The members of school B pupil council attended meetings according to their respective year group. They consisted of the class representatives who volunteered or were elected in their class. The candidates were required to give a short speech before the class election. A participant from school B expressed the need for the pupil council to improve by having more regular meetings in accordance with the RRSA implementation guidance. The pupil council had discussed issues such as rewards for the Merit Scheme, school blazers and lockers for pupils.
In school W, the head teacher was directly involved with the pupil council meeting and the pupil council was described as a strong pupil council. They met four times a year and avoided the examination period. They discussed issues such as what they had done well and what could be improved in the school. However, the head teacher disagreed with some of the pupils’ perspective on the meeting minutes. The head teacher reported that the pupil council was involved in the school improvement plan, school tie design, a quiet study room, school trips and the house system.
In school C, the pupil council members were class representatives and a depute head teacher was directly involved in the pupil council. She intended to gradually retreat from the pupil council and to let pupils take charge of the meetings rather than taking notes and preparing meeting minutes for them. She suggested that previously this did not work since the pupils were busy preparing for national examinations. Since there were some pupils who attended leadership training, she speculated that they could improve this situation and chair the meeting themselves. The pupil council discussed issues such as school blazers, lockers, litter, the school tie, the school’s name and the length of lunch time. Another depute head teacher suggested that more pupil council meetings were unnecessary as the issues discussed were limited due to various physical and financial constraints and so issues discussed in the pupil council would be repeated if more meetings were organised. He also commented that the pupil council would not talk about curricular issues. The pupil council was aided by a pupil voice box, where pupils could drop their issues and complaints anonymously into a box placed in a strategic area within the school. Regarding the pupil voice box, the head teacher commented that the pupils should be given better knowledge of what could be raised as an issue in the voice box. This was because several issues such as the school dining menu were thought to be irrelevant and they should be discussed with the staff directly.
The school H head teacher reported that he spoke to the Head Boys and Head Girls directly and the pupil council consisted of class representatives. Teachers in school H did
not comment much on their pupil council but one teacher expressed strong confidence in their pupil council and indicated that their voices were being heard. It was reported in a collated RRSA focus group response sheet that the pupils were not aware of the pupil council and the changes brought by them. Nevertheless, the pupil council came forward with some suggestions for registration periods and punishment exercises.
4.3 Rationale for the Research
As mentioned in the first chapter, the research questions of this study are about investigating whether the RRSA is a gateway for schools to become democratic schools, and assessing how teachers and head teachers perceive ‘democratic’ practices in schools. The RRSA requires schools to embed the UNCRC into classroom teaching as well as into school practices. In accordance with that, schools are required to take pupil voice into consideration when making decisions that affected them, and to meet their physical and psychological needs. Other than that, the RRSA implementation includes the establishment of an RRSA steering group consisted of teachers and pupils. The group explores the ideas for meeting the RRSA criteria, including replacing school rules with school charters which are agreed and signed by all pupils and teachers. The four criteria of RRSA are ‘rights- respecting values underpin leadership and management’, ‘the whole school community learns about the Convention’, ‘the school has a rights-respecting ethos’, and ‘children are empowered to become active citizens and learners’ (UNICEF UK, 2010b). To achieve the Level Two RRSA, each subject needs to embed the UNCRC in its teaching content and the schools are required to be ambassadors for the RRSA.
Within these criteria of implementation, it would be of great value to investigate to what extent these rights were upheld in these schools. The participants were assumed to be enthusiastic and motivated in improving their schools. Their opinions on the RRSA and their conceptualisation of a democratic school are hence important to understand how their passion could be replicated in other schools, and to consider at the same time what the barriers are for schools seeking to respect individual rights and sharing their responsibilities in running the school with pupils.