I can remember when school prefects were often the only voice of a school’s student body. Those Year 12 students were the ‘representatives’ of the student cohort and they met weekly or fortnightly with the principal or head of school. Then came the development of student councils, when students from other year groups were invited to be a part of the ‘student leadership’ of the school. Schools always knew that student leadership could be identified in all year groups and they encouraged students to be involved in having a voice and being comfortable in expressing their opinions.

Have these student bodies worked? Have their voices been heard? Have they made a difference in the school for their cohorts? It probably depends on the culture of the school and whether or not the discussions and comments were taken seriously and then acted on.

Now, in 2020, we have the COAG approved National Principles for Child Safe Organisations (National Principles). All states and territories have publicly stated that they endorse the National Principles. In due course we can expect to see each of the states and territories introduce legislation that implements the National Principles.

National Principle No.2 states

“Children and young people are informed about their rights, participate in decisions affecting them and are taken seriously”.

This Principle requires that schools support children and young people to not only understand what child safety and wellbeing means, but to involve them in all decisions that affect them. Schools need to inform the students about their rights and responsibilities in an age-appropriate way and encourage them to feel comfortable in actively participating in decisions and communicating their views and concerns to help to build a school culture that is safe for them.

Therefore, schools now or soon will have a formal responsibility to involve their students in the decisions that affect them and their safety and participation at school. This goes a lot further than just having a weekly or fortnightly meeting with 10 to 12 senior students where discussions could often focus on Year 12 centric matters such as their school formal.

In broad terms, wherever possible and suitable, schools should actively seek to involve students in decisions that affect them. This includes decisions about organisational planning, delivery of services, management of facilities, and classroom learning and assessment environments. Further, schools should ensure that students know about their rights to safety, information and participation. They should actively seek to understand what makes their students feel safe in their organisation and regularly communicate with students about what they can do if they feel unsafe.

A wonderful example of students having a voice can be found in Mango Hill State Secondary College. This is a new Queensland school that opened with Year 7 and 8 in 2020. Although very new and with their oldest students being only 14 years old, they have developed a process of engagement with their students that is evident in their revised Student Code of Conduct (2020). Within this document, the student leaders wrote:

“The revised Mango Hill State Secondary College Student Code of Conduct for 2021 – 2024 will include a summary of the role of student leaders in the consultation processes enacted throughout the foundation year of the college. The established student leadership model will ensure that students of Mango Hill State Secondary College continue to have opportunity to work with student representatives, to ensure high standards of behaviour from all in the college community, where all staff and students enjoy a safe environment where learning and teaching is prioritised”.

There are other school examples that can easily be found in a Google search.

Registration Requirements

Many jurisdictions are now including specific registration criteria that ensure that schools not only fulfil National Principle 2, but also encourage schools to make the process of student consultation and engagement a part of their ongoing culture-more than just compliance.

In Victoria, the Victorian Registration and Qualifications Authority (VRQA), in their Student Engagement Policy, states:

“The principal must develop the policy in consultation with the school community and have regard to the rights and responsibilities of students, parents and staff in developing the policy”.

The South Australian Education Standards Board publishes the three Standards for that state. Standard 3.1 states:

“The school complies with Commonwealth and South Australian laws and policies that apply to the safety, health and welfare of its students, including those related to child protection for the employment of all staff and management of contractors, volunteers and visitors”.

This, I would argue, implies that schools are required to abide by the National Principles and, of course, National Principle No. 2.

In Western Australia, the 2020 Registration Guidelines (the Guide) and the WA Standards make this requirement absolute by referring to student consultation in the definition of “Individual Education Plan” (Standard 1.2-Definitions) and student consultation regarding any differentiated curriculum (Chapter 3) and in two WA Standards that directly express the requirements for student consultation:

"Standard 10.2

The school regularly reviews its policies, procedures and practices that aim to ensure students’ safety and wellbeing at school and during school-related activities in consultation with its students.

Standard 10.7

The school, in consultation with its students, develops and regularly reviews a student code of conduct and guidelines on how to comply which:

(a) sets out minimum standards of conduct;

(b) prohibits bullying, harassment and other forms of peer-to-peer abuse; and

(c) requires respect for the privacy and human dignity of other students and boarders

where relevant.

For the purpose of standards 10.2 and 10.7, a satisfactory consultation with students will involve:

• informing the students about the overall process, including who else will be consulted, and its desired outcome;
• providing information relevant to the issue, which may include the limits of what outcome is possible, in accessible language;
• offering the students a choice of methods to communicate their individual and collective views, including where unanimity cannot be achieved; and
• giving due consideration to the opinions expressed.

Models of consultation may vary depending on the issue to be resolved. In some cases, it will be appropriate to seek the views of a representative sample of students or from a students’ council, particularly where the council members have been selected by the students themselves."

As noted earlier, other jurisdictions have made similar comments and stipulate similar requirements, however the Western Australian comments are far more specific and, plainly put, leave little scope for misunderstanding the requirements for student engagement and consultation. I would consider these requirements to be exemplars of best practice, more than just requirements for compliance.

Boarding Schools

Student consultation is not just a requirement in standard day schools. It is also a requirement for schools with boarding facilities.

The National Boarding Standard for Australian schools, AS 5725:2015 Boarding Standard for Australian schools and residences (Boarding Standard), although not compulsory in all states and territories, specifies requirements for the management and operations of residential boarding services for students.

Boarding Standard 3.4.(l) states:

“Boarders being provided with regular access, in a variety of mediums, to constructively contribute to the operation of boarding services. Boarders’ comments given appropriate consideration regarding the operation of boarding services”.

However, the Boarding Standard is mentioned in the following jurisdictions:

NT - Section 101 of the Education Act 2016… “any person or body providing facilities for the accommodation of students enrolled in a Government school must ensure that the facilities meet any relevant Australian Standard…”

Queensland – “Safety and wellbeing of students residing at a state school operated residential boarding facility (Procedure)’. The responsibilities and processes outlined in the document are “informed by the Australian standard: 5725:2015: Boarding standard”.

(Although in both the Northern Territory and Queensland the use of the Boarding Standard is only required by government schools, we can offer a timely reminder to all schools that government school policies and procedures may be cited as ‘best practice’ by the courts in the event of a claim for negligence or similar. Besides, if schools want to remain competitive, then they need to ensure that they meet and/or exceed the government standards.)

ACT - A Bill to amend the Education Act 2004 (commencing 1 January, 2021). A change to the Act stating that “as part of the operation of government schools and the registration and regulation process of non-government schools, all schools with boarding facilities are required to adhere to AS 5725:2015 - Australian Standard: Boarding Standard for Australian schools and residences (the Australian Standard). Adherence to the standards will need to be demonstrated through appropriate policy and procedures at the individual school level”.

WA – in the Guide: “Schools with boarding facilities develop policies and procedures which are benchmarked against "contemporary best practice" such as AS 5725: Boarding standard for Australian schools and hostels (AS 5725 or Standard)”.

However, once again, WA has taken this requirement further and consultation with boarders is a formal requirement for re-registration of schools with boarding facilities. The Guide stipulates:

“For the purpose of standard 8.4, a satisfactory consultation with boarders will involve:

• informing the boarders about the overall process, including who else will be consulted, and its desired outcome;
• providing information relevant to the issue, which may include the limits of what outcome is possible, in accessible language;
• offering the boarders a choice of methods to communicate their individual and collective views, including where unanimity cannot be achieved; and
• giving due consideration to the opinions expressed.”

Conclusion

How schools go about giving their students a ‘voice’ is more than a compliance issue. It is also one worthy of pedagogical or even cultural debate.

Students can, and should, be encouraged to be engaged in their learning journeys and they should also be encouraged to engage in discussions regarding all matters that will directly affect them. However, National Principle 2 does not mean that schools must enable students to actually make the final decision in matters that affect them, or give them a veto power. Rather, schools should be transparent and honest with students about the extent to which their preferences are taken into account. Their participation should be encouraged, their voices heard and – where the outcome of the decision is different from that preferred by students – a proper explanation given. It also does not mean that students should have a say in all school policies and processes.

Each school needs to look at how they can engage their students to be involved in some decision-making processes and they need to do so in a manner that is culturally, age and perhaps even gender appropriate. I don’t want to get bogged down in the semantics-that is your job. Schools know their students best and they should be able to develop suitable processes that engage the students in appropriate discussions for suitable matters and at the right times.

The issue is not how this is done, but the fact that it is done-not just for the sake of compliance but because student voices and opinions are worthy of your time and consideration and they can also be valuable indicators of risk in your school.