Student Representatives as Co-Actors of School Development?! Perceptions of Student Representatives by Parents, Teachers and Students

Author(s):

Manuela Gamsjäger(presenting / submitting)

Conference:

ECER 2012

Network:

23. Policy Studies and Politics of Education

Format:

Paper

Session Information

23 SES 10 D, Students as Actors

Parallel Paper Session

Time:

2012-09-20

15:30-17:00

Room:

FFL - Aula 35

Chair:

Palle Rasmussen

Contribution

Educational policies of many European states have been introducing new management models to enhance quality and efficiency of schools. “Governance research” does not conceptualize “regulation” as top-down process from politics and administration to executive actors (cf. Altrichter 2010a). It rather analyzes the formation, reinforcement and transformation of social order and social performance in the educational field from the perspectives of different actors in schools. Therefore, the contributions of different actors and the modes of coordination between them are reconstructed (Altrichter & Maag Merki 2010: 11). Under this perspective student representatives and students are seen as important (governance) actors who considerably contribute to the shape and attainment of individual schools and schooling in general. However, diverse interpretations of the role of students within a school exist (cf. Handy 1984) and their contributiong to the social formation and regulation of schools remains underresearched. Whereas in exercises of school-monitoring (cf. BMUKK 2007) students’ performances and observations are collected regularly as a reflection of the functioning of the system, in processes of school development it is mostly teachers and school leaders who are conceptualized as active actors (see e.g. Holtappels & Müller 2004). If students are researched in empirical studies, they are either used as data sources or they are treated as relative stable “objects” or social facts teachers have to handle (e.g. Böttcher & Brohm 2004, Krainz-Dürr et al. 2002, Schönig 2003). To obtain a more holistic account of the networks of action coordination which constitute schools, it is necessary i) to learn more about the views and contributions of actors considered “peripheral” by prior research and ii) to compare these views with the perceptions of other actors. Thus, the proposed paper will focus on the methods and results of student representatives’ contribution to the governance of schooling by researching perceptions of teachers, parents and student (representatives). The data is gathered within the two year Sparkling Science project “Students develop school?!”, funded by a research grant by the Austrian Ministry for Science and Research. This grant enables a research group from Johannes Kepler University Linz to research the contributions from students and their representatives to school governance collaboratively with students. As part of the research team they conduct their own research and, thus, become subjects, not just objects of research (cf. Kellett 2005, Lodge 2005). Thereby their roles and contributions will not be researched in a top-down research, but in cooperation with students and their teachers and their voice is acknowledged and their original contribution valued. This is done in order to understand and explain their potential and problems within the context of school governance as well as to contribute to their peripheral status within governance research.

Method

The data is gathered in two modules using different methodology. First, 22 student representatives of various lower and upper secondary schools developed a field-manual for semi-structured qualitative interviews in collaboration with researchers. Then the student representatives interviewed themselves alternating. In a workshop setting a first analysis of data was produced by students themselves by clustering and interpreting data; a more thorough analysis was produced by the scientists and validated by students. In a second module, students of a lower secondary school (age 11 to 14) developed field-manuals for semi-structured interviews with parents, teachers and the headperson (again collaboratively with university researchers). The interviewees were asked about their perceptions of the responsibilities, activities, challenges and problems of student representatives. Sections of the interview data were analyzed by students in cooperation with university researchers, which finished the analysis of the second module. Scientists consolidate now the analysis by qualitative content analyses (Mayring 2002). The proposed paper will therefore i) explain the research rationale of the project, ii) outline the research approach and iii) present the interview results from student representatives, teachers and parents of the two modules and iv) include a discussion of experiences in conducting collaborative social research with students..

Expected Outcomes

The final content analysis is still in progress, but preliminary analyses suggest, e.g., the following outcomes: both parents and teachers ascribe an increasing importance to student representatives and describe two functions: i) Using student representatives as an example, democratic values which are important for the future can be taught, respectively learned. ii) In a more content-related function student representatives act as substitutes for the interests of their colleagues. However, parents accentuate the second function more strongly than teachers do and emphasize the power inequality more often. Therefore, parents mention possible negative consequences for student representatives more frequently and demand “… as teacher you have to try hard to accept students the way they are and you have to put yourself on the same level as they are, right? As teacher you shouldn’t put yourself on a pedestal.” (Mother) Nevertheless, both teachers and parents attribute increasing importance to the role of student representatives and state a demand to learn more about their functions and tasks for teachers and students. But whereas parents expect teachers to perceive and respect students in their function as representatives, teachers -interviewees claim that their colleagues should provide more time for the articulation of student representatives’ interests.

References

Altrichter, H. (2010a). Theory and Evidence on Governance: conceptual and empirical strategies of research on governance in education. In: European Educational Research Journal (9)2, pp. 147-158. Altrichter, H. (2010b). SchülerInnen entwickeln Schule?! SchülerInnen und SchülervertreterInnen als Ko-Akteure der Schulentwicklung, Schulgestaltung und Schulsystemreform. Unveröffentl. Projektantrag an das BMWF. Linz. Altrichter, H./Maag Merki, K. (2010). Handbuch Neue Steuerung im Schulsystem. VS: Wiesbaden. BMUKK [Bundesministerium für Unterricht, Kunst und Kultur] (2007). Schul-Monitoring. Bevölkerungsbefragung zum Schul- und Bildungswesen. IFES-Studienbericht. Wien. (http://www.bmukk.gv.at/medienpool/15366/sm_2007.pdf; 14.1.2008) Böttcher, W./ Brohm M. (2004). Die Methodik des Change Managements und die aktuelle Schulreform. In: Die Deutsche Schule (96)3, pp. 268-278. Fend, H. (2005). Systemsteuerung im Bildungswesen – Anschlussfähigkeiten an die Schulwirklichkeit. In: Maag-Merki, K./Sandmeier, A./Schuler, P./Fend, H. (Hrsg.): Schule wohin? Schulentwicklung und Qualitätsmanagement im 21. Jahrhundert. FS+S: Universität Zürich, pp. 15-27. Holtappels, H.G. (Ed.) (2004). Schulprogramme – Instrumente der Schulentwicklung. Juventa, Weinheim. Kellett, M. (2005). How to Develop Children as Researchers. A Step by Step Guide to Teaching the Research Process. London: Sage Publications. Krainz-Dürr, M. (2002). Schulprogramme entwickeln: Erfahrungen aus einem Pilotprojekt an berufsbildenden Schulen. Studien-Verlag: Innsbruck; Wien. Lodge, C. (2005). From Hearing Voices to Engaging in Dialogue: Problematising Student Participation in School Improvement. Journal of Educational Change, 6, pp.125–146. Mayring, P. (2002). Einführung in die qualitative Sozialforschung. Eine Anleitung zum qualitativen Denken. Beltz, Weinheim. Schönig, W. (2003). Lehrer und Lehrerinnen im Prozess der Schulentwicklung. Von der Formung des Verhältnisses zwischen Subjekt und Schule. In: Die Deutsche Schule (95)4, pp. 452-465.

Author Information

Manuela Gamsjäger (presenting / submitting)

Johannes Kepler University of Linz

Department of Education and Psychology

Linz

Search the ECER Programme

Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
Search for authors and in the respective field.
For planning your conference attendance you may want to use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference
If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.