Models and levels of participation Sample Clauses

Models and levels of participation. As with definitions of pupil voice, numerous models have been formulated to help explain participation and translate the UNCRC into practice (Xxxxxxxx, 1969; Xxxx, 1992; Xxxxxxxx, 1997; Xxxxx, 2001; Xxxx et al, 2011). I find these efforts problematic without a universal language and agreed terminology. I reference here three models commonly mentioned in literature with regards to children’s education – Xxxx’x Ladder of Participation (Xxxx, 1992; Appendix A); Treseder’s Degrees of Participation (Xxxxxxxx, 1997; Appendix B) and Xxxxx’x Pathways to Participation (Xxxxx, 2001; Appendix C). Xxxx’x Ladder, derived from Xxxxxxxx’x (Xxxx, 1992), presents a hierarchy of eight levels or degrees of participation. Xxxxxxxx (1998) finds Xxxx’x Ladder a powerful tool for evaluating participation. However, Reddy and Ratna (2002) criticise its sequential nature, arguing that this suggests that one level may be superior to another, implying the need to aim for the top. Xxxx (1996) and Reddy and Ratna disagree with Xxxxxxxx, contending that Xxxx’x Ladder still relies on adult-granted access to these levels, describing adults’ role in relation to children’s participation, from resistance to facilitation (Reddy and Ratna, 2002). This is a position Xxxx later came to agree with (Xxxx, 2008). This echoes Xxxxxxx’x criticism of an adult-derived and translated UNCRC (Xxxxxxx, 2018) and the sentiments of Xxxxx-Xxxxx and Xxxxxx (2010) that little change results from adult-led participation . Xxxxx’x Pathways differ from Xxxx’x Ladder in that Xxxx’x first three non-participatory levels are absent and for the remaining five, Xxxxx sets three stages of commitment each – openings, opportunities and obligations. At every level, his three stages ask questions which can be used for self- and organisational evaluation, to further develop participation, one of the goals of this research. Xxxxx also contends that participants are unlikely to occupy a single level and may be at different levels and stages and at different positions regarding different tasks (Xxxxx, 2001). In later evaluations, Xxxx concurred with this criticism of his Ladder (Xxxx, 2008). Though Xxxxx’x pathways are developed from Xxxx’x Ladder (Xxxxx, 2001), Xxxxx points out that his levels are not sequential and to be regarded as types rather than levels of participation (ibid). Treseder’s Degrees of Participation model (see Appendix B) rejects the hierarchical typology of Xxxx’x Ladder and the linear appearance Xxxxx’x Pat...