Student Agency Isn't Something We Give - It's Something We Invite

For the past decade, education has been awash with conversations about student agency. We want young people to become independent learners, self-regulate, think critically and take ownership of their education. Yet despite the rhetoric, many classrooms still operate on an implicit assumption that learning is something done to students rather than with them.

Agency cannot be delivered through a strategy, a worksheet or a display on the classroom wall proclaiming: "Be Independent!" It emerges from relationships, culture and the daily interactions that tell students whether they are trusted, valued and capable. In other words, agency is not simply taught, it is invited.

At the same time, education has become increasingly polarised. We are often asked to choose between knowledge-rich curricula and student-centred learning, between explicit instruction and agency, between codified practice and professional judgement. These are false choices. The most effective classrooms demonstrate that these ideas are not competing philosophies but complementary ones.

This is where four powerful traditions converge: John Hattie's Visible Learning mindframes, William Purkey's Invitational Theory and Practice (ITP), the science of learning, and the growing movement towards responsive teaching. Together they suggest something deceptively simple but profoundly important: students flourish when they experience classrooms that continually communicate, "You are able, you belong, your thinking matters, and we will give you the knowledge and support to succeed."

Agency Begins with Beliefs
Too often, discussions about agency begin with classroom techniques. Should students choose their tasks? Design projects? Lead discussions? While these questions undoubtedly generate lively debate, they are secondary. Before students make meaningful choices, they must first believe those choices matter.

Hattie's work has consistently shown that one of the greatest influences on learning is not any single programme or intervention but the expertise of teachers and the beliefs they hold about learning. His Visible Learning research increasingly emphasises the importance of teachers adopting what he calls mindframes - ways of thinking that shape every interaction with students. Among these mindframes are seeing learning through the eyes of students, evaluating one's own impact, believing that challenge is essential and recognising that errors are opportunities to learn rather than evidence of failure (Hattie, 2023). These are not simply teaching techniques. They are professional dispositions.

A teacher who genuinely seeks to understand learning from the student's perspective naturally creates more opportunities for agency than one who sees learning primarily as curriculum delivery. Likewise, a teacher who constantly evaluates their impact shifts from asking, "Did I teach it?" to "Did they learn it?" That subtle change transforms professional practice. Agency grows where curiosity replaces certainty.

Yet it would be a mistake to confuse agency with minimal guidance or the absence of teacher direction. The science of learning is remarkably clear: novices learn best through explicit instruction, carefully sequenced knowledge, deliberate practice and opportunities to retrieve, rehearse and connect ideas over time (Kirschner, Sweller & Clark, 2006; Rosenshine, 2012). Agency is not diminished by strong teaching; it is enabled by it. Students cannot think critically about ideas they do not yet possess. Nor can they make meaningful choices in a domain where they lack sufficient knowledge to judge between alternatives. Knowledge is not the opposite of agency - it is its foundation.

An Invitation Rather than an Instruction
Long before student voice became a familiar phrase, William Purkey argued that schools continuously send invitations, or disinvitations, to everyone within them.
Invitational Theory and Practice proposes that every interaction communicates one of two messages:

"You are able, valuable and responsible."

or

"You are not."

These messages are rarely delivered explicitly. They are embedded within routines, relationships, language, policies and environments.

Purkey described schools as operating through five interconnected domains: people, places, policies, programmes and processes. Each either invites participation or quietly discourages it.

A beautifully designed curriculum can still become disinviting if students feel they have no influence over it. Equally, an inviting classroom does not abandon curriculum rigour in the name of unlimited choice. A knowledge-rich curriculum offers every learner access to the intellectual inheritance of a discipline. It democratises opportunity by ensuring that every child, regardless of background, gains access to the powerful knowledge that allows them to participate fully in society.

The invitation lies not in lowering expectations but in ensuring that every learner has a genuine pathway into demanding ideas. Agency therefore depends less upon freedom than upon invitation. Students become agents when they experience themselves as trusted contributors rather than passive recipients.

Learning is a Partnership
One of the most significant contributions of Visible Learning has been to reposition feedback. Rather than viewing feedback as information flowing from teacher to student, Hattie argues that expert teachers are equally attentive to the feedback they receive from learners. Every lesson becomes an opportunity to understand what students are thinking.

Again, this aligns remarkably closely with Invitational Theory. If teachers genuinely listen to students' thinking, not simply their answers, they communicate respect. Questions become authentic rather than performative. Assessment becomes dialogue rather than judgement. Students begin to see themselves not as people attempting to satisfy a teacher but as thinkers whose ideas have value.

Learning becomes something constructed together.

This is also where codification has an important role to play. Increasingly, schools are seeking to codify high-quality teaching by making success criteria, disciplinary thinking, routines and learning processes explicit. Done well, codification is not about scripting teachers or reducing teaching to compliance. Rather, it provides clarity. It makes expert thinking visible, establishes a shared language for learning and reduces unnecessary cognitive load for both teachers and students.

Far from limiting professional judgement, codification can strengthen it. When the fundamentals are clear, teachers are freer to notice, interpret and respond to what learners actually need. Structure and responsiveness are not competing ideals; they depend upon one another.

Responsive Teaching is Invitational Teaching
In much of my recent writing, I have argued that responsive teaching is less about adapting resources than adapting relationships. Responsive classrooms anticipate learner variability, notice how students are responding and make thoughtful adjustments that maintain both challenge and belonging. Rather than assuming equality means treating everyone the same, responsive teachers recognise that fairness often requires flexibility.

This mirrors Purkey's belief that genuinely inviting environments acknowledge individual worth while maintaining high expectations. It also reflects Hattie's insistence that expert teachers constantly monitor their impact rather than rigidly adhering to pre-planned lessons.

Responsive teaching therefore becomes the practical expression of both Visible Learning and Invitational Theory.
Instead of asking:

"How closely did I follow the lesson plan?"

teachers begin asking:

"What is this learner showing me?"

and

"What invitation do they need next?"

Sometimes that invitation is greater independence. Sometimes it is temporary scaffolding. Sometimes it is reassurance that struggle is part of learning rather than evidence of inability.
Importantly, responsive teaching sits comfortably alongside the science of learning. Teachers begin with clear instructional design, carefully sequenced curriculum, explicit modelling and well-established routines. They then respond intelligently to the evidence in front of them, adjusting questioning, scaffolds, pace and support without abandoning curricular integrity. Responsiveness is not improvisation. It is informed adaptation grounded in secure curricular knowledge and professional expertise.

Agency is Built Through Trust
Perhaps the greatest misunderstanding surrounding agency is that it means leaving students alone.

In reality, agency requires exceptionally skilful teaching.

Cognitive science reminds us that expertise develops gradually. Working memory is limited, long-term memory provides the foundation for complex thinking, and automaticity frees learners to solve increasingly sophisticated problems. Children are not born knowing how to self-regulate, evaluate evidence or reflect upon their learning. These capacities develop through carefully designed experiences, explicit instruction and thoughtful guidance.

Visible Learning reminds us that challenge must remain central. Invitational Theory reminds us that challenge without encouragement becomes intimidation.
Together they suggest a more nuanced picture.

Students become increasingly autonomous because teachers intentionally create the conditions in which independence becomes possible. Support is not removed prematurely; it is withdrawn thoughtfully. As confidence grows, responsibility grows alongside it.

This is why knowledge-rich curricula and student agency are mutually reinforcing rather than contradictory. The richer a learner's knowledge base becomes, the greater their capacity to question, critique, create and innovate. Freedom without knowledge is superficial. Knowledge without opportunities for agency becomes inert. Great teaching develops both.

Agency is therefore neither permissiveness nor control.

It is guided independence.

If we genuinely wish to develop agency, we cannot simply ask teachers to provide more choice. We must create cultures where teachers themselves experience agency, trust and professional judgement. Inviting schools create inviting classrooms because invitation is contagious. Adults who feel trusted are more likely to trust their pupils. Teachers who are empowered to exercise judgement are more likely to empower young people to do the same.

Education is ultimately an act of hope. Every lesson carries an implicit message about what we believe children are capable of becoming.

Student agency is not another initiative to implement or another framework to audit. It is the natural consequence of classrooms where rigorous curricula, evidence-informed teaching and deeply human relationships come together. It emerges when students repeatedly encounter the same enduring invitation: "You belong here. You are capable of extraordinary things. We will teach you well, challenge you thoughtfully and trust you increasingly, until the learning truly becomes your own."

Dr Haili Hughes is an Associate Professor of Educational Innovation and Impact at La Trobe University in Melbourne, Australia. Prior to this she was the only professor and MAT leader in the UK. She served as a school leader for over 20 years, as well as being an academic and systems leader in education companies. She has written 10 education books and advised the Department for Education on ITT and mentoring. She is an elected councillor at the Chartered College of Teaching and a commissioner at the Teaching Commission. 

References
Hattie, J. (2023). Visible Learning: The Sequel. Routledge.
Hirsch, E. D. (2016). Why Knowledge Matters: Rescuing Our Children from Failed Educational Theories. Harvard Education Press.
Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). "Why Minimal Guidance During Instruction Does Not Work." Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75–86.
Purkey, W. W., & Novak, J. M. (2016). Fundamentals of Invitational Education. International Alliance for Invitational Education.
Rosenshine, B. (2012). "Principles of Instruction: Research-Based Strategies That All Teachers Should Know." American Educator.
Willingham, D. T. (2009). Why Don't Students Like School? Jossey-Bass.

Image by Marta Wave