Leadership can begin at a seemingly fleeting moment within a classroom: a student raises their hand and asks a question that wasn't in the lesson plan, and then waits to see how the teacher will respond. They may receive a quick answer that returns them to the seat of a passive recipient, or they may find a space that encourages them to think, discuss, and participate in finding the answer.

Between the two possibilities lies a deeper difference than just a method of teaching: in the first case, the student learns that knowledge comes to them fully formed by others, while in the second case, they learn that their voice can open a new door to understanding, and that the question they pose may impact the course of the discussion.

From these small experiences, the relationship between youth and leadership begins before they reach councils or assume positions.

The 2026 Youth Report titled 'Leading with Youth' aims to place this idea at the heart of the global discourse on education. The Global Education Monitoring Report team prepared this study in partnership with the United Nations Office for Youth, in an attempt to measure youth and student engagement in educational decision-making worldwide, along with providing recommendations developed with the participation of youth themselves. The report does not stop at asking about the presence of youth within educational institutions but moves to a more sensitive question: do they actually participate in shaping the decisions that affect their learning and future?

Education Made with Youth

The report starts from a fact that is hard to overlook, which is that education primarily concerns youth and students. Therefore, it does not seem logical for policies, curricula, and educational programs to be solely designed by adults, only to ask youth to adapt to the outcomes.

Over the past decades, the presence of youth has become increasingly evident in a number of global issues, as they have pushed for greater accountability and social justice, led movements related to climate, peace, security, and addressing inequality. In this sense, they also play leadership roles within schools, universities, civil organizations, and student movements, advocating for higher quality, equitable, and inclusive education.

From this angle, youth engagement is not merely a decorative addition to the educational system but rather a resource that helps in its development. The student who lives the educational experience daily possesses knowledge that is not always available to policymakers outside the classroom; they know where curricula stumble, when students feel excluded, and how administrative decisions affect learning, well-being, and safety.

However, a paradox arises when institutions theoretically acknowledge the importance of youth but hesitate to grant them a real space in decision-making, allowing them to express their opinions in a survey or meeting without clarifying to them what happened afterward, or how their suggestions were used, or why some were adopted while others were ignored.

From here, listening becomes an activity separate from decision-making, and youth leave the dialogue knowing they spoke, but uncertain whether their voices had any impact.

Encouraging Statistics: An Incomplete Picture

The report's findings reveal a clear advancement in governments' interest in youth participation.

Among the 93 governments that responded to the study, nearly one in three reported having formal requirements for involving youth or students, and a similar group indicated that there were specific mechanisms in place for this purpose. Three-quarters of countries reported that they consulted youth regarding educational legislations and policies.

At first glance, these figures may suggest that youth participation has become a widely adopted institutional practice; however, looking at the experience from the perspective of youth organizations presents a less complete picture.

Among 101 youth and student organizations that responded to the study, most expressed a strong desire to influence educational policies and represent youth voices. At the same time, they indicated the limitations of their voice, visibility, and ability to influence, noting that their role typically does not persist through policy design, implementation, follow-up, and evaluation phases.

Therefore, we conclude that the problem does not always lie in the absence of youth from the scene, but rather in the nature of the presence available to them. They may be invited to the beginning, only to have their role diminish when the idea moves to budgeting, implementation, or measuring results.

This reveals an important distinction between participation as an event and participation as an extended responsibility; the event ends when the meeting concludes, whereas responsibility entails that youth remain part of the journey from defining the problem to reviewing the impact of the decision.

Presence and Impact

The report presents positive indicators of the growing interest of governments in youth participation issues. Numerous countries are working to develop more ambitious policies to engage them on topics such as curriculum building, promoting inclusivity, supporting well-being, mental health, and school safety.

As these efforts expand, the need to redefine their objective becomes apparent; it is not just required for youth to appear in the accompanying images of initiatives, or to be asked to support decisions that have already been outlined.

In this context, meaningful participation begins when they are able to discuss the problem before a solution is adopted, when they have the necessary information to form an informed opinion, and when they have a clear path to reach decision-makers.

On this basis, the relationship between generations becomes a central element in the success of participation, as involving youth does not mean excluding the accumulated experience of adults, and respecting expertise does not justify restricting leadership to one generation. The most capable learning system is one that combines the expertise of those who came before with the knowledge of those experiencing the new reality and the ambitions of those who will bear the consequences of decisions in the future.

When youth lead alongside other decision-makers, it is possible to build an education more connected to community needs, more capable of gaining students' trust, and closer to achieving quality and justice. However, reaching this outcome requires a shared conviction from governments, educational institutions, civil organizations, and the youth themselves that participation is not a temporary concession but part of managing education.

What Does Meaningful Participation Need?

The first step is to transform youth participation from a spur-of-the-moment effort associated with an initiative or an enthusiastic individual into a stable institutional mechanism. The report suggests establishing clear requirements in legislations and regulations to ensure the presence of youth and students in the development of new educational laws and policies.

Conversely, the existence of legislative text alone does not guarantee the quality of participation, but it prevents treating it as an option that can be overlooked, while also helping to define responsibilities and providing youth with a basis to refer to when opportunities for participation are not available.

Next comes the quality of the process itself; meaningful participation needs accessible channels, representation that reflects the diversity of youth, sufficient time for preparation, and resources to help participants understand the issues at hand. In the same vein, roles and objectives should be clear, and youth should feel safe expressing themselves, knowing how their opinions affected the final outcome.

Without these elements, participation becomes a test of youth's ability to cope with procedures designed without considering their circumstances, and they may be asked to attend long meetings, read complex documents, or discuss issues for which they haven't received enough information. At that point, the invitation may be open in form, while actual participation remains limited to a small group with time, experience, and resources.

The next step concerns maintaining the role after the decision is adopted, similar to involving youth and student organizations in implementation and follow-up, not just in the design phase. This extension helps build trust, gives youth a sense of shared ownership, and allows institutions to identify the gap between what was planned and what happens on the ground.

Additionally, participation requires skills that need to be intentionally built; thus, the report recommends allocating sufficient space for civic skills within curricula, while providing the necessary resources to develop the capacities of youth and student organizations.

Consequently, it is not enough for youth to express a desire to participate when they lack the tools to read policies, analyze data, make proposals, or negotiate priorities.

Why Is This Important for Nonprofit Organizations?

These questions are not limited to schools, universities, and ministries; even nonprofit organizations working with youth face the same test when designing their programs and initiatives.

The organization may conduct a survey to assess the needs of young beneficiaries and then move directly to building the program without involving them in analyzing the results. They might include a young person in an advisory committee, but the agenda, topics, and decisions remain entirely dictated by adults.

They may listen to participants' opinions after the initiative concludes, without giving them a role in reviewing the model or determining what should be changed; such practices achieve a degree of listening but do not elevate youth to a position of partnership.

Therefore, organizations should ask themselves: at what stage do youth enter the decision-making pathway? Do they receive the same information as other participants? Do they have a genuine ability to adjust priorities? Does their role continue even into measuring impact?

The answers vary depending on the nature of the organization and its programs, but the principle remains the same: it is not enough for youth to be subjects of the initiative, they should become stakeholders in its formation.

This shift can enhance the quality of the programs themselves, as youth can uncover assumptions that teams may overlook; they can also provide a different interpretation of the language used, suitable channels, barriers to access, and indicators that truly reflect change in their lives.

Instead of designing a complete project and then presenting it to them, the organization can engage a group of them in defining the problem. After that, they can invite them to review the options and then define clear roles for them during implementation, bringing them back to the discussion table when analyzing results.

In this way, participation shifts from a one-time event to a series of interconnected responsibilities.

Leadership Before Position

Youth and student organizations participated in all stages of preparing the report, starting from developing surveys, producing graphics and awareness materials, to reviewing some of the outputs. The report team also engaged with hundreds of youth and student organizations to build a global picture of the reality of participation in educational decisions.

This approach gives the report a degree of consistency with its message; it not only calls for building policies with youth but also attempts to make them a part of the process that produced knowledge about their participation.

Ultimately, youth leadership does not begin when one receives a leadership title, nor when they first sit around a council table, but it begins long before that; the moment they discover that their voice is taken seriously, that their opinion can change a direction, and that their participation doesn't end with the conversation.

Thus, the question posed by a student in the classroom may be more than an attempt to understand the lesson—it serves as early training for independent thinking, expressing opinions, and engaging in dialogue with others. When this question finds an environment that welcomes it with respect, the student realizes that leadership is not an entitlement waiting for them in the future, but a practice that begins now.

From here, the real challenge is not how to give youth space to speak, but how to build institutions that can transform their voices into knowledge, their knowledge into participation, and their participation into impact.

Source: Translation and adaptation from the article 'It’s time to Lead with youth' published in the Global Education Blog, based on the 2026 Youth Report issued by the Global Education Monitoring Report team in partnership with the United Nations Office for Youth.