Introduction 

Every year in Australia, a classroom teacher is appointed a new cohort of students, with contextual and socio-economic differences. Position yourself at the front of that class, with the curriculum in one hand and a set of democratic principles in the other.

A letter from the student researcher

Whilst teaching a grade 5/6 primary school cohort in 2020, prior to the Covid-19 pandemic, I observed student disengagement and a general lack of motivation towards learning, amongst the class. After purposefully implementing opportunities for students to voice their opinion and engage in curriculum design, I was met with confusion and apprehension from the students. Upon reflection, I concluded that perhaps these students had never been offered the opportunity to engage with their teacher in this manner. In Australian kindergartens, children are consulted every day and curricular decisions are a shared process, this is a fundamental component of the early childhood curriculum. It is conceivable that in 2020, I was attempting to remedy the 5/6 students’ disengagement in the classroom with student voice and curriculum consultation, potentially for the first time since kindergarten. After conducting a literature review on student voice as part of an earlier research unit, I discovered inequalities within student voice practices, which deepened my passion for engaging in research on this topic. As a result of this earlier research, I discovered very little happening in the student and consultation space for those students in the Foundation to Grade 2 cohorts. Which led me to the conclusion that student voice must be ingrained in our education systems, curriculum design and classrooms—embedded at all levels to be effective and authentic.

Positioning student voice in education

Student voice in the education context is defined as the individual and collective opinions, feelings and beliefs of students, that can be expressed through body language, speech, play, images, written words, behaviour and silence (Ey, 2016; Quinn & Owen, 2016). In this context, ‘voice is an expression of the self, extending beyond the verbal or the airing of views and opinions’ (Wall et al., 2019:271). Birthed from a democratic intention to enable students to positively impact their learning environments, student voice initiatives stem from beliefs that value a person’s agency and their human right to voice their opinion (Moses et al., 2020). Typically, in schools, enactment involves students engaging in dialogue and consultation with teachers and leaders in matters that directly concern them, including policy design in relation to the school grounds, uniforms and amenities and education and assessment (Fleming, 2015; Mainstone-Cotton, 2019).

Prior research has highlighted that when students are given voice, there are a range of benefits for the school community. For the individual student, voice initiatives can positively impact their confidence and self-esteem, improve motivation and engagement and enhance peer relationships and the development of citizenship skills (Mainstone-Cotton, 2019; Mayes et al., 2018; Raby, 2014). For the teacher and the school, student voice initiatives can improve the student–teacher relationship, contribute to teacher professional learning that informs their practice, and through its transformative power promote positive educational reform (Pearce & Wood, 2019). Furthermore, student voice practices have been found to provide a space for marginalised students to be heard and consequently schools can become more supportive and inclusive environments (Cook-Sather, 2020; Gillett-Swan & Sargeant, 2019) . In his recent argument about re-negotiating the curriculum, Bill Green (2021) stated that, ‘the importance of drawing student-learners in, and hence of mobilising ‘student voice’, cannot be underestimated’ (2021, p. 223). By recognising the role of student voice in curriculum design and implementation, educational institutions can promote a more inclusive and equitable learning environment that empowers students to actively engage in their own education.

Having a say, being heard, and influencing matters that impact oneself, is part of the Worldwide human rights and voice agenda (Wall et al., 2019). In 1989, leaders worldwide began to adopt and make a commitment to The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC). The ratification of this treaty was a world first and is reshaping the lives of children all around the world. The UNCRC framework that relates to this research, recognises that children are not objects, nor creatures whose decisions are made for them by accompanying adults, but rather, they are individual people with their own rights and entitlements (United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), n.d).

In Australia, the National Children’s Commissioner on behalf of the Australian Government, reports to the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child, every 5 years, detailing how children are being protected under the UNCRC. As another means of demonstrating accountability, the Australian Human Rights Commission completed The Children’s Rights Report in 2019 (Australian Human Rights Commission, 2019). From the observations made, The Committee on the Rights of the Child, concluded in this report that children’s voice and their participation were for ‘human rights and the [UN]CRC be mandatory in school curriculum [and that]…training is provided to professionals working with children about the [UN]CRC’ (Australian Human Rights Commission, 2019, p. 68). Furthermore, in Victoria, government bodies must adhere to The Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006, which enshrines the fundamental rights, liberties, and obligations applicable to all individuals residing in Victoria (Australian Parliament 2006). The aforementioned UNCRC, and the Australian reports and Acts provide a clear indication of how important this topic is for children and their human and voice rights.

Curriculum inquiry and student voice

As a field of study, Curriculum theory is influenced by a range of disciplines, with psychology and sociology have notably colonised much of the field of education (Pinar, 2004, p. 2). Curriculum inquiry, as a broad term, refers to the systematic study of curriculum, its design, implementation and innovation; essential for informing educational policy and practice. It is concerned with the complex interplay between curriculum, teaching and learning and how these factors influence student learning outcomes (Blenkinsop & Kelly, 2017). However, we are aware that curriculum is not merely ‘an official text designed by government official authorities to be faithfully implemented and passively ‘received’ in schools’ (Priestly et al., 2021, p.2); sent in linear fashion down a conduit. Curriculum involves cycles of interpretation by policy makers, and in turn, school leaders and teachers and in some cases, students with teachers. We are reminded that the intended (planned) curriculum is that which is developed by authorities, legitimate and standardised, whilst the enacted curriculum is that based on teacher professional judgement, and the experienced curriculum is what happens in the classroom between students and teachers (Mockler, 2017; Marsh, 2009).

In Australia, Garth Boomer’s work was influential in developing the ‘negotiated curriculum’ which became widespread in Australia. He argued that traditional views of curriculum as fixed documents with pre-determined learning outcomes were too narrow and he advocated for school-based curriculum development; a more dynamic and flexible approach. By fostering a collaborative partnership between students and teachers, the curriculum could be co-constructed in a manner that reflects the interests, experiences and learning objectives of the students (Boomer, 1982). This approach values children’s funds of knowledge (Moll et al., 1992) and positions them as active participants in their own learning. This practice involves teachers making curriculum intentions explicit to the students and students playing a role in negotiating the learning and assessment activities. The processes of the negotiated curriculum actively involves the examination of power relations within classrooms and the school. Curriculum-as-negotiation is largely concerned with learning and democracy, ‘[W]e consider curriculum negotiation a means to provide students with opportunities to practice ‘citizenship-as-practice’ as opposed to ‘citizenship-as-status’ (Bron et al., 2016, p. 19).

In the Australian context, curriculum inquiry research plays a crucial role in informing curriculum, policy and teaching practice across the education system. Able to scrutinise whether curriculum is aligned with national and state aims and through a critical lens, it can also help to identify issues of social justice and equity, to promote a more inclusive and culturally responsive curriculum and school environment to meet the diverse needs of students (Luke, 2018).

In Australia and Internationally, student voice initiatives are not mandatory (Rudduck & Fielding, 2006), and child participation is not typically considered when developing and writing policy within Australia (Australian Human Rights Commission, 2019). To clarify, there are some instances in Australia where consultation with children is recognised and informs policy. For example, the Disability Standards for Education 2005 (Australian Government, 2005) requires an educator to directly consult with a student (or a representative of a student) prior to making any adjustments to their education or care. This directly reflects a component of a democratic education system, demonstrating consultation with a student as a fundamental element to the integrity of student voice.

Foundation to Grade 2 students

The research and literature on student voice that involves young children from Foundation to Grade 2 is limited, in comparison to the plethora of research emanating from higher education institutions, and secondary and primary (Grades 3 to 6) school contexts (Urbina-Garcia et al., 2022). The Foundation to Grade 2 students are in a unique position developmentally. According to research on early learning and development, children from birth to eight experience the most rapid growth. This period in a child’s life is important as it is where neural pathways are developed.

World-wide there is a dominant ideology that views young children as incapable of ‘voicing’ their opinions and it is important to note that student voice initiatives tend to exclusively rely on verbal and written communication. Given the recognition of a spectrum of language and communication, children should be seen and heard. Historically, it was uncommon to elicit the perspectives of young children about the quality and contents of their education (Clark, 2017) . Now that there is greater awareness of the benefits of student voice, there should be no age limit for children to have the right to express their views (United Nations, 2009). Hart (1992, p. 15) reiterates ‘children do not have the same competence in communicating as adults’ but this does not mean that we cannot communicate and receive information from them. It is the role of the adult to determine what is appropriate and to find ways that make the child feel comfortable (Pearce & Wood, 2019).

The Department of Education Victoria

Australia has a national education school curriculum, The Australian Curriculum, that specifies learning areas, general capabilities and cross-curriculum priorities that are expected to be taught in schools across the country. This national framework outlines what students should learn from Foundation (the first year of schooling, to year 10). Additionally, each state and territory have its own curriculum that aligns with the national framework, but may include variation particular to that state. The Australian education system is also influenced by policies at the national, state and territory levels. These policies address aspects of education such as funding, assessment practices, teacher training, school governance and inclusion.

Student voice is closely related to the existing Victorian and Australian curriculum capabilities in several ways. The Victorian curriculum aims to develop students’ capabilities to become successful learners, confident and creative individuals and active and informed citizens. Student voice, as a concept, aligns with these goals by recognising the importance of engaging students in their own learning and decision-making processes. The Australian curriculum, whilst using different terminology, prioritises the same notion of students becoming lifelong learners through active participation.

In the Victorian and Australian Curriculum, the term ‘student voice’ is not explicitly mentioned as a standalone term, but the principles and practices associated with student voice are present throughout the documents. Specific curriculum capabilities in Victoria, such as Critical and Creative Thinking, Personal and Social Capability and Ethical Capability, provide opportunities for students to express their opinions, engage in meaningful discussions and actively participate in shaping their learning experiences. These capabilities encourage students to think critically, communicate effectively, collaborate with others and consider ethical perspectives.

In Victoria, DE’s vision for student voice is communicated through a document called Amplify ‘…a student voice, agency and leadership practice guide’ (DET, 2020). Directed at school leaders and teachers of primary and secondary school, it aims to provide schools with practical guidance on creating the environment and structures that promote student empowerment at a classroom and whole school level. It offers conversation starters, points of reflection and ideas to support, taking action at a classroom and whole school level. The intention is for schools to adopt the advice provided in Amplify and to create and allow space for students to become active participants in their learning and contribute to the world, by creating lifelong learners (DET, 2019). The practice guide is found on the DE website, alongside an online toolkit inclusive of additional resources intended to complement the Amplify practice guide (DET, 2020). Upon a brief inspection it was noted that the toolkit did not present any new information or research beyond that of the Amplify practice guide.

Social and political influences and notions of power in student voice

Enacting authentic student voice requires teachers to genuinely listen to students through consultation; engage in sincere, equal dialogue with them, to act on their requests and communicate limitations (Cook-Sather, 2020). The adoption of these practices has been found to empower marginalised students including those for whom English is an additional language and for those who rely on Augmentative and Alternative Communication (American Speech-Language-Hearing Association n.d.).

Student voice is politically located and implicated within education policy, curriculum and reform strategies, particularly in the United Kingdom, the USA, Canada and New Zealand. It is currently seen in Australian policy and government discourse as playing a central role in human rights and empowering students through agency. There is a lack of a global definition for student agency, however, for the purpose of this research, agency was defined as the capabilities a person develops when becoming an active agent in their learning and life (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2019). Agency gives students the foundations to be positive, active citizens. ‘It is about acting rather than being acted upon; shaping rather than being shaped; and making responsible decisions and choices rather than accepting those determined by others’ (OECD Future of Education & Skills 2030, 2019, p. 2). Student voice is a part of agency, exercised when students are given opportunities to voice their opinion and have a say. Agency in learning positively impacts a student’s motivation and provides space for the student to recognise and set goals for their learning. This awareness of the importance of student agency is linked to a drive for education policy to reflect a twenty-first century learning environment for students (Moses et al., 2020).

Questions arise surrounding the inequitable power relations within schools that directly affect students such as the continued subjugation and control of young people, and consciously or not, the real managerial intentions of student agency for school improvement (Charteris & Smardon, 2019). Unfortunately, young children can be overpowered and exposed to adult-led decisions driven by neo-liberal ideologies in education (Clark, 2017). Within education reform there is a discourse that views a school’s quality as something that can be improved by raising the achievement standards of students (Pearce & Wood, 2019). However, positioning student voice as a method for school improvement, as opposed to a human right would be a disservice to young people and their potential to be heard and consulted (Biddulph, 2011).

The focus upon student voice was born from the unwavering ‘inequitable power structures, processes, practices and relations’ (Mayes et al., 2017, p. 1) within our education systems. Moreover, the need for research in this area emerged from critical analysis of dominant discourses within school environments by way of rules, expectations and curriculum requirements (Charteris & Smardon, 2019). Research has highlighted the power inequalities that are ingrained in the social systems of schools that need addressing (Wall et al., 2019). Within the traditional classroom, power is not distributed evenly, teachers exercise coercive and hegemonic power; with the political and social discourse positioning them as experts (Pearce & Wood, 2019). Student voice was introduced to combat these power relations.

Regardless of the ways in which power relations impact people’s voice, this goes beyond discourse alone; it is historically ingrained in society (Fielding, 2004). Relating to the epistemological issues of ‘who is speaking, who is spoken of [and] who listens as a result…’(Alcoff, 1991, p. 15). Within school contexts, this is known as the acoustics of the school (Mayes et al., 2018) . According to Cook-Sather (2020), for student voice initiatives to be successful a change in attitude is required, to recognise students as knowledgeable, to challenge existing power structures and proceed towards viewing education practice as a shared responsibility.

Voice practice in young children

Reggio Emilia’s early childhood pedagogical approach is heavily grounded on the need to listen to children and educators are tasked with helping children find meaning in their everyday lives and education by listening to them. The ‘meanings of listening’ as outlined by Rinaldi (2001, p. 2) are extensive and include messages of inclusion, listening as a foundation for learning and civility. The Reggio Emilia approach views children as having one hundred languages to communicate their ideas, for example, art, photography or drama (Edwards et al., 2011). The educator teaches and provides opportunities for children to share their thinking about the world through their one hundred languages (Edwards et al., 2011) .

The Mosaic approach to learning is a positive method for eliciting voices in young children (Clark, 2017). It combines different pieces of information that the child provides to create a mosaic and an image of a child's world. The child’s perspective is expressed through a range of different and creative ways including photographs and role play, and calls on the hundred languages of children (Clark, 2017). The philosophical underpinnings of this approach hold the child at the centre, it is not about finding the truth or an answer, it is about consultation with the child from their own point of view. ‘The question is not whether children have any knowledge to convey but how hard we work to make sure every child has the opportunity to share their point of view (Clark, 2017, p. 21). Both of these approaches are child-centred which is common in early childhood contexts and are conducive environments for listening to students’ voices (Wall & Robinson, 2022).

Considering the limited student voice research involving young children, the curriculum implications, the implications of power; political and societal and clear discrepancies for young children in enacting their voice (Cook-Sather, 2020; Pearce & Wood, 2019), it is no surprise that schools are grappling to create environments conducive for student voice practices. All of this highlights the need for this research in the Australian context; how are Foundation to Grade 2 students represented in government policy on student voice in Victoria?

The aim of the study

The drive for the research reported here emanated from a desire to contribute further research to improve Student Voice uptake in Australia; a strong need expressed by the thought-provoking prior research of Roger Hart (1992), Michael Fielding (2004), Kate Wall (2017) and Mayes et al. (2018) and Boomer (1982), the culmination of which inspired this critical engagement with Amplify’s discourse on student voice.

In light of the personal teaching experiences of the student researcher, existing prior research was reviewed and a subsequent gap found for Foundation to Grade 2 students; this study was aimed at investigating the representation of Foundation to Grade 2 students in Amplify. By reviewing and critiquing the dominant discourses found within the document the researchers aimed to reveal how the DE positions young children in voice practices and curriculum design, to ascertain if the Amplify was in fact promoting the amplification of young children’s voices in schools.

The method

Critical discourse analysis (CDA) is a valuable tool for conducting curriculum inquiry research, particularly in relation to examining the construction and representation of knowledge and power in curricular documents and education resources. Using CDA to analyse documents can reveal underlying assumptions, values and ideologies that shape curriculum and its implementation; a means of identifying areas of bias, marginalisation and exclusion. The foundation for the current study was built upon the amalgamation of notions of Discourse (Gee, 1999) and power relations associated with the study of the use of language (Fairclough, 1992). The underlying tenet is that language is a social construction that exists within particular contexts and extends beyond what is said or written, and involves communicative transactions, encompassing shared knowledge, beliefs and assumptions. Gee (1990) , with its strong focus upon socially-situated identities, established that groups of people develop and communicate using shared language that has shared conventions and he referred to this as Discourse, with a capital ‘D’, renowned as the big ‘D’ Discourses. Meanwhile, Fairclough (1992) emphasised language and power and how social practices are discursively shaped, (whether implicit or explicit). Stemming from these viewpoints, the current study is a critical analysis framed within a transformative paradigm and critical pedagogy, that examined the Discourse of the Amplify document and sought to identify any power dynamics ingrained within the discourse of the document. Scrutinising curriculum documents with discourse analysis is not new, and there is a growing number of studies of this sort being undertaken in Australia (for example, Painter & Martin, 2019; Keddie, 2018; Rosiek & Pavlova, 2020) .

The decision to solely focus on the Amplify document was driven by the fact that it serves as the main point of reference for school teachers and leaders with regards to student voice initiatives. It outlines the strategies and methods that should be employed to foster student voice and also represents the DE’s vision for implementing student voice in schools. By analysing this document, we gained a comprehensive understanding of how DE communicated its vision for student voice and identified ways to improve the integration of student voice into the curriculum. Discourse analysis can be employed as a form of curriculum inquiry, as exemplified in Luke (2018)’s review of Australian curriculum inquiry and studies such as that by Clark et al. (2016)’s analysis of the English curriculum and Charteris and Smardon (2015)’s and Bicknell (2019)’s analyses of Technology curricular and Mahon & Zeng (2016)’s focus on civics and citizenship.

Grounded on widespread knowledge of the research and literature on student voice, the analysis involved multiple readings of Amplify and subjecting the entire document to in-depth review and analysis. The research was guided by the aim to investigate how Foundation to Grade 2 students were represented in Amplify and the connection between student voice and issues related to the curriculum.

Results

Amplify, a curriculum perspective

A key focus of this critical discourse analysis was upon identifying who is responsible for the processes and procedures for enacting student voice initiatives in schools and classrooms. All examples of action provided in Amplify began with either the school leader or teacher; this could be viewed as indicating that DE perceived student voice practices as largely adult initiated and directed.

The importance of a cooperative teacher-student relationship is acknowledged, which emphasises the equal significance of students as partners in the learning process (DET, 2019). The cross-curricular capabilities are also mentioned to provide students with the chance to express their opinions, demonstrate autonomy and display leadership skills whilst creating, refining and evaluating their own learning experiences.

Critical analysis of the language used within the Amplify document identified instances of loose language, which detracted from the urgency of requisite focus upon student voice. The analyses revealed the identification of action statements that implied that the resources and programmes within Amplify are not a mandatory practice, apparent through the use of words like: encourage, consider and willing.

Within Amplify and its discussion on student voice benefits, the concluding statements contain the phrase improved student/learning/educational outcomes. This notion could lead the intended reader (teacher and leader) to believe that this is the overriding purpose for conducting student voice. Expanding on this is the limited mention of the human right discourse surrounding student voice. Amplify fails to highlight the importance of a student’s right to have an opinion, and to voice that opinion, which could result in schools enacting inauthentic student voice practices.

Initially, in Amplify, DE defined student voice, agency and leadership through the use of the following quote, ‘Students have a right to be heard. In student-focussed schools, student participation goes beyond students having a voice only through their representation in an SRC or similar body’ (VicSRC 2017 cited in DET, 2019, p. 9). However, further along in the document the discourse on the student representative (SR) model changed with one paragraph heralding a contradictory statement about student leadership and ultimately suggesting a representative model. Student Voice Teams are introduced as a method for hearing from all students through a representative model (2019, p. 19). The expectation is that students, ‘Generate meaningful discussions on behalf of those students whose voices are less likely to be heard, who are disengaged, or who lack the skills and confidence to express views and opinions’ (DET, 2019, p. 24). In effect, DE is stating that a student, no older than nineteen and as young as five would be equipped to speak on behalf of those students who are deemed ineligible to engage in the practice of student voice; an untenable feat.

Amplify, Foundation to Grade 2

The bibliography and professional readings sections of Amplify (DET, 2019, p.30) were analysed to gain insight into the research base and literature that informed the contents of the document. The focus of these analyses was on the representation of young children in each reference, the number of research studies based on work with older children and the inclusion or exclusion of pertinent student voice research literature.

Although Amplify did not specifically comment on student age, a review of its research base illuminated the limited use of literature and research inclusive of students from Foundation to Grade 2 (see Fig. 1). Subsequently, it was found that there was an omission of young children in practical examples provided in Amplify, and the use of quotes and case studies only involved students from Grade 6 (primary school) and beyond.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Student age-range referred to in Amplify’s bibliography and professional readings

Full size image

Within the document, Amplify refers to the Attitudes to School Survey which is a survey all students from Grade 4 to 12 partake in yearly which aids in monitoring student engagement and wellbeing, via state-wide benchmarks for improvement. The Amplify document highlighted the importance of the involvement of students in the analysis of the data taken from the survey. Foundation to Grade 3 students are omitted from this exercise, reinforcing the preclusion of young children in an important data collection process that involves students’ experiences in learning and curriculum perspectives.

Discussion

Amplify establishes connections to the Victorian Curriculum and emphasises a collaborative student–teacher relationship in the design and execution of teaching and learning. However, the programme overlooks the presence of the hidden curriculum, the effects of power dynamics in the classroom, and the individuals who hold decision-making authority regarding what content should be included in students’ education. By reinforcing existing social inequalities and perpetuating systems of power and privilege whilst possibly limiting critical thinking and creativity (Boomer 1982).

Boomer's approach to curriculum negotiation offers an effective model for empowering and promoting student participation and voice in the curriculum design process. However, he acknowledges that this can be a challenging endeavour due to the prevailing societal and institutional structures that do not prioritise such a philosophy, making it difficult for teachers to relinquish their power to students (Boomer 1982). Amplify fails to transfer the centre of control since the authority remains with the teachers and administrators in initiatives that aim to promote student voice in the classroom.

The overall tone of the Amplify document contributes to the discourse of valuing student voice for improved learning outcomes by evading the human rights agenda within student voice initiatives. As previously noted, student voice initiatives must derive from the human right to a voice, thus reflecting authentic and meaningful consultation (Cook-Sather, 2020). Student voice initiatives in schools that tokenistically purport the idea of improving student learning outcomes do not elicit the benefits of schools with effective approaches (such as agency, empowerment and motivation), but instead their students can become complacent and further alienated from teachers and their school (Charteris & Smardon, 2019; Quinn & Owen, 2016).

A key finding from this research illuminated the existence of a gap in the research and exposed that there is limited information and resources currently available for teachers to engage in student voice practices with young children. The analysis revealed that Foundation to Grade 2 students (5–8 years) are inadequately represented in Amplify and unfortunately the information and resources within the document do not provide a holistic interpretation of student voice for all age groups. With Amplify being founded on studies and literature with limited emphasis on the early years of schooling it is not surprising that there is also a clear lack of case study exemplars for this age group. Omitting integral information further perpetuates the discourse that views young children as incapable and unable to engage in the student voice initiatives outlined in the Amplify practice guide. However, we concur that further research in student voice is particularly warranted for early year’s students (5–8 years) in order to help identify meaningful, effective approaches that support children, assist their teachers to improve student voice practices, and that inform the development of valuable student voice related policies, initiatives and resources.

The discourse analysis identified some contradictory messages embedded in the words and language used. For instance, espousing that all students should be given opportunities to engage in voice initiatives, whilst the practical recommendations Amplify outlined for teachers would actually limit this involvement to be for a select few students. This is evident through the advocation of ‘student voice teams’ (DET, 2019, p. 19) that adopt a student representative model, the reference of ‘development stage’ (DET, 2019, p. 18) in relation to a student’s level of engagement in student voice initiatives, and finally, a student’s verbal skills discussed as a limitation for participating in student voice in a meaningful way (DET, 2019, p. 21). To add to this, firstly students need to be supported to use their own voice to express themselves before being expected to represent others.

The results of this critical discourse analysis have contributed to the conversation about student voice, engaging on a deeper level with the literature in Amplify. Student voice is a practice and initiative that needs respectful consideration of all the factors that impact its effectiveness. It is not something that can be accomplished overnight through a non-mandated practice guide. This critical discourse analysis has reinforced the intricacies surrounding student voice from a curriculum perspective. Student voice in the realm of its transformative capabilities requires all stakeholders to harness its potential and is necessary at all levels of (our) education systems and multiple levels of activity including at the Macro, Meso and Micro levels (Thijs et al., 2009). Transformation is required at both ends of the student voice cycle; prior to its inception and as a result of its practice. Amplify may not be enough to initiate and maintain student voice practices, given the complexities of the social and political ideologies within education systems.

The outcomes of this research highlight considerations for future student voice initiative developments for DE and other organisations, and recommendations for potential research. One possibility for DE to enhance the emphasis and discourse on student voice in the curriculum is by integrating and reinforcing it as a curriculum capability across different disciplines. In addition, schools could benefit from partnering with experts in student voice who can offer guidance and support to teachers as they strive to improve their student voice teaching practices and enact a negotiated curriculum within their classrooms (Boomer, 1982).

Furthermore, there is a need for the inclusion of information and resources on developing student voice with young children. Perhaps a section discussing the hundred languages that young children possess and highlighting the multitude of ways young children can share how they see the world (Rinaldi, 2001). Whilst also outlining the complexities of engaging all children in student voice initiatives, with a particular focus on young children’s vulnerability in terms of their development and support the discourse of student voice as a holistic initiative. This is seen through the child-centred Mosaic Approach to student voice (Clark, 2017). Leaders and teachers need to be made aware of the capabilities that young children possess, including the notion that there is not a one size fits all approach to student voice.

With insightful information and a critical lens, leaders and teachers can make judgements on appropriate methods of engaging with young children and their voice. The DE could consider providing an updated version of Amplify to include the above-mentioned suggestions to enhance the Amplify document and student voice initiatives in Victorian government classrooms.

In view of the complexities surrounding student voice and its connection to the human rights agenda, we recommend that the DE should aim to improve the level of education and information about Student Voice provided to school leaders and teachers of all age groups, through revision of the Amplify. School teachers should be encouraged to authentically embed student voice in their classrooms, which may involve curriculum differentiation and enacting a negotiated curriculum with students (Mockler, 2017), to promote student voice and agency, and a more democratic and equitable educational environment.

The limitations of this study relate to time, resources and circumstances beyond the researchers’ control. The study was undertaken in 2021 as a Postgraduate research study, with finite time and resources. However, the authors are hopeful it will contribute to the wider discussions on student voice and prompt transformation through a flow-on effect. This study raises the possibility that the Amplify document alone is not enough to initiate and maintain student voice practices in Victorian government schools. Further research regarding the level of engagement with the Amplify document is needed to assess its effectiveness; in terms of beginning and supporting the implementation of student voice in classrooms. Additionally, given that the use of Amplify and the implementation of its ideas are not mandated, it would be intriguing to find out how many schools in Victoria are utilising the practice guide and to what extent.

To strengthen Student Voice in Victorian schools consideration could be made beyond the professional development of leaders and teachers already working in the school context and attention directed to working with Teacher Education providers to ensure that Student Voice is prioritised as an important area of knowledge for all pre-service teachers. This may include introducing student voice, agency and leadership into the teaching curriculum at a university level. The University of Huddersfield, UK, currently incorporates a learning module titled, Finding a Voice: Children and Young People for all third year under-graduate students studying education (Reid & Kaneva, 2022). The university model covers democracy, voice in young children, ethics and consent, all the whilst addressing the complexities of student voice.

Finally, in light of this study’s findings, we suggest that further research could be conducted to consider how discourses on student voice and agency are represented (or neglected) within the Victorian and/or the Australian Curriculum, or indeed the curriculum education documents of other countries.

The impetus behind this research was in the hope of highlighting how Foundation to Grade 2 students are represented in Amplify and how the DE addresses student voice from a curriculum perspective. We hope that the findings from this research will contribute to the broader discussion of student voice for young students and that we, the educators, recognise the positive impact that hearing from young people will have on society as a whole. Children should be seen and heard.