Governments consult the public on educational decisions—curriculum changes, school closures, funding priorities, policy directions. These consultations promise public input into decisions affecting communities. But do they deliver? Critics charge that consultations often function as political theatre—providing appearance of public engagement while decisions proceed unaffected by input. When consultations are genuine, they shape outcomes; when they're theatre, they waste participant time and breed cynicism. Understanding how to distinguish meaningful consultation from performance matters for anyone deciding whether to engage.
The Consultation Promise
Democratic governance suggests citizens should have voice in decisions affecting them. Education affects everyone—students, families, communities, society. Public input into educational decisions seems appropriate; consultation processes promise to provide it. Governments announce consultations claiming to want public views before deciding.
Consultation can improve decisions. Decision-makers don't know everything; public input can surface information, perspectives, and concerns they'd otherwise miss. Communities affected by decisions understand local circumstances better than distant officials. Genuine consultation brings this knowledge into decision-making.
Legitimacy benefits flow from consultation even when input doesn't change outcomes. Decisions made after hearing from affected communities carry more legitimacy than decisions imposed without engagement. People accept decisions more readily when they've had opportunity to be heard, even if outcomes aren't what they preferred.
When Consultation Becomes Theatre
Predetermined outcomes make consultation performative. When decisions are effectively made before consultation, public input can't influence them. Consultation then becomes justification ritual—checking boxes, creating records, claiming engagement occurred—without actual influence. This happens more often than governments acknowledge.
Consultation timing reveals intent. Meaningful consultation happens early, when options remain open and input can shape direction. Late consultation—after proposals are developed, budgets set, and stakeholders aligned—may influence details but not fundamental direction. Timing indicates whether consultation is meant to inform or legitimate.
Narrow framing limits input. If consultation questions presuppose certain answers, exclude certain options, or don't allow challenging fundamental premises, input is constrained to acceptable boundaries. This framing permits input within bounds while protecting predetermined directions from challenge.
Selective hearing uses consultation to validate preferences while ignoring opposing input. Governments can cite supportive feedback while dismissing critical input as unrepresentative, misinformed, or ideologically motivated. This selective citation creates appearance of consultation responsiveness while ignoring inconvenient input.
Signs of Genuine Consultation
Visible influence demonstrates genuine consultation. When consultation input visibly affects outcomes—changing proposals, modifying plans, addressing concerns—consultation clearly matters. Tracing input to outcome shows consultation wasn't theatre.
Early timing enables influence. Genuine consultation happens before decisions are made, while options remain open. Consultation that precedes proposal development—asking what should be done, not just reacting to what's proposed—indicates intent to be informed by input.
Open framing allows substantive input. Consultations that ask genuinely open questions, allow challenge to premises, and don't predetermine acceptable responses enable meaningful engagement. Framing that permits only variations on predetermined themes isn't genuine.
Explanation of how input was used closes the loop. Genuine consultation reports back—what input was received, how it was considered, what changes resulted, why some input wasn't adopted. This accountability for consultation responses demonstrates that input was taken seriously.
Educational Consultation Patterns
Curriculum consultations recur with curriculum changes. Provinces announce review processes, gather feedback through various mechanisms, and eventually release new curriculum. How much this curriculum reflects consultation versus predetermined direction varies. Some curriculum processes seem genuinely consultative; others use consultation to validate decisions made elsewhere.
School closure consultations frequently frustrate communities. When boards announce potential closures and consult affected communities, outcomes often feel predetermined. Communities invest significant effort opposing closures; closures often proceed anyway. Whether this reflects genuine consideration finding closure necessary or predetermined decisions unaffected by input is often unclear.
Budget consultations may influence priorities but within constrained totals. If overall funding is insufficient, consultation about allocation choices doesn't address adequacy. Asking where to cut when cutting itself isn't questioned limits consultation's scope to choices among inadequate options.
Policy consultations vary enormously. Some are genuine inquiries seeking direction; others are validation exercises for determined policies. Distinguishing requires attention to timing, framing, and subsequent responsiveness.
Why Theatre Happens
Political protection motivates consultation theatre. Claiming public engagement provides cover for decisions; governments can say they consulted even if consultation didn't matter. This political benefit from appearance of engagement creates incentive for theatrical consultation.
Conflict avoidance drives some consultations. Governments may prefer to proceed without engagement but recognize backlash from doing so. Consultation that doesn't change outcomes but reduces backlash serves political purposes even when substantively empty.
Process requirements mandate consultation. Legal or policy requirements may require consultation without specifying quality. Compliance-driven consultation satisfies requirements without necessarily influencing decisions. Doing what's required differs from doing what's meaningful.
Time and resource constraints limit genuine engagement. Meaningful consultation takes time and resources that may conflict with decision timelines and budgets. Cutting corners on consultation may not reflect intention to ignore input but practical constraints on doing consultation well.
Effects of Theatrical Consultation
Cynicism develops when consultation fails repeatedly. Communities that invest in consultations that don't affect outcomes learn not to bother. This cynicism reduces participation in future consultations, even ones that might be genuine. Theatrical consultation poisons the well for meaningful engagement.
Trust erodes when governments claim engagement that doesn't exist. People recognize when their input is ignored despite claims otherwise. This recognition damages trust in government processes generally, beyond particular consultations. Repeated theatrical consultation breeds broad distrust.
Better-resourced participants advantage increases in theatrical consultation. When consultation is performative, those who understand political dynamics can play the game better than those who take consultation at face value. Naïve participants invest effort that sophisticated participants know is wasted. This dynamic advantages the already-advantaged.
Improving Consultation Practice
Earlier engagement enables genuine influence. Consulting before proposals crystallize, when direction is genuinely uncertain, creates conditions for input to matter. This requires consulting when decisions are less formed, accepting greater uncertainty in exchange for genuine engagement.
Transparency about constraints acknowledges reality. If some parameters are fixed, saying so enables input on genuinely open questions. Pretending everything is open when it isn't sets up theatrical consultation; acknowledging constraints enables focused engagement on matters actually subject to influence.
Accountability for responsiveness creates pressure for genuine engagement. Requiring explicit explanation of how input influenced outcomes—or why it didn't—creates accountability that pure process compliance doesn't. This accountability shifts focus from whether consultation occurred to whether it mattered.
Diverse engagement methods reach different publics. Public meetings reach some people; online platforms reach others; targeted outreach reaches still others. Consultation that relies on single methods captures some voices while missing others. Genuine engagement requires multiple methods suited to different participants.
Questions for Consideration
What educational consultations have you participated in or observed? Did they seem genuine or theatrical? What indicated which?
How do you decide whether to invest time in consultation processes? What would make you more or less likely to participate?
What would genuinely meaningful consultation on educational decisions look like? How would it differ from current practice?
What accountability should exist for consultation quality? What consequences should follow when consultation is merely theatrical?
How can communities distinguish genuine consultation opportunities from theatrical ones before investing effort?