Conclusion: The Intersection of Student Voice and Policy Research

Abstract

This concluding chapter examines how this book on student voice intersects with previous research about policy implementation and sustainability, focusing on three issues: (a) Legitimizing the role of young people in the policy and reform process. This book considers how to reconceptualize the role of young people in educational systems as policy actors rather than as clients. Building on theoretical concepts of positioning and reframing, it articulates how young people have the right to participate in conversations and decisions that affect their lives. (b) Preparing adults to work with young people. The book also amplifies the need to develop structures that can maximize the ben-efits of the partnership for young people, adults, and the policy system. While adults can create barriers to authentic student participation, student voice efforts can teach adults how to work with young people as partners. When adults refuse to partner, the book demonstrates how student voice activities can serve as a social movement to challenge adults to rethink relationships with students. (c) Sustaining ongoing student voice work. The book also considers the contexts and conditions that might enable the sustainability of successful student voice efforts. Aligning with an intermediary organization can serve as a bridge for sharing knowledge and resources between student voice efforts. Additionally, inquiry-based processes can create a structure for creating meaningful student voice work. The book focuses mostly on a particular form of inquiry—Youth Participatory Action Research (YPAR), which allows an exchange of ideas, critique, and expertise.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bragg

(2007). “It's not about systems, it's about relationships”: Building a listening culture in a primary school. In Thiessen

& Cook-Sather

(Eds.), International handbook of student experience in elementary and secondary school (pp. 659–680). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.

Camino

L. A.

(2000). Youth-adult partnerships: Entering new territory in community work and research. Applied Developmental Science, 4(Suppl. 1), 11–20.

Camino

(2005). Pitfalls and promising practices of youth–adult partnerships: An evaluator's reflections. Journal of Community Psychology, 33, 75–85.

Cammarota

, & Fine

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

Coburn

(2005). The role of non-system actors in the relationship between policy and practice: The case of reading instruction in California. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 27, 23–52.

Cook-Sather

(2002). Authorizing students’ perspectives: Toward trust, dialogue, and change in education. Educational Researcher, 31(4), 3–14.

Fielding

(2001). Students as radical agents of change. Journal of Educational Change, 2(2), 123–141.

Gamson

(1992). The social psychology of collective action. In Morris

& Mueller

(Eds.), Frontiers in social movement theory (pp. 53–76). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Ginwright

S. A.

(2005). On urban ground: Understanding African-American intergenerational partnerships in urban communities. Journal Of Community Psychology, 33, 101–110.

10.

Goffman

(1974). Frame analysis. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

11.

Honig

M. I.

(2004). The new middle management: Intermediary organizations in education policy implementation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 226, 65–87.

12.

Jennings

, & Mills

(2009). Constructing a discourse of inquiry: Findings from a five-year ethnography at one elementary school. Teachers College Record, 111, 1583–1618.

13.

Kingdon

(2003). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies. New York, NY: Harper Collins.

14.

Kirshner

(2008). Guided participation in three youth activism organizations: Facilitation, apprenticeship, and joint work. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 17, 60–101.

15.

Klandermans

(1992). The social construction of protest and multiorganizational fields. In Morris

& McClurg Mueller

(Eds.), Frontiers in social movement theory (pp. 77–104). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

16.

Lave

, & Wenger

(1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

17.

Levin

(2000). Putting students at the centre in education reform. International Journal of Educational Change, 1, 155–172.

18.

Lindfors

J. W.

(1999). Children's inquiry: Using language to make sense of the world. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

19.

Lundy

(2007). “Voice” is not enough: Conceptualising Article 12 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. British Educational Research Journal, 33, 927–942. doi:10.1080/01411920701657033

20.

Majone

(1989). Evidence, argument, & persuasion in the policy process. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

21.

McIntyre

, & Rudduck

(2007). Improving learning through consulting pupils. London, England: Routledge.

22.

McLaughlin

(1987). Learning from experience: Lessons from policy implementation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 9, 171–178.

23.

McQuillan

P. J.

(2005). Possibilities and pitfalls: A comparative analysis of student empowerment. American Educational Research Journal, 42, 639–672.

24.

Mitra

D. L.

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

25.

Mitra

D. L.

(2008). Student voice in school reform: Building youth–adult partnerships that strengthen schools and empower youth. Albany: State University of New York Press.

26.

Mitra

D. L.

(2009). The role of intermediary organizations in sustaining student voice initiatives. Teachers College Record, 111, 1834–1868.

27.

Mitra

D. L.

, & Kirshner

(2012). Insiders versus outsiders—Examining variability in student voice initiatives and their consequences for school change. In McMahon

& Portelli

(Ed.), Student engagement in urban schools: Beyond neoliberal discourses (pp. 49–72). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.

28.

Mitra

, Serriere

, & Kirshner

(2014). Youth participation in U.S. contexts: Student voice without a national mandate. Childhood & Society, 28(4), 292–304.

29.

Rosen

(2009). Rhetoric and symbolic action in the policy process. In Sykes

, Schneider

, & Plank

(Eds.), Handbook on education policy research (pp. 267–285.) New York, NY: Routledge.

30.

Rubin

(2011). Making citizens: Transforming civic learning for diverse social studies classrooms. New York, NY: Routledge.

31.

Schneider

, & Ingram

(1993). Social construction of target populations: Implications for politics and policy. American Political Science Review, 87, 334–347.

32.

Snow

D. E.

, Burke Rochford

, Worden

, & Benford

(1986). Frame alignment processes, micromobilization, and movement participation. American Sociological Review, 51, 464–481.

33.

Snow

, & Benford

(1992). Master frames and cycles of protest. In Morris

& McClurg Mueller

(Eds.), Frontiers in social movement theory (pp. 133–155). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

34.

Tarrow

(1998). Power in movement: Social movements and contentious politics (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

35.

Zeldin

(2004). Youth as agents of adult and community development: Mapping the processes and outcomes of youth engaged in organizational governance. Applied Developmental Science, 8, 75–90.

36.

Zeldin

, Camino

, Calvert

, & Ivey

(2002). Youth–adult partnerships and positive youth development: Some lessons learned from research and practice in Wisconsin. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin-Extension.