see their name come through I think oh no, when they get to my meetings we’ll see what we get out of them. Some of them are in the bottom sets of the class, we’ve got a couple who are in the special needs classes. We do get representation from all the different, children of