Youth Voice Journal http://youthvoicejournal.com/ Student Voice:
A Field Coming of Age by Jerusha O. Conner Youth Voice Journal
2015- Online The online version of this article can be found here:
Published by: The IARS International Institute Hard copies of Youth
Voice Journal are available to purchase
athttp://iars.org.uk/content/youthvoicejournal Each year, IARS
members will receive a collection of articles and book reviews from
the Youth Voice Journal in a glossy printed format for free as part
of their membership. Join us today as an IARS member. Full
membership package and details at
http://www.iars.org.uk/content/join-us-member. For more
information: [email protected] 2015 THE IARS INTERNATIONAL
INSTITUTEARTICLE Jerusha O. Conner Student Voice: A Field Coming of
Age Published in the Youth Voice Journal, June 2015
http://youthvoicejournal.com/ IARS 2015
ISSN (online): 2056 2969 Jerusha O. Conner Abstract Purpose. In
the last two decades, the term student voice has entered the
everyday vocabulary of educators, and student voice initiatives are
proliferating around the world.As researchers attempt to keep pace
with these new developments, it is imperative that they unify
around shared definitions, terminology, and frameworks.This
manuscript is designed to support such an effort. Approach. The
paper offers a thematic and theoretical review, drawing on existing
research. Findings. Based on a comprehensive literature review, the
paper constructs a clear overarching definition of student voice
and clarifies the relationships between student voice and other
fields in which the terminology of student voice features
prominently. The paper also examines similarities and differences
in existing student voice frameworks and proposes a new framework
that delineates two important dimensions of student voice,
heretofore under-theorized in relation to each other in the
literature: power and preparation. Implications. The paper raises
implications for practitioners, policymakers, and researchers who
seek to understand what student voice is and how to support it.
ARTICLE Jerusha O. Conner Value. This paper fills a void in the
field by articulating and applying a parsimonious overarching
definition of student voice. In addition, its table reviewing
extant conceptualizations of student voice will be a useful
resource for scholars seeking to trace various developments and
important ideas in the field. The new framework the paper proposes
can serve as a guide for future research and practice. Keywords:
Student voice; student engagement; student participation; student
rights
________________________________________________________________
Corresponding Author: Jerusha O. Conner, 302 St. Augustine Center,
Villanova University. 800 Lancaster Ave. Villanova, PA 19085,
U.S.A. 001-610-519-3083 (phone) 001-610-519-4623 (fax)
[email protected] Introduction Student voice has become
a popular term over the course of the last two decades as scholars,
teachers, administrators, and funders have increasingly embraced
the view that students have unique perspectives and important
insights to offer about how schools and classrooms can be improved
to support their learning and development.Spurred in large part by
the 1989 United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child
(UNCRC), student voice has become institutionalized in such
countries as Canada as well as in England and Australia, where it
is termed pupil voice (Cook-Sather, 2014). Student voice is also
gaining momentum in the U.S.. As the field of student voice expands
and as this research is marshaled to demonstrate to policymakers
the benefits associated with involving students in educational
decision-making, the time is right to step back and review the
research--what it has accomplished and how it can be strengthened
moving forward. ARTICLE Jerusha O. Conner The current generation of
student voice research is marked by several strengths.Most notably,
it has achieved a strong balance between empirical and theoretical
pieces, and increasingly, researchers are integrating theoretical
considerations and conceptual frameworks into their analyses and
discussions of data.Student voice research spans the education
continuum from K-16.It has been studied in urban, rural, and
suburban school contexts, across whole schools and among specific
special interest groups, such as students with disabilities (Byrnes
& Rickards, 2011) and young men of color (College Board
Advocacy & Policy Center, 2011).There is a wide body of
research on student voice in various national contexts as well,
including Kenya, Tanzania, China, Sweden, and Brazil (Czerniawski
& Kidd, 2011). Despite the fact that student voice research has
advanced rapidly in the last two decades and much is now known
about the processes and products of student voice, the field lacks
a unifying definition.The wide array of sometimes contravening
definitions can lead to confusion and fuzzy conceptualizations, and
the field runs the risk of reducing student voice to a catch-all
term that is ultimately empty and devoid of precise meaning.Indeed,
Hadfield and Haw (2001) warned of this possibility more than a
decade ago when they wrote, There is a danger of [voice] becoming a
buzz term that loses much of its original meaning (p. 485).
Furthermore, the field is cluttered with an array of terms, many of
which appear to be synonymous: youth/student participation,
youth/student decision-making, student involvement, student
empowerment, learner voice, pupil voice, youth/student engagement,
and youth-adult partnerships.There is little consistency or clarity
in how these terms are used and how they are differentiated from
one another within the field. In what follows, I attend to these
issues by proposing a clear overarching definition of student
voice, based on extant literature, by reviewing and comparing
existing models and ARTICLE Jerusha O. Conner typologies of student
voice, and by introducing an additional conceptual framework to
guide future research.What is Student Voice? Alison Cook-Sather
(2006) contends that there can be no simple, fixed definition or
explication of the term [student voice] (p. 363); nonetheless,
student voice has been defined in many ways by various researchers.
(See Table 1.)Common to these definitions is the idea that student
voice encompasses a range of activities (Fielding & McGregor,
2005, p. 2; Toshalis & Nakkula, 2012, p. 23) by which students
can actively participate in conversations about the school-related
issues that affect them; however, some theorists argue that student
voice is not limited to actions or activities and can include
students perspectives as well (Cook-Sather, 2002; Fletcher, 2005).
Certainly, student voice can be understood as a subset of youth
voice. Drawing on the definitions in Table 1, I understand student
voice as a strategy that engages students in sharing their views on
their school or classroom experiences in order to promote
meaningful change in educational practice or policy and alter the
positioning of students in educational settings.In other words,
student voice efforts have three primary goals: 1) to share
students perspectives on core educational matters with adults; 2)
to call for reform that the students feel will better address the
learning needs of themselves and their peers; and 3) to change the
social construction of students in the school or in the school
system from passive and powerless to agentive and powerful (Conner,
Ebby-Rosin, & Brown, 2015).The latter two goals differentiate
student voice initiatives from efforts designed simply to solicit
students accounts or analyses of their schooling
experiences.Student voice spans at least five fields: student
leadership; student activism and organizing; youth participatory
action research; service-learning and student expression. In these
ARTICLE Jerusha O. Conner fields student voice figures prominently,
either as a term or as a set of principles and activities. Though
student voice encompasses a variety of activities, not all
activities in these five arenas can be counted as examples of
student voice.Only those activities designed to advance the three
goals articulated above (sharing students perspectives on
educational matters; articulating reform possibilities; and
repositioning students) can be considered emblematic of student
voice.In what follows, I offer examples of activities in each of
the five fields that do and do not meet the student voice criteria
I set out.Youth LeadershipThe field of youth leadership encompasses
both school-based programs and opportunities, such as student
government, and community-based youth development programs that
seek to build young peoples capacities as leaders.Because student
voice activities are often designed to promote youth leadership
(Mitra & Kirshner, 2012), the two terms are sometimes used
interchangeably, and students engaged in student voice initiatives
are often referred to as student leaders or youth leaders (see, for
example, Mitra, 2008, p. 45).Within schools, leadership
opportunities are often limited to participation in school clubs or
the student government.Scholars of student voice have sought to
distinguish student voice work from efforts undertaken by student
government, such as raising funds or negotiating special dress up
days, carnivals, or dances (McMahon, 2012, p. 34).Although all
three student voice goals articulated above would mark such
prototypical student government undertakings as distinct from
student voice, the first goal offers perhaps the easiest test to
apply to these cases.Student government activities like these
provide neither an opportunity for students to think about and
reflect on educational issues that affect their learning
experiences, nor a mechanism for them to share their perspectives
with adults in the school.By contrast, Montpelier High ARTICLE
Jerusha O. Conner Schools Solon Circle, a regular meeting space in
which students can voice concerns and ideas about school curriculum
and policy and share in decision-making with adults is an example
of a governance structure that embraces student voice (Evans,
2009).Such structures, however, remain rare.Pautsch (2010), for
example, finds that student councils are entrenched in the
tradition of being a vehicle only for certain (social) events, even
when challenged and supported by administrators and educators to
facilitate opportunities for more meaningful and authentic student
voice (p. 151). Youth Organizing and ActivismYouth organizing is a
strategy that builds the collective capacity of youth to challenge
and transform the institutions in their communities to make them
more responsive to the developmental needs and aspirations of young
people, particularly low-income youth of color.Youth organizing
overlaps with youth leadership because one of its central goals is
to develop leaders.It also aims to create meaningful institutional
change and to alter power relations between youth and adults.Youth
organizing groups may choose different focal areas, such as
criminal justice, food security, or environmental justice. Though
these activities exemplify youth voice, they do not constitute
student voice unless the organizers campaigns focus explicitly on
educational issues. Student voice is a popular term among youth
organizers working on educational reform.The U.S.-based Boston
Student Advisory Council, which was founded as a result of
student-led organizing in the 1970s, describes itself as a citywide
group of student leaders who strive to increase student voice and
engagement in education policy at the school, district, and
national levels (Boston Student Advisory Council, 2012, p. 153). In
Chile, student organizers have claimed their right to student
voice; their Social Agreement for Chilean Education," a set of
ARTICLE Jerusha O. Conner demands related to educational reform,
calls for repealing laws that forbid students from participating in
university government (McSherry & Mejia, 2011). Youth-led
Participatory Action Research Youth-led participatory action
research (YPAR), a branch of participatory action research, is
research conducted in youth-adult collaboration on issues that
directly impact the lives of those involved in the research
(Cammarota & Fine, 2008; Gavrielides, 2014; McIntyre,
2008).YPAR is a common strategy of youth organizers.In YPAR, the
youth researchers are involved in every step of the process, from
research-question formation, to method selection, to data
collection and analysis, to the dissemination of findings
(Kirshner, 2010). Fundamental to the YPAR process is the
recognition that each member of the research team brings valuable
indigenous knowledge to the study (Duncan-Andrade & Morrell,
2008).In this way, YPAR differs from traditional research because
in YPAR, those whose backs research has historically been carried
on are instead researched alongside (Tuck, Allen, Baha, Morales,
Quinter, Thompson, & Tuck, 2008, p. 50).YPAR also seeks to
drive action, to enable the transformation of systems that
influence the problem or issue studied (Cammarota & Fine, 2008;
Kirshner, 2010; Rodriguez & Brown, 2009).As Duncan-Andrade and
Morrell (2008) write, YPAR is not just research intended to
understand problems; it is a research process designed to intervene
in problems, to make them go away (p. 109). All YPAR projects are
necessarily emblematic of youth voice, but YPAR projects can
facilitate student voice when students are members of the research
team and when the topic of research pertains to core education
issues.When this occurs, YPAR enables education [to be] something
students do- instead of something being done to them, (Cammarota
& Fine, 2008, p. 10).YPAR projects have been conducted at the
school level (Mitra, 2008), the city/district level ARTICLE Jerusha
O. Conner (Duncan-Andrade & Morrell, 2008), and the national
level (Garcia, Agbemakplido, Abdela, Lopez, & Registe, 2006).
For example, Voight (2014) studied three YPAR projects implemented
in an urban middle school to address issues of disruptive students,
bullying, and a lack of engaging leaning activities. He described
these projects as school-based student voice initiatives (p. 3). By
contrast, YPAR projects that tackle community problems, such as
aggressive policing practices, though important, represent youth
voice, rather than student voice. Youth Expression and Youth Media
Youth expression refers to products created by young people,
including artistic renderings, documentaries, and creative and
expository writing, which showcase their viewpoints and
perspectives.The term voice features prominently in this field,
where it is often used to refer to the individuals personal style
or mode of communication. Youth media is a form of youth expression
that has an intended audience and is meant for wide
distribution.The term youth media has a broad history, referring at
various points to teaching about media, teaching through media,
media consumed by youth, and media produced by youth (Soep &
Chavez, 2010).Today, youth media most often refers to the wide
array of media developed, published and produced by youth (often in
youth-adult partnership) (Soep & Chavez, 2010).References to
voice are common throughout the field of youth media as youth media
organizations provide a platform for collective activity that
builds and broadcasts a critical mass of youth voices (Soep &
Chavez, 2010, p. 15).In the context of youth media, youth voice
often refers to self-expression through the communication of ones
point of view (Kotilainen, 2009).Yet Soep and Chavez (2010)
differentiate point of view, which suggests a way of seeing from
point of voice, which demands strategic expression, provocation,
and action (p. 16).It is the latter of these two, point of voice,
that best exemplifies student voice ARTICLE Jerusha O. Conner when
the author or creator is a student, when the topic is
education-related, and when reform is called for and action is
proposed.Maceo Bradleys (2015) essay on truancy tickets, originally
published in LA Youth, an online magazine written by and for teens,
offers a case in point. In the essay, Bradley describes his
experience receiving a ticket for arriving late to school and his
subsequent organizing work to change district policy. Bradley
discusses how he and his peers educated themselves about the
policy, and how they prepared to testify before City Council about
its impact: If we only complained about the truancy tickets they'd
probably think we wanted to get rid of the ticket policy just so we
could be late. I wanted them to know how scared I felt when I got
the ticket, how it made me feel like a juvenile delinquent, and how
worried my mom and I were about getting a $250 fine. That could be
money we used to pay bills or buy groceries. Although the Council
did not eliminate truancy tickets entirely after hearing from the
youth activists, Bradley writes that he was encouraged that they
decided to issue warnings to students twice before imposing fines.
His essay is intended to demonstrate the power of student voice in
education reform and galvanize other students to take similar
action to address injustices in their schooling. He concludes his
piece with a direct plea to his peers: If you see a problem in your
community you should stand up for what you believe is right,
because you aren't alone. When the content the youth produce
focuses on educational matters, it becomes possible to switch the
modifier of voice from youth to student; however, voice, as I
conceptualize it, only overlaps with expression or media when the
other two goals identified in my proposed definition are also
animated.Students accounts of their experiences in schools penned
in their journals, in essays for English class, in articles in
student newspapers or articulated on radio or video segments do not
amount to student voice if they neither engage in an explicit
discussion of ARTICLE Jerusha O. Conner reform possibilities nor
work in some way to empower students relative to adults.Such
narratives represent student expression and showcase student
perspective, rather than student
voice.Service-learningService-learning is an approach to teaching
that links formal, classroom-based education to community
service.Students learn about real-world problems or issues not only
through readings or lectures but also through first-hand
experiences in communities.Reflection is a hallmark of
service-learning, as students learn to make sense of their
experiences and to integrate the knowledge they gain from the field
with the knowledge they gain from more traditional curricular
resources.Service-learning projects can be designed and implemented
in a wide variety of ways, and several scholars draw important
distinctions among the orientations and approaches utilized in
service-learning (Furco, 1996; Mitchell, 2008).Student voice has
been identified as one of seven elements of high-quality
service-learning (RMC, 2007).In this context, student voice refers
to the active participation of students in the choice, planning,
and implementation of the service project (Fredericks, Kaplan &
Zeisler, 2001).In other words, student voice in service-learning
involves students input into the curriculum and the shape of their
learning experience.RMC Research Corporation (2007) finds a growing
trend toward increasing youth voice in service-learning (para. 1),
and numerous scholars have written about the benefits that can
accrue both to students and to the community when students have a
voice in their service-learning program (Billig, 2000; Borrero,
Conner, & Mejia, 2012; Fredericks, Kaplan, & Zeisler, 2001;
Middaugh, 2012); however, not all service-learning projects meet
this standard.ARTICLE Jerusha O. Conner In summary, student voice
is a commonly used term in the fields of youth leadership, youth
activism, YPAR, youth media, and service-learning. In each of these
fields, there are activities and initiatives that exemplify student
voice as well as others that do not. Delineating these boundaries
is important, so that the term itself does not become co-opted,
misused, or misunderstood; however, doing so means planting some
stakes around a clear definition. As the principles and language of
student voice are taken up in other fields, such as youth civic
engagement, teacher professional development, and education reform,
it may be helpful to consider how the three goals of student voice
identified as definitional (sharing students perspectives on
educational matters; articulating reform possibilities; and
repositioning students) are or are not honored in any effort that
is said to entail student voice.Student Voice Models, Typologies,
and Frameworks Existing Frameworks Many researchers have developed
typologies or models for conceptualizing student voice or related
constructs of student involvement, youth engagement, and learner
voice.(See Table 1.)These conceptual frameworks include pyramids
and tiers (Mitra, 2006; Mitra & Gross, 2009; Kennedy &
Datnow, 2011), ladders (Fletcher, 2005; Hart, 1992; Holdsworth,
2000; Pope & Joslin, 2011), spectrums or continuums (Delgado
& Staples, 2008; Jones & Perkins, 2005; Lee &
Zimmerman, 1999; Toshalis & Nakkula, 2012), matrices (Lodge,
2005; Mitra & Kirshner, 2012), and cycles (Campbell, 2011;
Fletcher, 2005).In addition, several researchers have proposed
non-visually oriented frameworks for analyzing student voice
efforts (Fielding, 2001a, 2001b; Hadfield & Haw, 2001;
Joselowsky, 2007; Levin, 2000).As can be seen in Table 1, these
frameworks and typologies each call attention to different aspects
of student voice.The vast majority focus on cataloguing and
comparing ARTICLE Jerusha O. Conner various student voice
activities, identifying different roles for students.About half of
these frameworks differentiate the activities according to the
degree of power or agency students assume relative to either adults
or to their more traditional role of passivity in school.Less
common are frameworks or typologies that highlight the topic of
student voice (what it is students are speaking about), the
relative ubiquity or obscurity of the activities, or the process of
engaging students in student voice work; nonetheless, at least two
frameworks focus on each of these areas.Five frameworks address the
purpose of the student voice initiative or the rationales for
student voice, and two work to identify the various dimensions or
facets of student voice.No frameworks focus on comparing the
effects (or effectiveness) of various student voice activities.
While each of these frameworks offers a distinct lens and
conceptualizes student voice in a different way than any other
framework, there are limitations to consider as well.Some
frameworks can be overwhelming to apply and could be more
parsimonious; others run the risk of becoming too reductionist.By
far the largest limitation of existing frameworks, however,
concerns the dimensions or aspects of student voice that have not
been conceptualized or considered.New Frameworks The definition of
student voice I propose responds to this problem, building on
existing frameworks by establishing three clear goals defining
student voice initiatives that are heavily discussed in the
literature, though not apparent in extant frameworks.In addition,
this definition acknowledges that student voice can work at various
systems levels, expanding the activity sites beyond the classroom
and school to district, country, region, state, and country.This
conceptualization can move the field forward by helping to define
and situate student voice activities; however, it is also important
to recognize the difference between identifying student ARTICLE
Jerusha O. Conner voice initiatives on the basis of goals and
evaluating those initiatives according to how well those goals have
been realized.Fletchers (2005) ladder of student involvement offers
a useful heuristic for assessing how well student voice projects
accomplish our definitions third goal of granting students agency
and disrupting entrenched power dynamics.In Table 2, I collapse
Fletchers ladder into three categories (non-participation,
circumscribed involvement, active engagement in decision-making)
and then link these with another important consideration, largely
neglected by extant theoretical frameworks and models: whether or
not the students have received training and support to reflect upon
and reconstruct their perspectives and to develop the skills they
need to participate effectively in decision-making.As Middaugh
(2012) points out, in order to have real influence in the process
of defining and addressing issues, youth need to be prepared not
just to speak, but to speak effectively and with accountability (p.
ii). I use raw to refer to those student voice initiatives in which
student do not receive training or mentoring, and refined to denote
those in which they do.The integrated framework I introduce in
Table 2 can help to distinguish student voice programs from one
another on the basis of student agency vis vis student
preparedness.This 3x2 matrix generates six different types of
student voice activities. Below, I discuss examples of each type to
illustrate these differences.First, the unsupported non-participant
can be exemplified by the non-voting student representative on a
school board or other educational governance structure.He or she
has little agency because he or she possesses little ability to
shape policy, design initiatives, or influence board members
votes.Furthermore, assuming he or she did not receive any explicit
instruction in educational politics or training, in how to engage
in policy analysis, or in how to speak to adults in positions of
power prior to or concomitant with his or her appointment, he or
she would exercise raw voice.Moving one row down, ARTICLE Jerusha
O. Conner circumscribed, unprepared participants might be students
assigned to give feedback to their teacher, without receiving any
training or guidance in how to do so.For example, in some school
districts, teachers are now required to survey their students at
the end of the year to solicit their perspectives on their learning
experiences in the classroom.Teachers in these contexts report that
they make up their own surveys, distribute them in a mad rush at
the end of the year, often before they have submitted their
students final grades, and then look at them quickly, without
knowing how to make sense of them or process them (Conner, 2015).At
the bottom left of Table 2, the actively engaged but unsupported
participants might include students who are elected to serve as
voting members of their schools site councils as part of a new
teachers union contract. These students are unlikely to receive any
explicit training in working collaboratively with adults or in
analyzing school-level policy and practice.They may not be
instructed, for example, in how to read or interpret school-level
results from state tests.The lack of explicit structures and
systems of support place their voice in the raw bin; however,
because they are invested with the authority to vote as members of
their schools decision-making body, they assume greater agency and
engagement in decision-making alongside adults. In the second
column, an example of supported non-participants might be students
who were involved in Philadelphia School Districts
T.A.C.K.L.E.Truancy campaign (see
http://salsen.com/tackletruancy/default.php#).These students
received support, financial resources, and guidance to develop a
campaign addressing their peers truancy problems; however, the
campaign they crafted did not involve them in any kind of
decision-making related to school or district educational practice,
policy, or culture.Indeed, their campaign was largely rhetorical
and did not result in any concrete demands, suggesting that their
agency was limited and their work merely decorative and
tokenistic.By contrast, the students who participate in the ARTICLE
Jerusha O. Conner Teaching and Learning Together Initiative at Bryn
Mawr College and Haverford College demonstrate a well-supported,
refined voice expressed in the context of consultation. These
students are trained during weekly sessions to work individually
with college instructors and provide validation, feedback, and
suggestions to the instructors based on their observations of their
teaching.Although they are not responsible for making instructional
decisions, they do have a profound influence on the instructors
thinking and pedagogy (Cook-Sather & Agu, 2012).Finally, in the
bottom right corner, we find the students who are actively involved
and well supported. The student members of Redwood Schools
Stressed-Out Students (SOS) School Team (Osberg, Pope, &
Galloway, 2006) offer one such example.The SOS team is comprised of
two students, two parents, two faculty members and the school
principal, all of whom are invested in working to design programs
to change school culture, policy and practice in order to support
greater student wellbeing and academic engagement.At Redwood
School, student members participated on an equal footing with their
adult counterparts, exercising both veto power and decision-making
authority as the team worked to support the student-led revision of
the schools honor code, implementation of the new test calendar,
and inquiry into a schedule change.These students also spoke with a
refined voice, having benefited from a university-based workshop
that specifically focused on developing and asserting student voice
as a member of the schools SOS team. I argue that both dimensions
of Table 2, student agency and student preparedness, are important
because investing students with authority to make decisions about
substantive schooling issues, without giving them any training to
do so may be as demeaning and disempowering as giving students
support and training, but then dismissing their ideas or
manipulating their perspectives through training that advances a
covert agenda.Taken together, ARTICLE Jerusha O. Conner the
definition of student voice I propose and Table 2 may serve as
useful guides not only for future research, but also for student
voice practice, guiding practitioners to consider what supports
students might need and how best to provide these without
infringing on student autonomy and authority. Given that student
voice necessarily engages with issues of positioning, power and
privilege, a particularly useful line of questioning for future
research would be to consider the various models in Table 2 in
light of issues of class, race, gender, disability status,
sexuality, and language. Do adults and institutions tend to provide
more support and training for developing a refined voice to youth
who are already privileged by their race or class, consigning
low-income youth of color or language minority students to the raw
voice column? Do they grant agency more easily to some groups of
youth than others? How do youth negotiate opportunities for agency,
training and support for themselves and one another? Silva (2001),
for example, finds that some youth involved in a student voice
program might actively discourage their language minority peers
from speaking up on behalf of the group, for fear of embarrassing
the group. Do youth who have been traditionally marginalized in
schools by virtue of their class, race, or learning differences
require different supports, training, and opportunities for agency
than youth who have been traditionally granted greater privilege
and authority in school settings? Applying an intersectional
perspective that accounts for how youths multifaceted identities
intersect with adult support for student voice to Table 2 could
help us better understand the social forces that constrain and
facilitate student voice as well as the complex dynamics of this
work. Although much has been written about institutional and
cultural barriers to student voice (Conner, Ebby-Rosin, &
Brown, 2015; Cook-Sather, 2002; Fielding, 2001b; Mitra, 2008; York
& Kirshner, ARTICLE Jerusha O. Conner 2015), Table 2 can
clarify how these barriers are animated by structural factors that
oppress youth in schools, school systems, and other educational
settings.Conclusion Student voice has been called one of the most
powerful tools schools have to improve learning (Toshalis &
Nakkula, 2012, p. i).It is widely understood as vehicle for
important academic and developmental outcomes for students, and it
is increasingly recognized as a promising strategy for educational
reform (Beattie, 2012; Fletcher, 2005; McMahon & Portelli,
2012; Smyth, 2012).With hundreds of examples of student voice
initiatives populating the internet, and with a solid base of
empirical studies and theoretical pieces now accessible, this once
nascent area of practice and inquiry is firmly establishing itself
as an active and healthy field of scholarship.One indication that a
field is coming of age is that it attracts backlash and
criticism.Some popular writers and scholars have begun to question
whether student voice is a fad or a clich (Bessant, 2004; Bolstad,
2011).Others have issued calls for more critical investigations of
the construct and its attendant practices (Kirshner, Bemis, &
Estrada, 2013; Lundy, 2007; Robinson & Taylor, 2013).I add to
these calls, seeking work that can address emergent and lingering
questions about student voice, while bringing to bear greater
conceptual clarity and definitional precision.Such research will
help the field mature and transition from first generation studies,
which introduced student voice as a viable field of scholarship, to
second generation studies, which will develop, document, and
deconstruct ever more sophisticated efforts to institutionalize
student voice in educational systems. As examples of student voice
continue to proliferate and as the term gains increased cachet in
education circles, it is important that research not simply keep
pace with these trends, ARTICLE Jerusha O. Conner but help to
refine our understanding of what constitutes student voice; how to
develop, support, and sustain it; and how to leverage it to realize
its full potential to engage students and transform educational
institutions. ARTICLE Jerusha O. Conner References Beattie, H.
(2012). Amplifying student voice: The missing link in school
transformation. Management in Education, 26, 158-160. Bessant, J.
(2004). Mixed messages: Youth participation and democratic
practice. Australian Journal of Political Science, 39, 387-404.
Billig, S. (2000). The effects of service-learning. School
Administrator, 14-18. Retrieved from
http://www.aasa.org/SchoolAdministratorArticle.aspx?id=14436
Bolstad, R. (2011). From student voice to youth-adult partnerships:
Lessons from working with young people as partners for educational
change. SET: Research Information for Teachers, 1, 31-33. Borrero,
N., Conner, J., & Mejia, A. (2012). Promoting social justice
through service-learning in urban teacher education: The role of
student voice. Partnerships:A Journal of Service-Learning and Civic
Engagement, 3, 1-24. Boston Student Advisory Council (2012). We are
the ones in the classroom-Ask us! Student voice in teacher
evaluations. Harvard Educational Review, 82, 153-166. Bradley, M.
(2015). We fought fairness and won. In J. Conner, R. Ebby-Rosin,
& A. S. Brown (Eds.), Speak Up and Speak Out: Student Voice in
Education Policy. National Society for the Study of Education
Yearbook, 114.New York: Teachers College Record. Byrnes, L., &
Rickards, F. (2011). Listening to the voices of students with
disabilities: Can such voices inform practice? Australasian Journal
of Special Education, 35, 25-34. Cammarota, J., & Fine, M.
(2008). Youth participatory action research. In J. Cammarota &
M. Fine (Eds.), Revolutionizing education: Youth participatory
action research in motion (pp. 1-11). New York, NY: Taylor &
Francis.ARTICLE Jerusha O. Conner Campbell, F. (2011). How to hear
and heed the student voice. In G. Czerniawski & W. Kidd (Eds.),
The student voice handbook: Bridging the academic/practitioner
divide (pp. 265-276). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group. College Board
Advocacy and Policy Center. (2011). The educational experience of
young men of color: Capturing the student voice. New York, NY:
Author. Conner, J. (2015). Teacher perspectives on student voice.
Manuscript submitted for publication. Conner, J., Ebby-Rosin, R.,
Brown, A. (2015) Introduction. In J. Conner, R. Ebby-Rosin, &
A. Brown (Eds.), Speak Up and Speak Out: Student Voice in American
Educational Policy. A National Society for the Study of Education
Yearbook, 114. New York: Teachers College Record Cook-Sather, A.
(2002). Authorizing students perspectives: Toward trust, dialogue,
and change in education. Educational Researcher, 31,
3-14.Cook-Sather, A. (2006). Sound, presence, and power: Student
voice in educational research and reform. Curriculum Inquiry, 36,
359- 390. Cook-Sather, A., & Agu, P. (2012, October 27).
Students of color and faculty members working together towards more
culturally-responsive classrooms. Paper presented at the Annual
Meeting of the Professional and Organizational Development Network,
Seattle, WA.Czerniawski, G., & Kidd, W. (Eds.) (2011). The
student voice handbook: Bridging the academic/practitioner divide.
Bingley, UK: Emerald Group. Delgado, M., & Staples, L. (2008).
Youth-led community organizing. New York, NY: Oxford University
Press. Duncan-Andrade, J.M.R., & Morrell, J. (2008). The art of
critical pedagogy. New York, NY: Peter Lang. ARTICLE Jerusha O.
Conner Evans, P. M. (2009). Student voice on a high school
decision-making team: A principals model of listening to students.
In A. Cook-Sather (Ed.), Learning from the students perspective
(pp. 162-174). Boulder, CO: Paradigm.Fielding, M. (2001a). Students
as radical agents of change. Journal of Educational Change, 2,
123-141.Fielding, M. (2001b). Beyond the rhetoric of student voice:
New departures or new constraints in the transformation of the 21st
century schooling, FORUM, 43, 100-110. Fielding, M., &
McGregor, J. (April, 2005). Deconstructing student voice; new
spaces for dialogue or new opportunities for surveillance. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational
Research Association, Montreal.Fletcher, A. (2005). Meaningful
student involvement: A guide to students as partners in school
change (2nd ed.). Seattle, WA: HumanLinks Foundation.Francis, M.,
& Lorenzo, R. (2002). Seven realms of childrens participation.
Journal of Environmental Psychology, 22, 157-169. Fredericks, L.,
Kaplan, E., & Zeisler, J. (2001). Integrating youth voice in
service-learning. Learning In Deed issue paper. Denver, CO:
Education Commission of the States. Furco, A. (1996).
Service-Learning: A balanced approach to experiential education.
Expanding Boundaries: Service and Learning. Washington, DC:
Corporation for National Service, 2-6. Gavrielides, T. (2014).
Moving beyond frail democracy: Youth-led youth studies and social
policy. In P. Kelly & A. Kamp (Eds.), Critical Youth Studies
for the 21st Century (pp. 426-443). Leiden: Brill. ARTICLE Jerusha
O. Conner Garcia, V., Agbemakplido, W., Abdela, H., Lopez, O.,
& Registe, R. (2006). High school students perspectives on the
2001 No Child Left Behind Acts definition of a highly-qualified
teacher. Harvard Education Review, 76, 698-724. Hadfield, M., &
Haw, K. (2001). Voice, young people, and action research.
Educational Action Research, 9, 485-499.Hart, R.A. (1992).
Childrens participation from tokenism to citizenship. Florence,
Italy: UNICEF International Child Development Centre.Holdsworth, R.
(2000). Schools that create real roles of value for young people.
UNESCO International Prospect, 3, 349362. Jones, K.R., &
Perkins, D.F. (2005). Determining the quality of youth-adult
relationships within community-based youth programs. Journal of
Extension, 43, 90-109. Joselowsky, F. (2007). Youth engagement,
high school reform, and improved learning outcomes: Building
systemic approaches for youth engagement. NASSP Bulletin, 91,
257-276. Kennedy, B.L. & Datnow, A. (2011). Student involvement
and data-driven decision-making: Developing a new typology. Youth
and Society, 43, 1246-1271. Kotilainen, S. (2009). Promoting youth
civic participation with media production: The case of Youth Voice
Editorial Board. Comunicar, 16, 243-259. Kirshner, B. (2010).
Productive dilemmas in youth participatory action research. In W.
R. Penuel & K. O'Connor (Eds.), Learning research as a human
science (pp. 238-251). National Society for the Study of Education
Yearbook, 109, New York, NY: Teachers College. Kirshner, B., Bemis,
C. & Estrada, A. (2013, April). The social production of
transformative student voice. Paper presented at the annual meeting
of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco,
CA.ARTICLE Jerusha O. Conner Lee, L., & Zimmerman, M. (1999).
Making a difference: A new vision for student voice. Education
Canada, 39, 3435. Levin, B. (2000). Putting students at the centre
in education reform. Journal of Educational Change, 1, 155-172.
Lodge, C. (2005). From hearing voices to engaging in dialogue:
Problematising studentparticipation in school improvement. Journal
of Educational Change, 6, 125146. Lundy, L. (2007). Voice in not
enough: Conceptualizing Article 12 of the United NationsConvention
on the Rights of the Child. British Educational Research Journal,
33, 927-942. McIntyre, A. (2008). Participatory action research.
Los Angeles, CA: Sage.McMahon, B. (2012). Education in and for
democracy: Conceptions of schooling and student voice. In B.
McMahon & J. Portelli (Eds.), Student engagement in urban
schools: Beyond neoliberal discourses (pp. 29-47). Charlotte, NC:
Information Age. McMahon, B. & Portelli, J. (Eds.), Student
engagement in urban schools: Beyond neoliberal discourses.
Charlotte, NC: Information Age. McSherry, J. & Mejia, R.
(2011). Chilean students challenge Pinochets legacy. NACLA Report
on the Americas, 44, 29-34. Middaugh, E. (2012, Jan.). Service and
activism in the digital age: Supporting youth engagement in public
life. DML Central Working Paper. Retrieved from
dmlcentral.net/sites/dmlcentral/files/resource_files/sa.pdf
Mitchell, T. (2008). Traditional versus critical service learning:
Engaging the literature to differentiate two models. Michigan
Journal of Community Service Learning, 14, 50-65, ARTICLE Jerusha
O. Conner Mitra, D.L. (2006). Increasing student voice and moving
toward youth leadership. The Prevention Researcher, 13, 7-10.
Mitra, D.L. (2008). Student voice in school reform. Albany: State
University of New York. Mitra, D.L., & Gross, S. (2009).
Increasing student voice in high school reform. Educational
Management, Administration, and Leadership, 37, 522-543. Mitra,
D.L. & Kirshner, B. (2012). Insiders versus outsiders:
Examining variability in student voice initiatives and their
consequences for school change. In B. McMahon & J. Portelli
(Ed.), Student engagement in urban schools: Beyond neoliberal
discourses (pp. 49-71). Charlotte, NC: Information Age. Obserg, J.,
Pope, D., & Galloway, M. (2006). Students matter in school
reform: Leaving fingerprints and becoming leaders. International
Journal of Leadership in Education, 9, 329-3343. Pautsch, C.
(2010). Leadership to support student voice: The role of school
leaders in supporting meaningful student government and voice.
(Doctoral dissertation). Available from Proquest UMI Dissertation
publishing database. (UMI No.3448752). Pekrul, S., & Levin, B.
(2005). Building student voice for school improvement. In D.
Thiessen & A. Cook-Sather (Eds.), International handbook of
student experience in elementary and secondary school (pp.
711-726). AA Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.Pope, R., &
Joslin, B. (2011). Learner voice in post-compulsory education and
training. In G. Czerniawski & W. Kidd (Eds.), The student voice
handbook: Bridging the academic/practitioner divide (pp. 143-154).
Bingley, UK: Emerald Group. ARTICLE Jerusha O. Conner RMC Research
Corporation. (2007). Research in support of youth voice and
service-learning. National Service-Learning Clearinghouse, Fact
Sheet. Retrieved from
www.servicelearning.org/instant_info/facts_sheets/k-12_facts/support_youth-voice
Robinson, C., & Taylor, C. (2013). Student voice as a contested
practice: Power and participation in two student voice projects.
Improving Schools, 16, 32-46. Rodriguez, L.F., & Brown, T.M.
(2009). From voice to agency: Guiding principles for participatory
action research with youth. New Directions for Youth Development,
123, 19-34.Silva, E. (2001). Squeaky wheels and flat tires: A case
study of students as reform participants. Forum, 43, 95-99. Smyth,
J. (2012). Doing research on student voice in Australia. Management
in Education, 26, 153-154. Soep, L., & Chavez, V. (2010). Drop
that knowledge: Youth Radio stories. Berkeley: University of
California Press. Toshalis, E., & Nakkula, M. (2012).
Motivation, engagement, and student voice. Washington DC: Jobs for
the Future.Tuck, E., Allen, J., Baha, M., Morales, A., Quinter, S.,
Thompson, J., & Tuck, M. (2008). In J. Cammarota & M. Fine
(Eds.), Revolutionizing education: Youth participatory action
research in motion (pp. 49-83). New York, NY: Taylor &
Francis.Voight, A. (2014). Student voice for school climate
improvement. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology.
doi: 10.1002/casp.2216 York, A. & Kirshner, B. (2015). How
positioning shapes opportunities for student agency in schools. In
J. Conner, R. Ebby-Rosin, & A. Brown (Eds.), Speak Up and Speak
Out: ARTICLE Jerusha O. Conner Student Voice in American
Educational Policy. A National Society for the Study of Education
Yearbook. New York: Teachers College Record ARTICLE Jerusha O.
Conner Table 1. Typologies, Models and Frameworks of Student Voice
DesignAuthorFocus/HighlightsHow voice/involvement is conceptualized
or defined Pyramid/TiersMitra 2006, 2007; Mitra & Gross 2009
Distinguishes 3 distinct forms of student voice, each with
different role for students Highlights how common each form is
Student Voice is either being heard, collaborating with adults, or
engaging in youth-led initiatives Kennedy & Datnow 2011
Distinguishes 3 tiers of student engagement in data-based
decision-making, based on students role Highlights how common each
form is (based on empirical research) Student Involvement in DDM
ranges from Tier 3, which engages students in data analysis to Tier
1, which engages students actively, dialogically in reform process
Ladders & LevelsFletcher 2005; Hart 1992 Distinguishes 8 types
of student involvement, including three rungs of non-participation
and Student Involvement in school ranges from students being
informed and assigned to student-ARTICLE Jerusha O. Conner five
rungs of participation Ranks levels of involvement, according to
student agency and authority initiated shared decision-making.
Tokenism, decoration, and manipulation are not forms of
involvement. Holdsworth 2000 Distinguishes 6 rungs or levels of
youth participation, with increasing youth agency and inclusion
Ranks levels according to response of adults Student voice is
lowest level of participation; ladders moves from speaking out to
shared decision-making, implementation of action and reflection on
the action with young people. Pope & Joslin 2011 (adapted from
Shuttle, 2007) Distinguishes 5 levels of participation Ranks levels
according to active involvement and authority of students to
contribute to decision-making Highlights processes Student voice is
equated with learner participation in decision-making, which can
range from institution-led, in which students are informed of
decisions, to student-led, in which students are ARTICLE Jerusha O.
Conner and activities associated with each level empowered to plan
and control activities and decisions. Spectrum/continuumLee
&Zimmerman 1999 Distinguishes 4 points on spectrum of student
involvement, based on how active the role is that the student
assumes Student voice is equated with student involvement in
decision-making in classrooms and/or schools, ranging from
non-participant, to information source, to participant, to designer
Jones & Perkins 2005 Distinguishes 5 types of youth-adult
relationships in community organizations, with youth-adult
partnership located in center of continuum, adult-centered
leadership at one end and youth-centered leadership at the other
end Youth involvement is measured quantitatively according to youth
reports of their levels of youth voice and decision making,
responsibility, and commitment to the project. ARTICLE Jerusha O.
Conner Delgado & Staples, 2008 Distinguishes 4 models of
youth-adult relationships in community organizing, with increasing
youth power and diminishing adult power as one moves across
spectrum from left to right Youth power reaches its pinnacle when
youth control decision-making processes, with support from adult
allies as directed and determined by the youth. Toshalis &
Nakkula, 2012 Distinguishes 6 types of student voice activity, with
students sharing their perspectives and acting as data sources on
the far left, and students directing or leading activities on the
far right.Student voice is a broad term describing a range of
activities in which students influence the decisions that shape
their own and their peers lives. Agency is central. MatricesLodge
2005Distinguishes 2 reasons for involving students in school
improvement: instrumental vs. developmental Student involvement in
school development can take different forms depending on the goals
and the agency of ARTICLE Jerusha O. Conner Distinguishes 2 types
of roles students can assume: active vs. passiveIdentifies 4
approaches to student involvement students. These forms include
quality control, students as sources of information, compliance,
and dialogue. Mitra & Kirshner 2012 Distinguishes focus of
reform: youth leadership vs. social activism Distinguishes locus of
reform: insider vs. outsider Student voice comprises activities
that allow youth to participate in the school decisions that affect
their lives and the lives of their peers. Diagrams with circles
Fletcher 2005Distinguishes 7 forms of meaningful student
involvement in school reform, based on the roles students assume
Student involvement can take many different forms, including
engaging students as education planners, teachers, researchers,
learning evaluators, advocates, organizers, and systemic
decision-makers ARTICLE Jerusha O. Conner Pekrul & Levin 2007
Offers a school improvement frameworks that highlights roles for
all stakeholders and places student learning and engagement at
center Distinguishes five types of student voice activities,
according to the roles students assume Student voice occurs when
students have a credible voice in and impact on the institution(s)
that play a major role in their lives. It includes students as
learners/doers; advocates; researchers; advisors; and networked
individuals. CyclesFlecther, 2005Distinguishes 5 steps in a cycle
of meaningful student involvement in school reform, moving from
listening to validating, authorizing, mobilizing, reflecting, and
then back to listening.Student involvement is the process of
engaging students as partners in every facet of school change.
Campbell, 2011 Distinguishes five steps or stages practitioners
Student voice is students perspectives on the things ARTICLE
Jerusha O. Conner and researchers can take in carrying out action
research that employs student voice, beginning with framing and
planning the work and concluding with evaluating the process and
feeding back to students that matter to them in classroom or
school. Frameworks without visual elements Fielding 2001a 2001b
Proposes a series of questions, each clustered around a different
dimension of student voice: speaking; listening; skills; attitudes
& dispositions; systems; organizational culture; spaces;
action; the future Student voice covers a range of activities that
encourage reflection, discussion, dialogue and action on matters
that primarily concern students, but also, by implication, school
staff and the communities they serve (Fielding & McGregor,
2005, p. 2).Pope & Joslin 2011 Proposes a series of questions
to stimulate Learner voice is equated with student participation
ARTICLE Jerusha O. Conner development and reflection on practice of
student voice in decision-making at classroom and school levels.
Levin 2000Proposes 5 warrants for student voice, all of which are
pragmatic, but the last two of which have educational value as
well. Student involvement includes student engagement in defining,
shaping, managing and implementing all aspects of educational
reform. Joselowsky 2006; Forum for Youth Investment Distinguishes 4
different strategies for engaging young people in their educational
experience: engaging youth in their own learning, in their peers
learning, in improving educational opportunities, and in their
community. Youth engagement refers to empowering youth to take
control over their lives and greater responsibility for their
learning Hadfield & Haw, 2004 Differentiates 3 types of voice,
which reflect different processes of Voice stems from personal
experience and is linked to issues of ARTICLE Jerusha O. Conner
articulation and intended outcomes: authoritative critical and
therapeutic. participation, social change, and empowerment. Francis
& Lorenzo, 2002 Highlights 7 realms or approaches to childrens
participation in city planning and design, including advocacy,
romantic, needs, learning, rights, institutionalization, and
proactive Child participation is the inclusion of children and
youth in the design and planning of the environments they use; it
has advanced from tokenism to effective participation to
institutionalization. Table 2. Student Agency in and Preparation
for Student Voice Work Raw Voice (no training or support) Refined
Voice (training & support) Non-participation: Tokenism,
decoration, manipulation (rungs 1-3 on Fletchers ladder) Non-voting
student representative on school board T.A.C.K.L.E.Truancy Campaign
Circumscribed participation: Assignment or Consultation(rungs 4-5
on Fletchers ladder) District mandate to survey students at end of
year Teaching and Learning Together Initiative Engagement in
decision-making: Adult or student-initiated & shared or
student-led decision-making(rungs 6-8 on Fletchers ladder) 2
student members with full voting rights, elected to each schools
Site Council, Boston Redwood Schools SOS Student Team Members