Existing literature supports the inclusion of students in education reform, documenting benefits for both students and educators. When student voice is not included in reform efforts, these efforts are more likely to flounder. The emerging educational reform of data-driven decision making (DDDM) offers promise for increasing student achievement. However, scant research documents the involvement of students in DDDM reforms. Using a theoretical framework that advocates for democratically involving students in education reform, this cross-case analysis examines the role of students in DDDM reforms in elementary and high schools known to be exemplars of data-driven decision making. Based on findings of efforts made by exemplar districts as well as actions they did not take to involve students, the authors conclude that a new typology is necessary for assessing student involvement in DDDM. Consequently, the authors propose a new three-tiered typology for conceptualizing this phenomenon.
CammarotaJ.FineM. (Eds.). (2008). Revolutionizing education: Youth participatory action research in motion. New York: Routledge.
2.
CampbellP. (1994). Students as evaluators: A model for program evaluation. Phi Delta Kappan, 76, 160-165.
3.
ColbyS.SmithK.SheltonJ. (2005). Expanding the supply of high quality public schools. San Francisco: Bridgespan.
4.
Cook-SatherA. (2002). Authorizing students’ perspectives: Toward trust, dialogue, and change in education. Educational Researcher, 31(4), 3-14.
5.
CorbettH. D.RossmanG. B. (1989). Three paths to implementing change: A research note. Curriculum Inquiry, 19, 163-190.
6.
DatnowA.ParkV.KennedyB. (2008). Acting on data: How urban high schools use data to improve instruction. Los Angeles: Center on Educational Governance, University of Southern California.
7.
DatnowA.ParkV.WohlstetterP. (2007). Achieving with data: How high-performing school systems use data to improve instruction for elementary students. Los Angeles: Center on Educational Governance, University of Southern California.
8.
EcclesJ. S.MidgleyC.WigfieldA.BuchananC. M.ReumanD.FlanaganC., et al. (1993). Development during adolescence: The impact of stage-environment fit on young adolescents’ experiences in schools and in families. American Psychologist, 48(2), 90-101.
9.
FieldingM. (2001). Students as radical agents of change. Journal of Educational Change, 2, 123-141.
10.
FieldingM. (2004). Transformative approaches to student voice: Theoretical underpinnings, recalcitrant realities. British Educational Research Journal, 30, 295-311.
11.
GoodenowC. (1993). Classroom belonging among early adolescent students: Relationship to motivation and achievement. Journal of Early Adolescence, 13(1), 21-43.
12.
HamiltonL.HalversonR.JacksonS.MandinachE.SupovitzJ.WaymanJ. (2009). Using student achievement data to support instructional decision making (NCEE 2009-4067). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved October 16, 2010, from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/publications/practiceguides/
13.
HartR. (1997). Children’s participation: The theory and practice of involving young citizens in community development and environmental care. London: Earthscan, with UNICEF.
14.
JonesM.YonezawaS. (2002). Student voice, cultural change: Using inquiry in school reform. Equity & Excellence in Education, 35, 245-254.
15.
KilroyS.DezanR.RiepeA.RossL. (2007). Youth voice in urban high school transformation: “We’re talking . . . is anyone listening?”Children, Youth, and Environments, 17, 388-405.
16.
LevinB. (1994). Educational reform and the treatment of students in schools. Journal of Educational Thought, 28(1), 88-101.
17.
LevinB. (2000). Putting students at the centre in education reform. Journal of Educational Change, 1, 155-172.
18.
LodgeC. (2005). From hearing voices to engaging in dialogue: Problematising student engagement in school improvement. Journal of Educational Change, 6(2), 125-146.
19.
McCombsB. L. (2003). A framework for the redesign of K-12 education in the context of current educational reform. Theory Into Practice, 42(2), 93-101.
20.
MitraD. (2001). Opening the floodgates: Giving students a voice in school reform. Forum, 43(2), 91-94.
21.
MitraD. (2004). The significance of students: Can increasing “student voice” in schools lead to gains in youth development?Teachers College Record, 106, 651-688.
22.
MitraD. (2007). Student voice in school reform: From listening to leadership. In ThiessenD.Cook-SatherA. (Eds.), International handbook of student experience in elementary and secondary schools (pp. 727-744). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
23.
NietoS. (1994). Lessons from students on creating a chance to dream. Harvard Educational Review, 64, 392-426.
24.
OsherD.BearG. G.SpragueJ. R.DoyleW. (2010). How can we improve school discipline?Educational Researcher, 39(1), 48-58.
25.
OstermanK. F. (2000). Students’ need for belonging in the school community. Review of Educational Research, 70, 323-367.
26.
Pacific Region Educational Laboratory. (1994, November). Synthesis of the research on educational change. Honolulu, HI: Author.
27.
PekrulS.LevinB. (2007). Building student voice for school improvement. In ThiessenD.Cook-SatherA. (Eds.), International handbook of student experience in elementary and secondary schools (pp. 711-726). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
28.
RudduckJ. (2007). Student voice, student engagement, and school reform. In ThiessenD.Cook-SatherA. (Eds.), International handbook of student experience in elementary and secondary schools (pp. 587-610). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
29.
SilvaE. (2001). Squeaky wheels and flat tires: A case study of students as reform participants. Forum, 43(2), 95-99.
30.
SlavinR. E. (2002). Evidence-based education policies: Transforming educational practice and research. Educational Researcher, 31(7), 15-21.
31.
SmythJ. (2006). Educational leadership that fosters “student voice.”International Journal of Leadership in Education, 9, 279-284.
32.
SooHooS. (1993). Students as partners in research and restructuring schools. Educational Forum, 57, 386-393.
33.
SupovitzJ.TaylorB. S. (2003). The impact of standards-based reform in Duval County, Florida, 1999-2002. Philadelphia: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
34.
SutherlandS. (2004). Creating a culture of data use for continuous improvement: A case study of an Edison Project school. American Journal of Evaluation, 25, 277-293.
35.
TogneriW.AndersonS. (2003). Beyond islands of excellence: What districts can do to improve instruction and achievement in all schools. Washington, DC: Learning First Alliance.
36.
WehlageG. G.RutterR. A.SmithG. A.LeskoN.FernandezR. R. (1989). Reducing the risk: Schools as communities of support. London: The Falmer Press.
37.
YinR. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
38.
YonezawaS.JonesM. (2007). Using students’ voices to inform and evaluate secondary school reform. In ThiessenD.Cook-SatherA. (Eds.), International handbook of student experience in elementary and secondary schools (pp. 681-709). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
