A student suggests changes to assignment format that would help her learn better—and her teacher listens. Another requests accommodations for anxiety without waiting for adults to identify his needs. Another sits on a committee shaping school policy, her perspective influencing decisions that affect her education. Student voice—the expression of student perspectives in matters affecting them—and self-advocacy—students' ability to articulate their own needs—shape both immediate educational experience and long-term capability development.
What Student Voice Means
Student voice involves students expressing views about their education and having those views influence decisions. This can range from informal classroom influence (students shaping what happens in their learning) through structured feedback mechanisms (surveys, focus groups) to formal governance participation (student councils with actual authority). The degree to which student voice actually affects decisions varies from tokenism to genuine power-sharing.
The rationale for student voice includes multiple arguments. Students have direct knowledge of their learning experiences that adults lack. Decisions made with student input may be better decisions. Students learn democratic participation by practicing it. Respect for students as persons requires attending to their perspectives. Each rationale suggests somewhat different approaches to implementing voice.
The Canadian context includes specific legal foundations. The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, ratified by Canada, recognizes children's right to express views in matters affecting them (Article 12). Various provincial education acts include provisions for student input. These legal frameworks establish expectation of student voice even where implementation falls short.
Forms of Student Voice
Classroom-level voice involves students influencing their immediate learning experiences. This might include input on assignment topics, participation in setting classroom norms, choice among learning activities, or feedback on teaching approaches. The most direct form of voice affects the experiences students have daily.
School-level voice involves student participation in school-wide decisions. Student councils represent one form, though their actual authority varies from meaningful governance to planning social events. Student representatives on committees, student input on policy development, and student participation in hiring processes represent stronger forms of school-level voice.
System-level voice involves students in broader educational governance. Student trustees on school boards (required in Ontario, for example) provide system-level student perspective. Student representatives on provincial advisory bodies, student testimony at legislative hearings, and student involvement in curriculum review processes extend voice to systemic decisions.
Self-Advocacy as Skill
Self-advocacy involves individuals articulating their own needs and pursuing appropriate accommodations. This includes recognizing one's needs, knowing available supports, communicating needs effectively, and following up when supports aren't provided. Self-advocacy is a skill that develops with practice and support—it's not automatic.
Self-advocacy matters particularly for students with disabilities, who may need accommodations throughout their lives. Students who learn to advocate for themselves in school develop capabilities transferable to post-secondary education, employment, and community life. Dependence on others to identify and arrange accommodations limits long-term self-determination.
Teaching self-advocacy involves both skill development and opportunity provision. Students need to understand their own needs, learn language for describing them, practice articulating requests, and experience responses that reinforce advocacy. They also need environments where self-advocacy is welcomed rather than punished—where asking for what you need is encouraged rather than seen as demanding or difficult.
Barriers to Voice and Self-Advocacy
Multiple barriers limit student voice effectiveness. Power imbalances mean students risk consequences for speaking up, particularly when voice involves critique of adults. Time constraints in packed school days leave little space for consultation. Genuine listening requires adults who value student perspectives—not universal among educators. Structural arrangements may not include mechanisms for voice to matter.
Representativeness challenges affect organized student voice. Student councils may attract particular student types—academically engaged, socially confident, conventionally successful—whose perspectives may not represent broader student bodies. Students whose voices most need hearing—marginalized, struggling, alienated—may be least likely to participate in formal voice structures.
Self-advocacy faces its own barriers. Students may not know their rights or available supports. Asking for help may feel shameful or risky. Experiences of being dismissed may discourage future advocacy. Cultural norms in some communities may discourage children from questioning adult authority. Disability or mental health challenges may directly impair advocacy capacity.
Authentic Voice Versus Tokenism
The distinction between authentic voice (genuine influence) and tokenism (appearance of voice without power) matters for evaluating voice initiatives. Authentic voice involves students influencing actual decisions. Tokenism involves consulting students after decisions are made, featuring student perspectives without considering them, or creating voice structures without authority.
Indicators of authentic voice include: students involved early in decision processes, not just asked to react; student input visibly influencing outcomes; students holding actual authority in defined domains; adults accountable for responding to student perspectives. Where these indicators are absent, voice initiatives may be tokenistic regardless of stated intentions.
Moving from tokenism to authenticity requires power redistribution. Adults must cede some authority to students. Institutions must create space for student influence. Decision processes must be restructured to incorporate student perspectives. This redistribution challenges adult control—which may explain why tokenism often persists despite voice rhetoric.
Building Capacity for Voice
Students don't automatically know how to exercise voice effectively. Skills like articulating perspectives clearly, listening to others, working through disagreement, and participating in governance processes require development. Schools can intentionally build these capacities through instruction, practice, and scaffolded participation.
Safe practice environments allow students to develop voice skills without high stakes. Classroom discussions where diverse perspectives are welcomed. Student-led activities where youth exercise leadership. Advisory groups where students practice consultation. These opportunities build capacity that transfers to higher-stakes contexts.
Adult support enables student voice development. Adults who mentor student leaders, who facilitate rather than dominate discussions, and who create space for authentic participation contribute to voice capacity. Adult support is different from adult control—it enables rather than directs student voice.
Questions for Consideration
How much genuine influence do students have over their educational experiences in local schools? What distinguishes authentic student voice from tokenism? How should schools teach self-advocacy skills? What barriers prevent students from advocating for their own needs, and how might those barriers be reduced?