As Victorian schools continue on their journeys of developing instructional models for their teaching staff, it is important to acknowledge that learning is a partnership with the students themselves. Therefore, just as how teaching is made explicit and clear through educational instructional models focused on pedagogy, so too must learning be equally explicit and clear for our students. In 2023, Glen Waverley SC began their 12-month-long journey in developing their own Learner Model in partnership with both the teaching and student body. It was pivotal that the development of this model was driven from students, and ultimately accessible to students themselves from Year 7 to 12. Therefore, we are proud that the full development process of our GWSC Learner Model was not merely consulted upon with students at the end, where staff attained feedback. Rather, our students investigated, brainstormed, conceptualised, illustrated, wrote, and taught the Learner Model for their fellow peers. Learn about the process of developing a whole-school policy with students; how we as teachers can empower our students to achieve this, and how to then embed this model meaningfully to affect positive change and culture in schools.

In recent years, there has been a significant shift towards amplifying student voice in the New South Wales (NSW) education system. Traditionally, students were passive recipients of educational policies, but now there is a growing emphasis on involving students in decisions that impact their learning and school environments. This change has been driven by the recognition that students possess valuable insights into their own educational experiences. The Minister’s Student Council (DOVES) plays a vital role in this movement by providing a formal platform for students to voice their concerns, influence policy, and contribute to shaping the future of education in NSW.

The Emergence of Student Voice in NSW Education

Student voice refers to the active involvement of students in decision-making processes within schools and educational systems. In NSW, this concept has gained momentum as policymakers and school leaders recognise the importance of including students in discussions about curriculum, school culture, and student welfare. Including student voice helps ensure that the education system remains responsive to students' needs and fosters a sense of ownership among young people regarding their education.

The Role and Impact of the Minister's Student Council (DOVES)

The Minister’s Student Council (DOVES) is a key initiative that supports the rise of student voice in NSW. The council serves as a representative body for students across the state, offering them a platform to engage with policymakers, educators, and school leaders. Through this body, students advocate for changes that align with their needs and concerns, ensuring their perspectives are included in educational decision making.

1. Advocacy for Student Interests: The Minister’s Student Council (DOVES) provides students with the opportunity to raise issues that impact their daily lives, such as mental health support, vaping, bullying, curriculum changes, and inclusivity. By voicing these concerns to education leaders, the council ensures that student interests are considered in policy development.

2. Empowerment and Leadership Opportunities: The council allows students to take on leadership roles, helping them develop skills such as public speaking, decision-making, and collaboration. These experiences foster confidence and empower students to engage in school and community development.

3. Shaping Educational Policy: The council influences educational policies by gathering feedback from students and presenting it to decision-makers. This process has led to changes such as improved mental health programs, student-centred learning approaches, and other reforms that better meet student needs.

4. Promoting Inclusivity and Diversity: The council advocates for more inclusive and diverse school environments. By raising awareness about marginalized student groups, DOVES has contributed to making schools more accessible and supportive for all students, regardless of their background.

5. Fostering Communication Between Students and Educators: DOVES acts as a bridge between students and the Deputy Premier and Minister for Education and Early Learning The Hon Prue Car, ensuring that student concerns are communicated and addressed. This open communication strengthens the relationship between students and educators, creating a more collaborative environment.

6. Enhancing Student Engagement: By giving students a platform to express their views, the council encourages greater engagement in school activities and decision-making processes. When students feel heard, they are more likely to invest in their educational experience, leading to stronger school communities.

Conclusion

The rise of student voice in the NSW education system, exemplified by the Minister’s Student Council (DOVES), marks a transformative shift in how education is approached. By empowering students to lead, advocate, and participate in decision-making, I have managed the council for 4 years developing the strategy to gain momentum in student voice in the public education system. DOVES ensures that student perspectives are not only heard but also respected in shaping the educational landscape. This initiative has fostered a more inclusive, responsive, and dynamic educational environment in NSW, benefiting students and schools alike.

Humanitas High School, a democratic school where student voice is at the heart of governance, proposes an interactive panel discussion led by a small group of our students. This session will explore how inclusive, student-led governance practices can create safe and supportive school communities while empowering young people to actively shape their educational experience. Our students will share firsthand insights into the decision-making processes at our school, where students hold significant roles in shaping school policies, resolving conflicts, and driving initiatives. Through their stories, they will highlight the transformative power of student agency and how governance grounded in shared responsibility fosters a safe, inclusive, and future-focused learning environment. This session invites participants to engage in dynamic discussions and activities aimed at sharing innovative strategies for integrating student voice into school governance and creating supportive educational ecosystems.

Evaluation reports of Student Voice, Agency and Participation initiatives within schools frequently point to the sustainability of such approaches. “If we came back in five years,” they say, “would this still be happening?” They point to a concern that initiatives are often driven by individual enthusiasms, and vanish when the initiator moves on.

At the same time, where schools are being asked by their systems to include student voice, agency and partnerships/participation in their school plans, there is little guidance as to what this might look like. Schools report that they struggle to know what is required and to define such on-going policy and practice commitments.

This workshop is intended to start a conversation about the need for embedding student voice, agency and partnerships/participation within school plans and planning processes. How do we make such lasting commitments, in ways that ensure that we go beyond individual enthusiasms or sometimes tokenistic responses to central policy directives?

The language and terminology, as well as system requirements, differ between jurisdictions eg in Victoria, government schools are required to:
• develop 4 year School Strategic Plans with long term improvement goals;
• each year, develop Annual implementation plans, with strategies and actions to meet those goals;
• establish school improvement teams, who are in charge of driving and monitoring implementation;
• publish Annual Report to the School Community; and
• go through a 4 yearly school review.

What does this look like for Student Voice, Agency and Participation? How does or might this planning happen, in ways that reflect the principles of student voice, agency and partnerships?

This workshop will explore these ideas, with a view to generating some practical examples of appropriate school planning. These examples could be collected in a future issue of ReConnectEd, as a way of providing some ideas and guidance for schools around policy and practices.

It is envisaged that the workshop will start with a short re-iteration of the need, then invite participants to contribute their own stories and examples of school plans and policy – including the process of developing these. Hopefully, these will draw on the situation in different jurisdictions across Australia. We’ll test out whether (and how) we might collect these examples for publication.

Roger Holdsworth

Roger is a semi-failed retiree; ex-secondary teacher; ex-youth sector policy worker; ex-University researcher; ex-consultant; ex-editor, Connect. Currently: presenter of the Global Village on PBS 106.7 FM

Building Stronger Partnerships 

How can students be true partners in school decision-making? 

Many schools claim to value student voice, but how often are students actually involved in decision-making in a meaningful way? What decisions should students be involved in, and what structures enable that to happen effectively? How do we move from consultation to co-creation in decision-making? 

These sessions are designed to be participant-led, meaning the conversation will evolve based on the interests, experiences, and ideas of those in the room. Facilitators will let the discussion flow organically and only refer to the prompts if needed to spark new ideas or refocus the conversation. 

Traditional student leadership structures often limit opportunities to senior students or specific year levels, titles and roles. In this presentation, I will explore and reflect on how the Student Empowerment Team at Sacred Heart College researched, designed, and implemented a new Student Leadership Structure that selects leaders based on skills, passions, and drive rather than age or title—better reflecting real-world leadership.
This innovative, student-driven model fosters a network model approach to leadership, where students across different year levels mentor, collaborate, and learn from one another, rather than being confined to hierarchical roles.
Throughout this informative and reflective session we will provide key insights from our five-year journey of implementing our skills-based, goal oriented leadership structure. We will share:
- How we designed and implemented the new model- shifting from traditional leadership roles to a flexible, student-driven framework.
- Barriers and challenges faced - and how we navigated resistance, logistical hurdles, and cultural shifts.
- Learnings, benefits, and successes - including the impact on student engagement, leadership development, and school culture.
-The role of student data - illustrating how student voice has informed decision-making, and agency.

With the implementation of our new structure, our student leaders have played a key role in shaping major school transitions and changes over the past 5 years , including implementing a vertical homeroom structure, a new daily timetable, and data-driven student advocacy initiatives.

This session will provide practical strategies for educators and school leaders looking to break away from traditional leadership models and create a more inclusive, skills-based, and student-driven leadership culture and is ideal for those wanting to foster greater collaboration, agency and voice within their school student leadership teams.

This workshop envisages an open discussion on current national trends in education. In particular, systems have been required to agree to a particular model of ‘evidence-based teaching’ and are passing this requirement on to schools. This means that any commitments to student voice and agency are being removed from models of teaching and learning. How do and can we respond?

Previously, while the National Curriculum had been focussed on the content of the curriculum, it had specifically said that teaching methods were school responsibilities. However, the current requirement on all states and territories who have now signed up for federal funding (to implement Gonski proposals), is that they adopt ‘evidence-based’ teaching practices. A particular form of this explicitly draws on the work of AERO – the Australian Education Research Organisation, and, in particular, their requirements for ‘explicit teaching’: see https://www.edresearch.edu.au/guides-resources/practice-resources/teaching-how-students-learn-model-learning-and-teaching .

There are several areas of concern here, including around the nature of what is regarded as ‘evidence’ and ‘research’, and views about the breadth or narrowness of purposes of education. The AERO view on these has been challenged; see for example, Dean Ashenden’s recent article: https://insidestory.org.au/the-trickle-down-theory-of-schooling/ but their work underpins system requirements of schools.

For example, in Victoria, the DET is updating the VTLM, the Victorian Teaching and Learning Model, and bases this on the work of AERO: https://www.education.vic.gov.au/school/teachers/teachingresources/practice/improve/Pages/Victorianteachingandlearningmodel.aspx
This means that the Practice Principles for excellence in teaching practice, where student voice and agency took centre stage, will be gone. There’s a brief overview poster of VTLM 2.0 here: https://content.sdp.education.vic.gov.au/media/victorian-teaching-and-learning-model-2-0-2816 and further details are being worked on at the moment.

What does this mean for our approaches to Student Voice, Agency and Participation/Partnerships? What are the implications for areas such as active citizenship, inquiry learning, creativity, engagement, differentiation, diversity in ways of learning, equity, recognition of student and community knowledge, 'consulting pupils about teaching and learning' and so on?

The workshop will enable participants to share experiences and perspectives, and start some planning for possible responses.

Roger Holdsworth

Roger is a semi-failed retiree; ex-secondary teacher; ex-youth sector policy worker; ex-University researcher; ex-consultant; ex-editor, Connect. Currently: presenter of the Global Village on PBS 106.7 FM

The Youth Voice Project is an initiative designed to empower youth to use their voices to create positive change in their community. Developed by Firefly Bay & Basin – Uniting in collaboration with Vincentia High School, Youth Insearch, Western Sydney University and Community Minded Kids, the project engages with young people in the Bay & Basin region, NSW to build their skills to become peer researchers and create, co-design and implement impactful community projects.

Aligned with the conference themes of Connect, Share, Empower, and the subthemes of Active Citizenship and Governance & Decision-Making, the Youth Voice Project fosters student agency, advocacy and leadership. Firefly Bay & Basin collaborate with Vincentia High School to select a team of students to participate in workshops to develop their skills in research, co-design, leadership, advocacy and community engagement. The project empowers them to participate in decision making, governance structures and contribute meaningfully to their communities.

The first Youth Voice Project was delivered at Vincentia High School during 2023-24. Through trainings facilitated by Firefly and Western Sydney University in 2023, students developed research skills, enabling them to become peer researchers exploring local youth experiences and interactions with services. The findings from this research were compiled into the Youth Voice Roadmap, a resource available for community organisations and service providers, aiding tailoring initiatives to meet the needs of local youth.

Beyond research, the project fosters leadership by supporting participants in developing and pitching community-focused initiatives. With training from Firefly, students refined their ideas and presented four project ideas to key stakeholders. In 2024, all four projects received NSW Government funding, allowing participants to co-design and implement their ideas alongside Firefly and the community.

This holistic approach to youth participation fosters both personal and professional growth, preparing students to become changemakers in their communities.

This presentation will share insights from the Youth Voice Project, highlighting the power of youth-led research and participatory action and showcasing the four projects that were delivered in 2024. We will also share our vision for 2025. Attendees will gain an understanding of effective youth engagement strategies, the significance of co-designing initiatives with young people, and the broader implications of empowering youth as leaders in their communities.

Natasha Busbridge

Tash is Firefly’s Community Impact Strategy Coordinator, that’s a bit of a mouthful! But what that means is she looks after the everyday running of Firefly in the Bay and Basin community. Her focus is making sure we have youth at the centre of everything we do.

When she’s not looking for awesome partnerships with organisations and community to create great stuff to support local young people, you can find her at the beach or watching Doctor Who. Tash has been working with regional communities for over 5 years and brings stakeholder engagement, strategy planning and communications management to this role. She is Working with Children Checked and has been delivering youth focused initiatives and activations for over 3 years.

She is excited by the possibilities in learning more from the young people of Bay and Basin and working in collaboration with likeminded people.

Christine McInerney-Percy

Christine is our on-the-ground Community Connector here at Firefly. Having lived and worked in Sanctuary Point and the wider Bay and Basin community for over ten years, she brings local knowledge and strong connections to local youth and families to the role. Having a background in Business and Early Childhood Education, Christine is continuously interested in making a positive difference for families and young people in our community, not matter their age!

Not one to shy away from hard work like flipping a snag at a community BBQ, when she’s not talking and listening to people in the community and working with youth at a grassroots level, you can find her getting dumped at Nelsons Beach while she volunteers at Nippers or welcoming people as part of the local Red Cross Evacuation team.

She has a current Working with Children’s Check and an extensive background in developing youth focused programs. Supporting the community where she lives is important to her, she looks forward to further developing her skills in youth engagement and communications.

In an era where student voice and agency are critical to fostering equitable educational experiences, our understanding of governance in schools must evolve to incorporate the perspectives of students. Equally important is the oft-overlooked impact of internet accessibility and democratisation of knowledge that could empower students in their learning as challengers to standardised curriculum design. This presentation draws upon my recent research examining the opportunities and restrictions for student choice within the New South Wales (NSW) syllabus documents for English, Science, Mathematics, and History in Years 7-10. By employing a critical policy analysis (CPA) approach, I aim to unpack the systemic factors embedded in curriculum governance that influence both teaching practices and student learning experiences, often disabling student agency.

The analysis reveals that the prescriptive nature and rigid structures within these syllabus documents often limit genuine participatory governance. As teachers navigate these mandates, they face challenges that inhibit their ability to incorporate student agency into their pedagogical choices and approaches. Consequently, students are often left with little room to influence their learning experiences and pathways, undermining their intrinsic motivation and engagement as they transition into their teenage years.

Drawing from existing literature on student motivation and engagement, I will discuss the implications of a narrow curriculum design that favours compliance over choice. The findings illustrate a crucial disconnect between the ideals of student empowerment and the realities shaped by curriculum governance. By foregrounding student choice as a vital component of their educational experience, we can begin to redefine the roles of teachers and students within the classroom—shifting from a top-down directive model to one that encourages collaboration, shared decision-making and student leadership.

During this presentation, I intend to elevate a conversation surrounding the need for governance structures that are conducive to student involvement. This includes examining best practices in participatory models, such as student councils and advisory boards, and identifying potential pathways for rethinking curriculum policies that prioritize student input. I will also invite participants to consider the existing barriers they face in advocating for greater student agency and explore strategies to engage diverse voices in shaping educational policies and practices at both systemic and classroom levels.

This session aims to be interactive/discursive, encouraging attendees to share their experiences and insights regarding student governance and curricular decision-making. By collaborating and brainstorming potential solutions, we can foster a supportive network committed to empowering students in their learning environments. Ultimately, we must recognize that effective governance in education requires meaningful inclusion of student perspectives—transforming them from passive recipients of knowledge into active contributors who shape their educational journeys.

Through this exploration, we will not only highlight systemic challenges but also champion student voice as a pivotal issue in policy discussions around curriculum. This discussion hopes to highlight the barriers of the current curriculum policy climate and discuss opportunities for greater student engagement and motivation through a more democratic classroom and a rebalancing of curriculum for student ownership and leadership in their learning.

Negotiating the curriculum was championed by Australian educator, Garth Boomer, and involves teachers and students undertaking curriculum as a process of co-construction. Whilst the current applicability of Boomer’s ideas is supported by research and policy focused on student agency at a local, national and international level, the current emphasis on standardisation and datafication in education systems presents challenges for both teacher and student agency to be realised. In light of these tensions, this presentation explores the findings of a recent PhD study focused on how the process of negotiating the curriculum can be sustained over time within a primary school setting. The study reviewed expert insights and analysed a case study of a primary school that has undertaken a negotiated curriculum for 25 years. Three major contributions to the field emerging through this analysis will be presented. These include a new model for sustaining curriculum negotiation across a whole school, exploration of how the findings contribute to understanding the role of the teacher and how teaching and learning is undertaken, and discussion of threats to the sustainability of curriculum negotiation. The study demonstrates that although many challenges exist for teachers and schools seeking to negotiate the curriculum, sustaining a negotiated curriculum is still possible, and Boomer’s ideas are highly relevant to classrooms today.

Nadine Crane

Nadine Crane is a primary school teacher who is currently a lecturer at the Faculty of Education. Her current roles include Lead of Research in Schools for the Ngarrngga project. Prior to joining the FoE, Nadine worked extensively with schools as a consultant in the areas of integrated curriculum and inquiry based learning, with a specific focus on the inclusion of student voice and agency by negotiating the curriculum. During her time lecturing in the Master of Teaching, Nadine has worked across the core subjects in pedagogy and assessment, and was the coordinator for Clinical Teaching Practice practicum subjects in the Master of Teaching Primary for many years. Nadine's PhD research is focussed on how primary schools sustain the pedagogical practice of negotiating the curriculum with students.

Democracy offers pathways to decolonisation, representation, accountability, transparency, individual rights, peaceful conflict resolution, social equity and justice, and adaptability, among others. Most of the world population lives in ‘democracies’, but they range from full to flawed and hybrid democracies, and around 36% live under authoritarian regimes. These figures are concerning, particularly as, in recent years, we have seen an increase in the election of governments and the emergence of fringe groups for whom equality and the rule of law are not priorities. Within this context, immediate and long-term strategies to strengthen democracies are required. This study explores one such strategy in education.

Democratic schools enable students to control their personal study plans, run the school with other school stakeholders, and have a voice in all school issues via deliberation and voting. Most schools within Australia fall into the Mainstream school category, which is defined by the absence of these features. Prior research describing the experiences of democratic students exists, but this study compares democratic and mainstream schools in the context of their democratic potential; an area which has yet to be extensively explored.

To answer the key research question, what key similarities and differences emerge between democratic and mainstream schools from the analysis of their policy documents and website content? I analysed data from mainstream and democratic schools (n=4) in Australia using qualitative content and thematic analysis methods. Six themes describing similarities and differences between the two school types vis-à-vis the schools’ salient features as well as beliefs that underpin them were identified. Notable were the stark differences in the conceptualisation of community, schools’ beliefs about students, and students’ voices. Unsurprisingly, students’ voices emerged as a key area of difference, but it was remarkable to discover the ways community conceptualisation and schools’ beliefs about students lead to the structures supporting students’ voices. The interrelated impacts of these three themes on other aspects of schooling are also meaningful. To summarise, a community of equals, with enabling beliefs about students, emerged as necessary for students’ voices and strong democracies to flourish in schools.

My research suggests that these themes are transferable across school systems and can help create authentic democracies in schools and, over time, can influence how democracies function.

Dr. Neha Singh

Dr Neha Singh is an academic at the University of Melbourne’s Faculty of Education. She specialises in interdisciplinary research with mixed methods, focusing on democracy, well-being, comparative education, and psychometrics. She is also a certified mental health first aider and brings a trauma-informed lens to teaching. She has an MA in Education from University College London and has worked for several years as a teacher, teacher-trainer, curriculum specialist, and researcher in different contexts.