Youth Participatory Action Research and Possibilities for Students of Color in Educational Leadership

Abstract

Background and Purpose: Students of Color hold intimate knowledge about institutional racism and White supremacy in schools—expertise that could be leveraged in school leadership. One approach that could mediate efforts to include Students of Color in leadership is youth participatory action research (YPAR), in which students and adult partners research school and community issues and take action. Guided by cultural historical activity theory, this article explores how YPAR may be a path to realizing the vision of including Students of Color in school decision making by sharing findings from a study of an after-school YPAR program for seventh and eighth graders. Research Methods/Approach: A range of data was collected, including videos of YPAR meetings and presentations and interviews with YPAR youth and school adults. Ethnographic and inductive approaches were used to analyze the data. Findings: Analysis of the data indicated that students within the YPAR program (re)positioned themselves as leaders through their production and presentation of intersectional, social justice research. School adults, however, positioned the students in contradictory ways. They verbalized support for student input without also positioning students as leaders while, in some cases, dismissing the students’ research and viewpoints. Implications: This article adds to the educational leadership field by indicating that YPAR and similar programs can act as mediators to increase the potential for Students of Color to expand their leadership at schools by shining light on existing leadership and opening up possibilities for students to further reposition themselves as leaders.

Keywords

youth participatory action research Students of Color student leadership racism educational leadership

Schools stand to benefit when school leadership is inclusive of Students of Color¹ and their perspectives (Cammarota & Fine, 2008a; Khalifa, 2013; Kirshner & Jefferson, 2015; Mansfield, Welton, & Halx, 2012; Welton, Brock, & Perry, 2014). Students of Color hold intimate knowledge about the processes that reproduce institutionalized systems of racism and White supremacy in schools (Rodríguez & Brown, 2009; Torre & Fine, 2006). Moreover, groups of Students of Color have additional insights related to their intersecting identities along other axes of difference, such as gender, gender identity, ability, sexuality, language, immigration status, religion, and social class (Cooper, 2015; González & Artiles, 2015). If school leadership broadened to include Students of Color, efforts toward social justice in education would be propelled by the experiences of those who have crucial insider knowledge about systemic educational inequity.

Despite the potential of reenvisioning school leadership to include of Students of Color, there is more to be learned about how this vision can be realized. In the past decade, there has been an increase in publications about youth agency and engagement, specifically focusing on youth activism (Ginwright, 2010), student voice—the variety of ways youth can participate in school decision making (Mitra, Serriere, & Stoicovy, 2012), and youth participatory action research (YPAR)—youth-driven research and advocacy involving adult partners (Duncan-Andrade & Morrell, 2008; Rodríguez & Brown, 2009). However, some of the mainstream educational leadership literature has not fully embraced the insights of this scholarship, with some notable exceptions (including Khalifa, 2013; Mansfield, 2014; Smyth, 2006; Welton et al., 2014). To facilitate the inclusion of Students of Color in educational leadership for social justice, more academic attention may be beneficial, specifically on the processes through which Students of Color position themselves and how they are positioned by adults (York & Kirshner, 2015). This is important because adults often position students as passive within K-12 educational settings and frame Students of Color in particular as problems to be solved rather than leaders of school reform (Gutiérrez & Orellana, 2006; Valencia, 2010). This traditional and entrenched positioning undermines students’ authentic participation in decision making.

One approach that could disrupt the traditional hierarchies of school adults and Students of Color is YPAR, in which students partner with adults to study the local manifestations of systemic racism and other forms of oppression. In addition, students take action to address problems and improve the everyday experiences of Students of Color (Irizarry & Welton, 2014; Mirra, Garcia, & Morrell, 2015; Rodríguez & Brown, 2009). In this way, YPAR—as enacted by both Students of Color and adult partners—can provide an additional opportunity for Students of Color to position themselves as researchers, activists, advocates, and leaders.

In that YPAR entails opportunities for repositioning, it could mediate the processes of expanding school decision making to include Students of Color. Following the Professional Standards for Educational Leadership (National Policy Board for Educational Administration, 2015), school decision making may focus on a range of domains, including equity, curriculum and instruction, campus climate, school finances, and school improvement. The insider knowledge of students, particularly Students of Color, could enrich decision making in these areas. To explore the potential of Students of Color in educational leadership, I present data from an after-school YPAR program at a K-8 school in Arizona involving seventh- and eighth-grade Students of Color with intersecting identities related to language, immigration, dis/ability, and other areas. I address two research questions: (a) Within the context of a YPAR program, how do Students of Color position themselves and how are they positioned by school adults? (b) What implications does this positioning have for possibilities for including Students of Color in school leadership? In addressing these questions, I aim to further embed YPAR and similar approaches to student leadership within the purview of the educational leadership field. In the remainder of the article, I present the theoretical framework, review pertinent literature, describe the context and methods of the study, discuss findings, and close by providing suggestions and highlighting the study’s contributions to the field.

Theoretical Framework

This study is informed by cultural historical activity theory (CHAT) and scholarship on positioning. CHAT is a branch of sociocultural theory that builds on Vygotsky’s (1978) understanding of learning as mediated by physical and ideological tools. Whereas Vygotsky focused on the learning of individuals, CHAT shifts the focus to the mechanisms of collective learning and change within activity systems such as schools, workplaces, or groups (Sannino, Engeström, & Lemos, 2016). CHAT is especially fitting as a lens to study educational leadership and school reform efforts; however, it is not often employed in the field, with notable exceptions (Gronn, 2000; Spillane, Halverson, & Diamond, 2001).

A central concept of CHAT is that of the double bind (Engeström, 1987; Pacheco, 2012), a contradiction or conflict of motives within an activity system, such as White supremacy or other forms of inequity. A double bind is a “social, societally essential dilemma” that requires collaboration to address, and which could precipitate “a historically new form of activity” (Engeström, 1987, p. 17). I employ Pacheco’s (2012) definition of the double bind: “an analytic tool to emphasize how dilemmas, contradictions, and conflicts can potentially rouse productive problem-solving practices and actions driven by individuals’ interest in collectively enhancing their life circumstances” (p. 122). Double binds, then, provide the contexts and catalysts for people to challenge inequity in education and society. For instance, Pacheco (2012) demonstrated in a study of community activism that the double bind of anti-immigrant policy prompted the “everyday resistance” of Latinx² youth as they advocated for bilingual education and college access for undocumented students.

Double binds can help precipitate new types of relationships and forms of interaction. These innovations in interaction, however fleeting, can be thought of as third spaces, a concept formulated by Gutiérrez and her colleagues (Gutiérrez, 2008; Gutiérrez, Baquedano-López, & Tejeda, 1999; Gutiérrez, Rymes, & Larson, 1995; Vossoughi & Gutiérrez, 2014). Within a third space, conflict—or a double bind—becomes the fodder for hybrid ideas as “alternative and competing discourses and positionings transform conflict and difference into rich zones of collaboration and learning” (Gutiérrez et al., 1999, pp. 286-287). The concept of a third space can be applied to a physical place, but often refers to a temporal space, co-constructed through people’s interactions. The collective learning and innovation that is a third space could involve the formation of new social relationships or cultural tools. In the context of the present study, a third space could entail and result in the reorganization of school social relationships in ways that include Students of Color in leadership.

A third space may be difficult to achieve in certain circumstances due to power differences between different social actors, such as Students of Color and school adults. These power differences are connected to material differences and institutional roles, in addition to “positioning,” the interactional and discursive processes in which people are categorized and identified (Harré & Lagenhove, 1999; Holland & Leander, 2004; Kotsopoulos, 2014; Wortham, 2004). For instance, in class discussions, teachers and classmates may position a student as disruptive (Wortham, 2004). Since subject positions such as “disruptive student” are associated with certain statuses, positioning can reproduce power relations. However, people also actively take part in positioning themselves (Holland & Leander, 2004) and can refuse to accept a negative categorization (Wortham, 2004). Since positioning can be an agentive activity, it may involve voicing counterstories, or resistance narratives rooted in the epistemologies of people of color (DeCuir & Dixson, 2004; Solórzano & Yosso, 2002). Counterstories “strengthen traditions of social, political, and cultural survival and resistance” (Solórzano & Yosso, 2002, p. 32). I view counterstories as encompassing not only narratives but also actions and general stances.

In terms of the present study, positioning plays a role in both double binds and third spaces. A double bind, as a societal dilemma, involves social actors, often in positions of varying power, positioning themselves or others. At a school, this could involve Students of Color who may position themselves and be positioned by school adults through counterstories or other discursive means, thereby reproducing or challenging social hierarchies. In many ways, the analytic separation of double binds, positioning, and third spaces is difficult in that they are not necessarily stages in a set progression but, instead, elements that may encapsulate or coincide with one another in a dynamic process. What could be considered an “influence” or a “result” may be the same element. What is most important in terms of the present study is that positioning can reinforce school hierarchies (a double bind) or serve to disrupt them, entailing or leading to a third space and opportunities for reorganizing social relationships and including Students of Color in school leadership. These three concepts informed the creation of qualitative coding categories in the first round of data analysis and guided an additional, focused analysis.

Literature Review

In this section, I review literature relevant to the present study, beginning with an exploration of the contexts of White supremacist racism and other structures of inequity that shape the experiences of Students of Color. I then discuss literature on voice and leadership of Students of Color and how they position themselves and are positioned by others. Finally, I conclude with a discussion about how YPAR can serve as a possible mediator of this positioning.

White Supremacist Racism and Other Forms of Inequity in Schools

White supremacy and other intersecting forms of inequity are relevant to this study not only because they negatively affect Students of Color but also because they constrain opportunities for these students to participate in decision making. White supremacy is “a racialized social system that upholds, reifies, and reinforces the superiority of whites” (Leonardo, 2009, p. 127) while oppressing people of color, and it is often promoted by colorblind ideology (Bonilla-Silva, 2014). This racial system intersects with other systems of oppression as related to gender, sexuality, social class, and more (Collins, 1990; Cooper, 2015).

In schools, White supremacist racism is a double bind, a foundational element that manifests in the inequitable distribution of educational resources and/or the suppression of culturally relevant curriculum (Cabrera, Milem, Jaquette, & Marx, 2014; Cammarota, 2014; DeMatthews & Mawhinney, 2014; Ladson-Billings, 2006). Also, this inequity unfolds through interactions related to students’ intersectional identities. For instance, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer/questioning, intersex, and/or asexual (LGBTQIA) Students of Color contend with harassment related to sexuality and gender identity in addition to racism (McCready, 2004). Students of Color, including those who are emergent bilinguals or designated for special education services, often face microagressions and/or low expectations from school adults (Aldana, 2016; Cook, 2001; Jussim & Harber, 2005; Kohli & Solórzano, 2012). Finally, certain groups of Students of Color may be disproportionately referred to special education (Artiles, 2011) or targeted for school discipline (Losen, Hodson, Keith, Morrison, & Belway, 2015).

Students of Color as Educational Leaders

Scholars use a range of overlapping constructs—including youth activism, YPAR, and student voice—to discuss the leadership of Students of Color. Research on youth activism explores the ways that Students of Color challenge local and systemic inequities to make change (Ginwright, 2010; Kohli & Solórzano, 2011). YPAR is similar to youth activism, with the addition of a research component that is meant to drive the action (Mirra et al., 2015; Morrell, 2008). Finally, student voice refers to the ways that students can be repositioned in schools, share their viewpoints on school issues, and contribute to school decision making (Gonzalez, Hernandez-Saca, & Artiles, 2017; Mitra, 2005). These approaches to understanding Students of Color as educational leaders can be subsumed in a larger body of literature that explores broadening school leadership to include not only students but also community members and parents (Baquedano-López, Alexander, & Hernandez, 2013; Ishimaru, 2014; Rodela, 2016; Rogers, Freelon, & Terriquez, 2012).

Scholarship has pointed to a range of benefits to including Students of Color in school leadership (Bertrand, 2014; Cammarota & Fine, 2008a; Khalifa, 2013; Kirshner & Jefferson, 2015; Mansfield et al., 2012; Welton et al., 2014). These benefits stem from the positionality of the Students of Color, which allows them unique insider vantage points from which to critique White supremacist racism and intersecting forms of oppression (de los Ríos, López, & Morrell, 2015; Morrell, Dueñas, Garcia, & López, 2013). Studies have shown that the perspectives of Students of Color and their inclusion in leadership can enhance school reform conversations and decision making (Bertrand & Ford, 2015; Irizarry & Welton, 2014; Kirshner, 2015). Even though the perspectives of students (or people) of color are not inherently liberatory or counterhegemonic (Leonardo, 2009, pp. 79-80; Paris & Alim, 2014), a critical understanding of racism in education, of necessity, “begins from the objective experiences of the oppressed in order to understand the dynamics of structural power relations” (Leonardo, 2009, p. 80).

In the literature on student voice, youth activism, and YPAR, there are implications related to positioning. For instance, Welton et al. (2014) describe their experiences with VOICES, a group of high school women of color and adult partners whose activism led to the creation of a youth summit and the transformation of campus culture. Administrators initially pushed back against VOICES but, arguably because of members positioning themselves as leaders, eventually expanded the program. Adults’ positioning of students is also important, as shown by a study with this focus, which explored action research projects involving Students of Color at two high schools. York and Kirshner (2015) found that, at one school, adults’ positioning curtailed opportunities for student participation in decision making.

Of efforts to involve Students of Color in decision making and leadership, YPAR offers unique opportunities for positioning and repositioning. YPAR, as in student voice and youth activism, centralizes the knowledge and experiences of youth, often Students of Color (Irizarry & Welton, 2014; Mirra et al., 2015; Morrell, 2008). Ideally, YPAR entails youth driving the research process, investigating topics that affect them in their daily lives, such as the manifestations of systemic racism (Cammarota & Fine, 2008b). YPAR also involves taking action to transform unjust social conditions. According to Rodríguez and Brown (2009), YPAR should entail: (a) centralization of youth knowledge, (b) collaboration in research, and (c) the goal of improving the lives of youth. In the process of producing knowledge and taking steps to make change, Students of Color necessarily position themselves as leaders, with support from adult partners, and may be positioned as such by school adults. In this way, YPAR may help facilitate opportunities for third spaces and broaden conceptions of leadership.

Though some educational leadership scholars have explored Students of Color and leadership (Mansfield, 2014; Smyth, 2006; Welton et al., 2014), the educational leadership field in general has not fully embraced the concept. This is evident in some volumes on educational leadership, which have few or no chapters on student leadership (Grogan, 2013; Khalifa, Witherspoon Arnold, Onsanloo, & Grant, 2015; Tillman & Scheurich, 2013). In addition, an examination of Educational Administration Quarterly in the past 10 years (2007-2017) using the search terms “student voice,” “youth voice,” “youth participatory action research,” “youth activism,” “youth organizing,” “student leadership,” “students’ voices,” and “student leaders” yields only two articles with at least one of those terms appearing in the abstract (Bertrand, 2014; Mansfield, 2014). This article seeks to address this understudied area and more firmly place student leadership within the field. Specifically, the article investigates the role of YPAR in mediating opportunities for the inclusion of Students of Color in educational leadership.

Method

Context and Program

The YPAR program takes place in Arizona, an exemplar of White supremacist racism in terms of policy (Cammarota, 2014). In 2010, the state passed Senate Bill 1070, which promotes racial profiling by police (“Arizona Senate Bill 1070,” 2010). Also enshrined into law around the same time was HB 2281, anti-ethnic studies legislation that led to the dismantling of the Mexican American Studies program in Tucson Unified School District (Cabrera et al., 2014). In addition, due to Arizona Proposition 203 of 2000, bilingual education is largely banned.

It is within this hostile climate that the YPAR program developed. In Spring 2014, a community-engaged scholar, who was then a PhD student and is now a university professor, approached me about the possibility of cofounding a YPAR group in the Arizona context. We reached out to another scholar, a university professor, to join us (Durand, Bertrand, & Gonzalez, 2015).³ Both of these colleagues identify as women of color, and I identify as a White woman. We contacted Hugo,⁴ a school principal who identifies as Chicano and who was an acquaintance of one of us, to discuss the idea of the three of us implementing and studying an after-school YPAR program. The principal was enthusiastic, voicing his support for the pedagogical benefits of the program and suggesting tying the program into the school-day curriculum. My two colleagues and I agreed with the curricular benefits while also citing the benefits of student voice to decision making. The aim was to begin a YPAR program in Fall 2014; however, district and institutional review board approval processes pushed the start date to January 2015. Though the YPAR program continues today, this piece focuses on the first school year of the program, encompassing January to May 2015, when the program was new. By focusing on this time period, I am able to capitalize on the novelty of the program and the enhanced salience of positioning within the school context. In addition, program membership has shifted with the start of every new school year as students leave the school to go to high school. Hence, by Fall 2015, the membership of the YPAR group (and some of the teaching staff) had changed.

Hugo’s school, where the YPAR program is held, is Mountain Gate Elementary, a K-8 school in a mixed-income neighborhood serving about 500 students, the majority of whom are Students of Color. Of the students, about 85% are Latinx, 10% are emergent bilinguals, and 10% are designated for special education services. The teaching and administrative staff (approximately 30 people) is a mix of White, Latinx, and other ethnic/racial identities. During the study period, membership in the after-school program was open to any student in Grades 7 and 8; however, we also employed purposeful sampling (Creswell, 2013) to target students perceived as struggling by teachers—including emergent bilingual students and students who were designated for special education—in order to ensure a broad cross section of YPAR members, not just those perceived as academically successful by teachers. In Spring 2015, we had a fluctuating group of about 15 students, mostly girls and those identifying as Latinx, through a variety of terms. In addition, several students identified as Black, American Indian, and/or White. I conjecture that my identity as a White woman may have stifled conversations about race, especially or at least in the beginning of the program. In addition, my positionality—including my racial privilege and lack of common background—decreased my ability to identify with struggles related to racism and other forms of oppression. I appreciated the ongoing dialogue with the students and adults in the program, which helped me grow as a person and as a scholar.

During the Spring 2015 semester, we met after school about once a week, for a total of 18 meetings. On meeting days, my colleagues and I often spent all day at the school, providing opportunities to interact with school adults and students. In the program, the students read multicultural young adult fiction books about intersecting identities related to race, immigration, ethnicity, gender, and social class (Durand, 2015). In addition, the students learned about Community Cultural Wealth (Yosso, 2005) and intersectionality (Collins, 2004). The other adults and I facilitated conversations about whether and how the books and theories shed light on issues affecting the students, which led to the research topics of bullying in general and bullying as related to race and LGBTQIA identities. With adult guidance, the students surveyed and interviewed teachers and students in sixth through eighth grades. To disseminate their findings, the students, again with adult support, created videos and presented their findings at the end of the school year to teachers and administrators (including Hugo) and, separately, to the sixth graders. Importantly, in the faculty presentation, the students called for teachers and administrators to make concrete changes at the school, including providing training for teachers and students and hiring a counselor so that students would have a safe space to talk about bullying. Thus, even if faculty had considered YPAR to be simply a curricular program, the youth, during the presentation, made clear their intention for the research findings to lead to changes in the school.

Data Collection and Analysis

My colleagues and I used video-informed ethnographic data collection methods to better understand the processes and practices unfolding within YPAR (Anderson-Levitt, 2006; Erickson, 2006). We video recorded each meeting using multiple cameras to capture small-group discussions. In addition, we video recorded the presentation to the faculty. These videos were later logged by describing, in 5-minute increments, the unfolding occurrences. After each YPAR meeting, my two colleagues and I drew on our memories and the videos to create a set of field notes each. These notes also captured occurrences that unfolded outside of meetings, including interactions with school adults. We also collected student artifacts created over the course of the semester, including handwritten/drawn responses to conversations and readings, in addition to digital products, such as student-created videos and PowerPoint presentations.

Also, we conducted interviews with students and school adults. We interviewed a total of 15 students once each in the days following the presentation to the faculty. These students included all of those who had attended at least eight YPAR meetings throughout the semester. These interviews, which ranged in length from 18 to 35 minutes and averaged 25 minutes, covered seven topics: (a) general information, (b) participation in the YPAR program, (c) skills learned, (d) changes in identity, (e) views of the school and educational issues, (f) views of one’s own or students’ agency in addressing school problems, and (g) interactions with school adults. Also in the days following the presentation, we interviewed 12 school adults, recruiting them by asking for volunteers immediately following the youth’s presentation to the faculty and approaching them in passing at the school. We spent between 18 and 54 minutes on each adult interview. The 12 interviewees included the principal (whose interview is the one that lasted 54 minutes), the assistant principal, and 10 teachers. As mentioned above, the principal identifies as Chicano. The other adult interviewees included four adults of color, six White adults, and one adult who declined to identify himself racially. In addition, the sample of 12 adults included seven women and five men. The school adult interviews covered five topics: (a) general information, (b) contact with the program, (c) YPAR and students’ roles in school decision-making, (d) views of the program, and (e) the influence of the students’ research or the program. The 15 student interviews and 12 school adult interviews (27 interviews total) were transcribed and all were used in the analysis presented here.

My colleagues and I drew on ethnographic and inductive approaches to analyze the data (Anderson-Levitt, 2006; Bogdan & Biklen, 2007; Strauss & Corbin, 1994), in addition to combining bottom-up and top-down approaches (Erickson, 1986). Our first step after the completion of the Spring 2015 semester was to create a code book. We accomplished this by independently generating lists of codes derived through an open coding process (Saldaña, 2009) that was informed by our theoretical framework and several research questions, including those that form the focus of this article. We then combined the lists into one, eliminating duplicate codes. We each tested this compiled list of codes and then met to discuss each code, decide whether it should be kept, and come to a consensus on its meaning. Our final code book included 72 codes and covered the following themes, which are relevant to this article: (a) adults’ responses to students’ research, (b) students’ or adults’ attitudes about YPAR, (c) students’ changes in participation within school or YPAR over time, (d) students’ or adults’ conceptualizations about YPAR, (e) students’ identity, and (f) influence of the YPAR program or the students’ research on discourse, thinking, or school structures. These codes reflect CHAT concepts and allowed us to examine the double bind or confliction of motives related to student leadership, positioning (especially as related to (a) and (e)), and possible third spaces that arose (especially as related to (c)). Once we created this code book, we coded our data in NVivo 11.

Following this, I conducted an additional analysis of the interviews with the school adults to further understand the data in light of the theoretical framework. In this analysis, I focused on how the adults discursively positioned the students and themselves. For instance, I examined whether and how adults focused on the academic benefits of YPAR instead of, or more prominently than, the benefits of YPAR to help improve the school. In addition, I examined instances in which adults had questioned the credibility of the students and how they characterized the potential of student voice in school decision making (which pointed to the double bind of school hierarchies). Finally, I also conducted an in-depth analysis of the video of the presentation to faculty (Erickson, 2006) to explore possible third spaces that arose. To establish trustworthiness (Lincoln & Guba, 1985) or, to use Creswell’s (2013) term, validation, I asked my two colleagues to review my analysis and this article. In addition, I asked the youth about their views of the YPAR project and adults’ responses, and asked Hugo to review the article and subsequently met with him to discuss his viewpoints. I made changes based on the peer reviews and member checking. Also, I triangulated the findings presented here by drawing on several sources of data: interviews, field notes, logs of videos, and artifacts. In concert, the joint and individual data analyses allowed me to address the two research questions: (a) Within the context of a YPAR program, how do Students of Color position themselves and how are they positioned by school adults? (b) What implications does this positioning have for possibilities for including Students of Color in school leadership?

Limitations

The research methodology has two limitations. First, the study focuses on one semester within an ongoing program; hence, it does not capture long-term changes in the way positioning evolved. However, this limitation is also an affordance. As discussed above, the decision to focus on the first school year of the program (a spring semester) was deliberate because it best illustrated the phenomenon of positioning in light of the novelty of the program. Second, the analysis would have benefited if the research team had been able to interview more teachers and administrators. As stated above, 12 teachers and administrators were interviewed in Spring 2015, representing slightly less than half of the certificated staff. The findings could have been different with a larger pool of adult interviews. However, due to teacher turnover and the fact that the YPAR group had some changes in membership by the beginning of the following school year, additional teacher interviews in Fall 2015 were untenable.

Findings

The analysis shows that many students in the YPAR program (re)positioned themselves over the course of the semester, taking advantage of third spaces and creating opportunities for expanded third spaces. School leaders, on the other hand, positioned students in contradictory ways, sometimes hindering possibilities for third spaces in which Students of Color assume leadership roles. In the following discussions, I first describe how the students positioned themselves and then explore how adults positioned the students. This positioning by adults, including White adults, did not involve any blatant racism; however, it is important to consider the broader context of White supremacist racism, which extends beyond the school.

How Students Positioned Themselves

Students (re)positioned themselves vis-à-vis adults throughout the Spring 2015 semester in two main spaces: (a) within the YPAR program in relation to my colleagues and me and (b) within the school in interactions with school adults during data collection and the presentation. In these spaces, the students (re)positioned themselves as agentive and knowledgeable. The YPAR program served to illuminate and sanction the students’ existing leadership and create more opportunities for it to expand. In this way, the students’ self-positioning opened possibilities for third spaces in which Students of Color could be more included in leadership.

(Re)positioning within YPAR

During the Spring 2015 semester, my colleagues and I made comments in our field notes about how we thought we were overstepping our authority in light of the ideals of YPAR. For instance, on May 4, 2015, I described a student’s confusion about the methods and analysis of the group’s research, commenting, “it might indicate that we should put more of the decision-making into the students’ hands.” At times, the youth made this need for (re)positioning clear by their actions and comments. Especially in moments that most resembled traditional teacher–student relationships, the youth sometimes explicitly or subtly challenged my and my colleagues’ ideas or the way we were structuring YPAR.

One instance of this positioning occurred during the students’ data collection. My colleagues and I had decided that we should be the ones to recruit peers for the YPAR students to interview due to the sensitivity of the research topics (bullying related to race and LGBTQIA identities) and our perception of the possibility of backlash. We accomplished this recruitment by visiting all sixth-, seventh-, and eighth-grade classrooms at the school and asking for interested students to leave class for interviews. Later that day, after the interviews had occurred, Brenda, a Latina seventh grader, commented at a meeting that she had thought that the recruitment was going to be different from what it had been, with students doing the recruiting rather than my colleagues and me. She then illustrated how recruitment could have unfolded:

I felt that we’re representing YPAR, like it shows that we know what to do. And that we would say, “Hi, everybody.” . . . Like we tell them like, “We’re doing bullying, racism. We’re just wondering if you, if you would like to be re- audio recorded or videotaped in this documentary.”

Through these comments, Brenda positioned herself and the other students as capable of increased opportunities for leadership. In addition, she sparked a change within the group, in that subsequently the students, not the adults, recruited interviewees.

Another moment of difference in student and adult perspectives occurred toward the end of the semester, when the adults relayed that the principal wanted the students to present their findings to other students. This sparked a debate in which several students said that they did not want to present to their own grades (seventh and eighth) despite my and my colleagues’ prodding. We compromised and the YPAR students presented to the students in the sixth grade. In addition to these examples, other moments large and small occurred in which the youth positioned themselves, such as when they made suggestions to approach activities differently.

Despite these examples, in many ways, the students and adults in the program enacted traditional teacher and student roles. However, the examples illustrate that the students found ways to disrupt the double bind of these hierarchical roles—related to age and, with me, race—by (further) positioning themselves as leaders and creating third spaces within YPAR.

(Re)positioning within the school

In addition to disrupting hierarchies within the YPAR space, students positioned themselves vis-à-vis school adults as knowledgeable contributors to school improvement. This positioning challenged societal deficit viewpoints about Students of Color stemming from White supremacy and, instead, illustrated the ways in which such students can and should help to run a school. The YPAR program served as a forum to highlight their existing leadership and create opportunities for further (re)positioning as leaders.

Students’ discussions of (re)positioning

Most students, in end-of-the-semester interviews, positioned themselves as knowledgeable, capable of taking action, and (more) willing to speak out about issues. In response to a question about whether students should have a role in school decision making, some, but not all, students asserted that they had insider knowledge about bullying that school adults should heed. For instance, Dora, a Latina eighth grader, commented,

I think all kids know more about bullying than adults, honestly . . . . Because a lot of grown-ups thinks it’s just a phase, it’s going to go by. It happens to everyone. Honestly, it really doesn’t happen to everyone and it’s not a phase.

In this quotation, Dora explicitly challenged adults’ perceptions of bullying and countered with her insider knowledge: Bullying is not a phase, and specific students are targeted. Though it is unclear how Dora envisioned youth participating in decision making, her comment suggests that she regarded adults’ decisions about bullying to be based on inaccurate viewpoints. Another student, Malia, also a Latina eighth grader, argued that this insider knowledge provided the grounds for students to be involved in making decisions: “People who do know what’s wrong is like the people who have experienced it. So we should at least try to do something about it.”

In addition to characterizing themselves as knowledgeable, students also positioned themselves as change agents. Several students mentioned that they sought to “make a difference” in the school and change teachers’ minds about bullying. Several commented that they felt more confident to speak out as a results of the YPAR program. Francis, a seventh grader who identified as Native and Black, said she became less shy in the program. She commented that through YPAR she learned “how to speak, speak out and not be nervous and give people advice. Talk to people more about what’s going on and how I feel. It changed a lot. It changed me a lot. I’m wiser.” Similarly, Brenda stated,

[My] new skills are being confident of what I say and to me, I feel like I’m a better person now because I used to be quiet. I only talked to certain people who talked to me back. Now I’m better, I can say what I want, what’s on my mind.

The comments of Francis and Brenda illustrate how they repositioned themselves as individuals who “talk to people more about what’s going on” and “say . . . what’s on my mind.” This capacity to speak out is essential to leadership, especially considering Students of Color researching race and other controversial topics within a context of White supremacist racism and other forms of oppression.

(Re)positioning through interactions with school adults

The YPAR program provided two main opportunities for students to interact with school adults in ways that disrupted the double binds of hierarchies related to race, age, and institutional position in schools. They interviewed school adults and presented to the faculty at the end of the semester.

Several students remarked that interviewing school adults was “awkward,” perhaps referencing the change in roles that the interviewing entailed. A few students commented that the interviews provided insight into teachers. For instance, Belen, a Latina eighth grader, explained that she thought the teacher she interviewed was nervous and wondered whether the teacher would answer the questions. However, the interview went well, and Belen described feeling proud of the teacher and herself for their interactions. She added,

Now that I interviewed a teacher, I don’t just look at them as a teacher or a teacher that I used to have. I look at them more of a . . . person with a lot of personality, a person I could look up to.

Belen’s comment suggests that the act of interviewing served to disrupt concrete categories assigned to students and teachers. After the interview, this particular teacher became more of a real person in Belen’s eyes.

The presentation to faculty provided even more opportunities for the YPAR students to (re)position themselves vis-à-vis school adults. The fact that Students of Color were presenting their own research to a room full of school adults, perhaps half or more of whom were White, created an opportunity to disrupt the double bind of White supremacy and age hierarchies in schools. In addition, the content of the presentation, which drew on the students’ intersectional identities, shed light on double binds within the school related to bullying, homophobia, dis/ability, and racism. In the presentation, 12 students stood in a row facing several tables in the library, where about 30 teachers and administrators were seated. Through their presentation and the showing of their documentaries, the students reported that about 75% of students in grades 6 through 8 agreed that bullying was a problem at the school, about 50% agreed that racism was a problem at school, and about 33% agreed that gay and lesbian students get bullied at school. As mentioned above, the presentation concluded with concrete policy and practice recommendations to teachers and administrators, including providing training for teachers and students. Much of the presentation entailed counterstories in that the students were speaking out against racism and homophobia from their own vantage points. In addition, the very presence of these Students of Color at the meeting, teaching the school adults, could be considered a form of counterstory.

Within the presentation, some students spoke only their prewritten and, in some cases, memorized, speaking lines, sometimes speaking softly. However, other students added to their speaking lines and spoke forcefully. For instance, Brenda spoke extemporaneously in some moments. While tapping one hand on the other to emphasize her words, Brenda said, “We are doing this because of bullying. There are many sorts of bullying. Sexual and race. Our community is trying to stop bullying and let everyone speak up.” In these statements, Brenda illustrated her agency through her use of a first-person plural pronoun (“we”) and pronoun phrase (“our community”) paired with action verbs (“are doing,” “trying to stop,” and “let”). In this way, she positioned herself and the rest of the YPAR students as active agents who have the authority to allow or encourage (“let”) other students in the school speak out about bullying.

During the question-and-answer period following the presentation, some students’ self-positioning as leaders became even more apparent. Five of the 12 students at the presentation fielded questions from the teachers and administrators in the audience. One exchange, involving Dora, Brenda, and Patrick, a White teacher, was particularly telling:

Patrick:

What do you need for your call to action? Those things you said you wanted to do, what do you need to make that happen?

Dora:

We need the approval of the principal. [giggling in the room] And we need, we just need to make sure that you guys all agree and that this is an important topic and it’s important to have all these things for students.

Brenda:

Like, we need your entire, 100% support on this, because this is basically our work and what we’re presenting to you. To be, we’re trying to be more role models, so we can show each individual that it’s OK to be you and that no one can say anything.

In this excerpt from the question-and-answer period, the students positioned themselves as agentive actors vis-à-vis the White teacher and the other faculty. Dora used the first-person subject pronoun “we” twice and Brenda used that pronoun four times, in addition to the pronoun phrase “our work.” While using the pronoun “we,” Dora and Brenda called on school adults to align themselves with the YPAR students’ viewpoints. However, the students accomplished this in two distinct ways. Dora stated, “We just need to make sure that you guys all agree.” Though Dora implied that she was seeking the agreement of the adults in the room, she placed some of the onus on the students, who needed to “make sure” that the adults agreed. In addition, she inserted the word “just,” which functioned to mitigate what followed. Brenda reiterated Dora’s sentiment in a much more forceful manner, without the mitigation: “We need your entire, 100% support on this.” In addition, she positioned herself and the other YPAR students as “role models.” Thus Brenda and Dora, in different ways, positioned themselves as leaders within the context of the presentation. This repositioning did not go unnoticed by Brenda, who commented later in an interview: “It was like in the moment that we felt like we were the adults and we were teaching them like they were the kids.” Her observation speaks directly to the disruption of the double bind of the age hierarchy and suggests that, in that moment, a third space was co-constructed. This was also a disruption of White supremacy, considering that White teachers were overrepresented at the school in relation to the student body.

How School Adults Positioned the Students

In interviews, teachers and administrators not only stated support for student voice and leadership but also dismissed or undermined it. Whether dismissing or supporting student voice, school adults often avoided speaking directly about race. Below I describe these contradictions and then discuss the principal’s commentary, which provides insights into the contradictions.

Contradictory sentiments

In answer to an interview question about the possible benefits of YPAR, 10 of the 12 teachers and administrators mentioned benefits to the students directly involved in the program. Many of these adults discussed academic benefits first or emphasized these over other possible benefits. For instance, Andy, a Latino teacher, said, “I think it’s great because they’re collecting their own data; they’re getting their own ideas. They also have to sort it in some sort. They have to, I mean, there’s so much academic behind it.” Also, some adults mentioned benefits related to civic participation, such as increases in confidence. The adults’ focus on benefits to the students involved was not unmerited; indeed, research has shown that YPAR can be a rich site of academic and civic learning (de los Ríos et al., 2015; Duncan-Andrade & Morrell, 2008; Garcia, Mirra, Morrell, Martinez, & Scorza, 2015). However, the focus on academic benefits overshadowed a consideration of schoolwide benefits, which adults often mentioned only in answer to a direct question.

When support for student voice or leadership was expressed, as was the case with nine school adults, it was often in a weak or ambivalent form. For instance, a White teacher, Samantha, expressed a weak form of support for student voice when asked a direct question about the role of student research. Here is an excerpt of our conversation:

Melanie:

Do you think that student research would be useful at a school level, like to the running of the school?

Samantha:

Yes, I think something like this, if we can go into it a little bit more. Because teachers, we’ve been talking about how to stop bullying . . . . So, yes, I definitely think that it will help. I think if they continue to work on this topic and really point out . . . . But I don’t know. If bullying is really a problem and we find out where it’s happening, when it’s happening, that way teachers and administration can really target what’s going on and try to find ways to prevent it.

In this quotation, Samantha positioned students as potential informants to adult-led efforts to address bullying. She commented that if she and the other school adults “find out where it’s happening, when it’s happening,” then they can “really target what’s going on.” In this explanation, students were not directly mentioned, but the implication was that their role would be to pass information to school adults. This vision of the usefulness of student research positioned students in passive roles and not as leaders, conflicting with Brenda’s vision for 100% support from school adults for the students’ ideas. Moreover, Samantha avoided mentioning race or sexuality in response to the question about student voice in decision making, even though these were prominent issues in the youth’s presentation.

In addition, Samantha indirectly dismissed the students’ viewpoints in her quotation by casting doubt on the existence of a bullying problem (“If bullying is really a problem . . .”). Furthermore, later in the interview, she questioned whether students knew if they were gay or lesbian at their age, which indirectly dismissed the students’ research findings about bullying of gay and lesbian students. Besides Samantha, four other school adults questioned the credibility of the students’ research findings or methods. One of these others was a teacher who identified as White. During the question-and-answer period after the students’ presentation, the teacher asked the students about their data collection and, in an interview later, said, “To me, there’s still questions up in the air about how correct the data is. I also wonder sometimes, because we’re in a time where things are so ultrasensitive, do the students really know what bullying is?” In this quotation, the teacher directly questioned the students’ research and experiences by questioning whether they knew what bullying was, thereby positioning them as neither knowledgeable nor, by implication, credible producers of knowledge who are capable of contributing to decision making. Also, in the quotation and the rest of the interview, he avoided any direct mention of race or sexuality. In this way, he and other school adults indirectly reinforced hierarchies of age and race, eschewing opportunities to disrupt White supremacist racism and perhaps bolstering it.

School adults’ positioning of the youth in YPAR was a complex phenomenon because the power differences were related to not only age and institutional position but also race and other identities. Hence, school adults’ commentary about student voice should be considered within context of White supremacy, as related to the voice of Students of Color in particular. Indeed, as the teachers’ commentary illustrates, they often relied on colorblind ideology (Bonilla-Silva, 2014) to ignore racism and thereby reproduce White supremacy. Though there were no clear patterns related to school adults’ race or gender, these forms of positionality may have shaped their perceptions of the students, as suggested by previous research (Grissom & Redding, 2016). Overall, four of the nine adults who said that they supported student voice also questioned the credibility of the students’ research. There were also adults who expressed one or the other of these sentiments. As stated above, seven interviewed adults were women, five identified as people of color and at least six of the teachers were White. An additional factor could have been their role at the school: Only a subset of the adult interviewees taught the seventh and eighth grades, meaning that some worked with some or all of the YPAR students in the classroom, whereas others did not. Also, two interviewees were administrators and the rest were teachers. The adults’ role—and possible preexisting relationships with the YPAR students—may have influenced how they positioned students; however, no patterns emerged in this area.

Commentary of the principal

The principal, Hugo, thoughtfully and reflexively contemplated the YPAR program and his and his faculty’s capacity to extend decision making to students in the school. He discussed these areas in an interview at the end of the semester and in informal dialogues with my colleagues and me throughout the semester. As will become relevant below, one of my colleagues, who identifies as a woman of color, conducted the interview.

As discussed in the Methods section, Hugo had expressed enthusiasm for the YPAR program to my colleagues and me, especially as related to the pedagogical and curricular benefits to the youth directly involved, but placed less emphasis on the possible schoolwide benefits. The tension between these two possible goals of the program was evident in his commentary about the “pushback from some staff members” that he observed in the question-and-answer period of the YPAR presentation. Referring to the students’ research, he continued,

The point is not if it’s significant or not. The point isn’t if it’s even true. It probably was. The point is the kids are doing some research, and they are finding voice . . . . The question is, are teachers and the system ready to receive that information?

In this quotation, Hugo first explained his viewpoint that “the point” is that the youth “are finding voice,” not whether the information they presented was significant or true. Hence, the beginning of the quote illustrates Hugo’s emphasis on the pedagogical benefits of YPAR and his implicit dismissal of the importance of the research for school change. However, he then appeared to support the school change goal of YPAR, wondering whether the teachers and “the system” had the capacity to truly digest what the youth in YPAR had reported. While this quote may allude to teacher–student hierarchies, he made clear that race was also a factor, explaining,

Having the guts to stand up in front of teachers and talk about things that are; teachers don’t, we don’t want to talk about race. I don’t want to talk about race. I can talk to you about race. I can talk to a Chicano about race. I ain’t talking to White people about race. And I feel more comfortable with Mel [the author], but even then, I’m a little bit iffy. Not because of Mel, but just because of that power structure that is; particularly Phil, eesh. Or other White teachers here. A couple of them might; most of them won’t.

In this quotation, Hugo alluded to the double bind of White supremacist racism, though he did not use that term. After praising the students’ “guts” in doing their presentation, he stated that teachers “don’t want to talk about race.” He then commented that he could talk to my colleague (“you”) and “a Chicano” about race, but not to White people. This comment further contextualized his remark moments before about the bravery of the students, who had presented about racism and other controversial topics to a faculty audience including a large number of White teachers. Finally, he mentioned White individuals: me, Phil (a White teacher), and “other White teachers here,” contextualizing us within the “power structure.” Hugo implied that Phil was an exemplar of this “power structure” in stating, “particularly Phil, eesh,” with the interjection of “eesh” emphasizing his point. Referring to White teachers, he closed by stating: “A couple of them might; most of them won’t.” Though he did not make clear the action that some White teachers “might” or “won’t” do, his other comments suggest that he was referring to possibilities for dialogue about race. In this way, this quotation provided further explanation about why “teachers and the system” might not be “ready to receive that information” from the YPAR students.

In the same interview, the principal also cast doubt on his own capacity to receive the information from the students. In what was a tremendously honest reflection, he commented,

The only limitation of kids’ research is my limitation. They can do all this great work, but it only goes as far as my capacity to deal with that information. And my capacity is already reached. I’ve already forgotten about the recommendations.

In this comment, Hugo questioned his “capacity to deal with that information,” punctuating this sentiment by stating that he had already forgotten the students’ recommendations for change. Here the phrase “deal with” implied taking action. Indeed, as with many principals, he faced a never-ending barrage of demands for his time. In this context, it is no wonder that he felt his capacity to take action in response to the students’ presentation was limited. In a related vein, Hugo’s earlier comment about the validity of the students’ research not being “the point” also suggests that his focus was not on taking action based on the research.

Overall, the principal’s commentary about the teachers at the school and himself provided insights into the ways that school adults positioned students. Adults hesitated to position the YPAR students as school leaders, perhaps due to teacher–student and race hierarchies, thereby limiting opportunities for third spaces to arise. In addition, the principal raised an important point about the capacity of the teachers and even himself to engage with the YPAR students and their research in ways that could influence the school.

Discussion and Conclusion

This study has shown that students within the YPAR program (re)positioned themselves as leaders through their production and presentation of intersectional research about bullying as related to both racism and homophobia. Through their actions and words, they embodied counterstories to deficit-oriented narratives about Students of Color and illustrated the potential for their inclusion in school leadership. School adults, however, positioned the students in contradictory ways. They verbalized support for student input without also positioning students as leaders while, in some cases, dismissing the students’ research and viewpoints.

This study illustrates the complexity involved in creating third spaces in which Students of Color position themselves as leaders while also being positioned that way by adults. In this case, the YPAR program appeared to function as a mediator by providing new structures to facilitate the possibilities. For instance, YPAR illuminated and sanctioned existing student leadership. It also appeared to provide the conditions leading to the increase in some students’ confidence to speak out and made possible some new forms of student–adult interactions. However, within the context of YPAR, the students themselves accomplished their own (re)positioning. The students, not the YPAR structure, positioned and repositioned themselves as knowledgeable and capable of teaching adults “like they were the kids,” in Brenda’s words. In this way, they took advantages of the conditions created by YPAR to position themselves in ways that led to third spaces—such as the interaction between Dora, Brenda, and the teacher—that disrupted White supremacy and age-related student–teacher dichotomies.

The school adults, however, often positioned the students as neither knowledgeable about their experiences nor capable of contributing in a meaningful way to school decision making, echoing the findings of other research (Welton et al., 2014; York & Kirshner, 2015). This positioning, which circumscribed possibilities for third spaces and the inclusion of Students of Color in leadership, occurred within a societal context of White supremacist racism, which influences activity systems such as schools. Though none of the school adults made blatantly racist statements, they nonetheless missed opportunities to disrupt White supremacist racism and age hierarchies and, in some cases, helped bolster them. The school principal provided insight into the adults’ positioning by pointing to their capacity to hear the students’ research findings.

This study’s contribution has been to advance the potential of including Students of Color into educational leadership, adding to a nascent body of literature (Khalifa, 2013; Mansfield, 2014; Welton et al., 2014). The insider insights and leadership of Students of Color about the manifestations of White supremacy and intersecting forms of inequity could greatly advance social justice goals for schools. Specifically, the study illustrates the importance of considering positioning—entailing moment-by-moment interactions—when the aim is to create third spaces, “rich zones of collaboration and learning” (Gutiérrez et al., 1999, pp. 286-287), in which power hierarchies are disrupted. In pursuit of third spaces, the discussions above illustrate the need to consider the capacity of school adults and school systems, specifically as related to colorblindness (Bonilla-Silva, 2014) and White supremacy. In addition, this article shows that YPAR and similar programs can act as mediators to increase the potential for Students of Color to expand their leadership at schools by shining light on existing leadership and opening up new possibilities for students to position themselves as leaders. This insight supports previous research illustrating the benefits of community- or university-based outside mediators in prompting social justice–oriented change in educational settings (Bensimon, 2004), especially as related to YPAR or student voice initiatives (Mirra & Rogers, 2016; Mitra, 2009).

The study points to some possible next steps for both research and practice in educational leadership. In the area of research, studies could explore YPAR or youth voice initiatives as possible mediators to expanding educational leadership to include Students of Color. In addition, research could examine positioning and how to reconfigure it, including efforts to enhance school adults’ capacity to share decision making with students, specifically Students of Color. Possible next steps for practice could mirror those for research. Specifically, YPAR facilitators could enhance YPAR’s role as a mediator by (a) acting as intermediaries between the YPAR group and the school; (b) increasing interaction between the YPAR group and school adults, beyond presentations; and (c) leveraging affiliations with outside organizations or universities. In addition, both YPAR facilitators and school adults (administrators and/or teachers) could consider how to create an environment in which (re)positioning and third spaces can better arise, facilitating disruption of student–teacher and race hierarchies. Efforts could focus on increasing the capacity of individual school adults and the school system as a whole to challenge White supremacy and view Students of Color as holders of important insider insights and potential school leaders. Following the insights of CHAT (Sannino et al., 2016), students and school adults could jointly review videos of previous collective meetings, critically reflecting on the moment-to-moment positionings that either disrupted or reentrenched power hierarchies. In addition, students and school adults could jointly engage in participatory action research, collectively deciding on school issues and future actions.⁵

Through these next steps in practice and also research, the educational leadership field can help forge new pathways toward including Students of Color in leadership. The resulting expansion of leadership could help challenge White supremacy and intersecting forms of inequity in education and promote social justice.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

I thank the YPAR members for making possible the participatory action research project described in this article. In addition, I am grateful to the principal of the school for welcoming the YPAR project and continuing to support it. I also thank E. Sybil Durand, Taucia Gonzalez, Alfredo Artiles, Maribel Santiago, and the anonymous reviewers for their feedback on this article. Finally, I acknowledge the generous support of the Spencer Foundation for this study.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Spencer Foundation supported this study.

Notes

Author Biography

Melanie Bertrand is an assistant professor at Arizona State University. Her research explores the potential of student voice and youth participatory action research to improve schools and challenge systemic racism and other forms of oppression in education. Specifically, she is interested in understanding how students can engage in roles of activism, governance, and leadership within their schools.

References

Aldana

U. S.

(2016). Brotherhood, social justice and persistent deficit ideologies: Latino students’ experiences at an all-male Catholic high school. Journal of Catholic Education, 19, 175-200.

Anderson-Levitt

K. M.

(2006). Ethnography. In Green

J. L.

Camilli

Elmore

P. B.

(Eds.), Handbook of complementary methods in education research (pp. 279-296). Washington, DC: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Arizona Senate Bill 1070. (2010). Retrieved from http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf

Artiles

A. J.

(2011). Toward an interdisciplinary understanding of educational equity and difference: The case of the racialization of ability. Educational Researcher, 40, 431-445.

Baquedano-López

Alexander

R. A.

Hernandez

S. J.

(2013). Equity issues in parental and community involvement in schools: What teacher educators need to know. Review of Research in Education, 37, 149-182.

Bensimon

E. M.

(2004). The diversity scorecard: A learning approach to institutional change. Change, 36, 45-52.

Bertrand

(2014). Reciprocal dialogue between educational decision makers and Students of Color: Opportunities and obstacles. Educational Administration Quarterly, 50, 812-843. doi:10.1177/0013161X14542582

Bertrand

Ford

(2015). “Planting the seeds”: The influence of the Council of Youth Research on education policy. In Conner

Ebby-Rosin

(Eds.), Student voice in American education policy (Vol. 114, pp. 189-202). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Bogdan

R. C.

Biklen

S. K.

(2007). Qualitative research for education. Boston, MA: Pearson.

10.

Bonilla-Silva

(2014). Racism without racists: Color-blind racism and the persistence of racial inequality in the United States (3rd ed.). Plymouth, England: Rowman & Littlefield.

11.

Cabrera

N. L.

Milem

J. F.

Jaquette

Marx

R. W.

(2014). Missing the (student achievement) forest for all the (political) trees: Empiricism and the Mexican American studies controversy in Tucson. American Educational Research Journal, 51, 1084-1118.

12.

Cammarota

(2014). Misspoken in Arizona: Latina/o students document the articulations of racism. Equity & Excellence in Education, 47, 321-333.

13.

Cammarota

Fine

(2008a). Revolutionizing education: Youth participatory action research in motion. New York, NY: Routledge.

14.

Cammarota

Fine

(2008b). Youth participatory action research: A pedagogy for transformational resistance. In Cammarota

Fine

(Eds.), Revolutionizing education: Youth participatory action research in motion (pp. 1-12). New York, NY: Routledge.

15.

Collins

P. H.

(1990). Black feminist thought in the matrix of domination. In Black feminist thought: Knowledge, consciousness, and the politics of empowerment (pp. 221-238). Boston, MA: Unwin Hyman.

16.

Collins

P. H.

(2004). Learning from the outsider within: The sociological significance of Black feminist thought. In Harding

(Ed.), The feminist standpoint theory reader: Intellectual and political controversies (pp. 103-126). New York, NY: Routledge.

17.

Cook

B. G.

(2001). A comparison of teachers’ attitudes toward their included students with mild and severe disabilities. Journal of Special Education, 34, 203-213.

18.

Cooper

(2016). Intersectionality. In Disch

Hawkesworth

(Eds.), The Oxford handbook of feminist theory (pp. 385-406). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

19.

Creswell

J. W.

(2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

20.

de los Ríos

C. V.

López

Morrell

. (2015). Toward a critical pedagogy of race: Ethnic studies and literacies of power in high school classrooms. Race and Social Problems, 7, 84-96.

21.

DeCuir

J. T.

Dixson

A. D.

(2004). “So when it comes out, they aren’t that surprised that it is there”: Using critical race theory as a tool of analysis of race and racism in education. Educational Researcher, 33(5), 26-31.

22.

DeMatthews

Mawhinney

(2014). Social justice leadership and inclusion. Educational Administration Quarterly, 50, 844-881. doi:10.1177/0013161X13514440

23.

Duncan-Andrade

Morrell

(2008). The art of critical pedagogy: Possibilities for moving from theory to practice in urban schools. New York, NY: Peter Lang.

24.

Durand

E. S.

(2015). At the intersections of identity: Race and sexuality in LGBTQ young adult literature. In Linville

Carlson

D. L.

(Eds.), Beyond borders: Queer eros and ethos (ethics) in LGBTQ young adult literature (pp. 73-84). New York, NY: Peter Lang.

25.

Durand

E. S.

Bertrand

Gonzalez

(2015, December). Re-imagining participation through literacy: Stories from a literature-infused youth participatory action research program. Paper presented at the Literacy Research Association, Carlsbad, CA.

26.

Engeström

(1987). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Helsinki, Finland: Orienta-Konsultit.

27.

Erickson

(1986). Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In Wittrock

(Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 119-161). New York, NY: Macmillan.

28.

Erickson

(2006). Definition and analysis of data from videotape: Some research procedures and their rationales. In Green

J. L.

Camilli

Elmore

P. B.

(Eds.), Handbook of complementary methods in education research (pp. 177-192). Washington, DC: Lawrence Erlbaum.

29.

Garcia

Mirra

Morrell

Martinez

Scorza

(2015). The Council of Youth Research: Critical literacy and civic agency in the digital age. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 31, 151-167.

30.

Ginwright

S. A.

(2010). Black youth rising: Activism and radical healing in urban America. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

31.

González

Artiles

A. J.

(2015). Reframing venerable standpoints about language and learning differences: The need for research on the literate lives of Latina/o language minority students. Journal of Multilingual Education Research, 6(1), Article 3.

32.

Gonzalez

Hernandez-Saca

D. I.

Artiles

A. J.

(2017). In search of voice: Theory and methods in student voice research in the US, 1990-2010. Educational Review, 69, 451-473.

33.

Grissom

J. A.

Redding

(2016). Discretion and disproportionality: Explaining the underrepresentation of high-achieving Students of Color in gifted programs. AERA Open, 2(1), 1-25.

34.

Grogan

(2013). The Jossey-Bass reader on educational leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

35.

Gronn

(2000). Distributed properties: A new architecture for leadership. Educational Management & Administration, 28, 317-338.

36.

Gutiérrez

K. D.

(2008). Developing a sociocritical literacy in the third space. Reading Research Quarterly, 43, 148-164.

37.

Gutiérrez

K. D.

Baquedano-López

Tejeda

(1999). Rethinking diversity: Hybridity and hybrid language practices in the third space. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 6, 286-303.

38.

Gutiérrez

K. D.

Orellana

M. F.

(2006). At last: The “problem” of English learners: Constructing genres of difference. Research in the Teaching of English, 40, 502-507.

39.

Gutiérrez

K. D.

Rymes

Larson

(1995). Script, counterscript, and underlife in the classroom: James Brown versus Brown v. Board of Education. Harvard Educational Review, 65, 445-471.

40.

Harré

Lagenhove

L. V.

(1999). Positioning theory: Moral contexts of intentional action. Oxford, England: Blackwell.

41.

Holland

Leander

(2004). Ethnographic studies of positioning and subjectivity: An introduction. Ethos, 32, 127-139.

42.

Irizarry

J. G.

Welton

A. D.

(2014). Latina/o youth as educational researchers: Implications for teaching and learning in urban schools. In Milner

H. R.

Lomotey

(Eds.), Handbook of urban education (pp. 239-255). New York, NY: Routledge.

43.

Ishimaru

A. M.

(2014). When new relationships meet old narratives: The journey towards improving parent–school relationship in a district-community organizing collaboration. Teachers College Record, 116, 1-49.

44.

Jussim

Harber

(2005). Teacher expectations and self-fulfilling prophecies: Knowns and unknowns, resolved and unresolved controversies. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 9, 131-155.

45.

Khalifa

M. A.

(2013). Promoting our students: Examining the role of school leadership in the self-advocacy of at-risk students. Journal of School Leadership, 23, 751-788.

46.

Khalifa

M. A.

Witherspoon Arnold

Onsanloo

A. F.

Grant

C. M.

(2015). Handbook of urban educational leadership. London, England: Rowman & Littlefield.

47.

Kirshner

(2015). Youth activism in an era of education inequality. New York: New York University Press.

48.

Kirshner

Jefferson

(2015). Participatory democracy and struggling schools: Making space for youth in school turnarounds. Teachers College Record, 117, 1-26.

49.

Kohli

Solórzano

D. G.

(2011). Black and brown high school student activism. In Berta-Avila

Tijerina-Revilla

López Figueroa

(Eds.), Marching students: Chicana and Chicano (pp. 131-147). Reno: University of Nevada Press.

50.

Kohli

Solórzano

D. G.

(2012). Teachers, please learn our names! Racial microaggressions and the K-12 classroom. Race Ethnicity and Education, 15, 441-462.

51.

Kotsopoulos

(2014). The case of Mitchell’s cube: Interactive and reflexive positioning during collaborative learning in mathematics. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 21, 34-52.

52.

Ladson-Billings

(2006). From the achievement gap to the education debt: Understanding achievement in U.S. schools. Educational Researcher, 35(7), 3–12.

53.

Leonardo

(2009). Race, whiteness, and education: The critical social thought series. New York, NY: Routledge.

54.

Lincoln

Y. S.

Guba

E. G.

(1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

55.

Losen

Hodson

Keith

M. A.

II Morrison

Belway

(2015). Are we closing the school discipline gap? Los Angeles: University of California, The Center for Civil Rights Remedies, at The Civil Rights Project.

56.

Mansfield

K. C.

(2014). How listening to student voices informs and strengthens social justice research and practice. Educational Administration Quarterly, 50, 392-430.

57.

Mansfield

K. C.

Welton

Halx

(2012). Listening to student voice: Toward a more inclusive theory for research and practice. In Boske

Diem

(Eds.), Global leadership for social justice: Taking it from the field to practice (pp. 21-41). Bingley, England: Emerald Group.

58.

McCready

L. T.

(2004). Some challenges facing queer youth programs in urban high schools. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Issues in Education, 1(3), 37-51.

59.

Mirra

Garcia

Morrell

(2015). Doing youth participatory action research: Transforming inquiry with researchers, educators, and students. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.

60.

Mirra

Rogers

(2016). Institutional participation and social transformation: Considering the goals and tensions of university-initiated YPAR projects with K-12 youth. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 29(9), 1-14. doi:10.1080/09518398.2016.1192697

61.

Mitra

D. L.

(2005). Adults advising youth: Leading while getting out of the way. Educational Administration Quarterly, 41, 520-553.

62.

Mitra

D. L.

(2009). The role of intermediary organizations in sustaining student voice initiatives. Teachers College Record, 111, 1834-1870.

63.

Mitra

D. L.

Serriere

Stoicovy

(2012). The role of leaders in enabling student voice. Management in Education, 26, 104-112.

64.

Morrell

(2008). Six summers of YPAR: Learning, action and change in urban education. In Cammarota

Fine

(Eds.), Revolutionizing education: Youth participatory action research in motion (pp. 155-184). New York, NY: Routledge.

65.

Morrell

Dueñas

Garcia

López

(2013). Critical media pedagogy: Teaching for achievement in city schools. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

66.

National Policy Board for Educational Administration. (2015). Professional standards for educational leadership. Reston, VA: Author.

67.

Pacheco

(2012). Learning in/through everyday resistance: A cultural–historical perspective on community resources and curriculum. Educational Researcher, 41, 121-132. doi:10.3102/0013189X12442982

68.

Paris

Alim

H. S.

(2014). What are we seeking to sustain through culturally sustaining pedagogy? Harvard Educational Review, 84(1), 85-100.

69.

Rodela

K. C.

(2016). Undocumented educational leadership: The development of Latina mothers into emergent social justice leaders. National Forum of Applied Educational Research Journal, 29(1-2), 21-33.

70.

Rodríguez

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.

71.

Rogers

Freelon

Terriquez

(2012). Enlisting collective help: Urban principals’ encouragement of parent participation in school decision-making. In Auerbach

(Ed.), School leadership for authentic family and community partnerships (pp. 55-77). New York, NY: Routledge.

72.

Saldaña

(2009). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

73.

Sannino

Engeström

Lemos

(2016). Formative interventions for expansive learning and transformative agency. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 25, 599-633. doi:10.1080/10508406.2016.1204547

74.

Smyth

(2006). Educational leadership that fosters “student voice.” International Journal of Leadership in Education, 9, 279-284.

75.

Solórzano

D. G.

Yosso

T. J.

(2002). Critical race methodology: Counter-storytelling as an analytical framework for education research. Qualitative Inquiry, 8(1), 23-44.

76.

Spillane

J. P.

Halverson

Diamond

J. B.

(2001). Investigating school leadership practice: A distributed perspective. Educational Researcher, 30(3), 23-28.

77.

Strauss

A. L.

Corbin

J. M.

(1994). Grounded theory methodology: An overview. In Denzin

N. K.

Lincoln

Y. S.

(Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 273-285). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

78.

Tillman

L. C.

Scheurich

J. J.

(2013). Handbook of research on educational leadership for equity and diversity. New York, NY: Routledge.

79.

Torre

Fine

(2006). Researching and resisting: Democratic policy research by and for youth. In Ginwright

S. A.

Noguera

Cammarota

(Eds.), Beyond resistance! Youth activism and community change: New democratic possibilities for practice and policy for America’s youth (pp. 269-286). New York, NY: Routledge.

80.

Valencia

R. R.

(2010). Dismantling contemporary deficit thinking: Educational thought and practice. New York, NY: Routledge.

81.

Vossoughi

Gutiérrez

K. D.

(2014). Studying movement, hybridity, and change: Toward a multi-sited sensibility for research on learning across contexts and borders. In Vadeboncoeur

J. A.

(Ed.), Learning in and across contexts: Reimagining education (Vol. 113, pp. 603-632). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

82.

Vygotsky

L. S.

(1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

83.

Welton

A. D.

Brock

Perry

(2014). Building a youth leadership fortress: High school women of color as visible activists. In Newcomb

W. S.

Mansfield

K. C.

(Eds.), Women interrupting, disrupting, and revolutionizing educational policy and practice (pp. 79-98). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.

84.

Wortham

(2004). From good student to outcast: The emergence of a classroom identity. Ethos, 32, 164-187.

85.

York

Kirshner

(2015). How positioning shapes opportunities for student agency in schools. In Conner

Ebby-Rosin

(Eds.), Student voice in American education policy (Vol. 114, pp. 103-118). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

86.

Yosso

T. J.

(2005). Whose culture has capital? A critical race theory discussion of community cultural wealth. Race, Ethnicity and Education, 8(1), 69-91.