Increasingly, K–12 students are seeking to influence educational policies that directly affect their lives. As student intervention in policy increases, it is important to understand the composition of these groups and how they seek to exercise power and influence over policymakers.
Purpose:
This study sought to examine how two state-level student voice groups for policy change sought equitable representation in their composition. As student voice groups expand beyond school, city, or district level groups to focus on state- and national-level advocacy, the character of their composition takes on additional importance as they claim to speak on behalf of larger numbers of students.
Setting:
This study draws on interview, document analysis, and observation data from two student voice groups working to influence state-level legislative action on K–12 educational policy.
Research Design:
We combine secondary data analysis of data from state-level student voice groups with elements of duoethnography to explore how participants thought about, strived for, and fell short of equitable intra- group representation.
Findings:
We found that the members of both groups were personally committed to equity both in terms of group composition and advocacy. Additionally, group members had structures and policies—such as remote access and low barriers to entry—that encourage equitable representation. Participants reported a relational climate of inclusion. Despite these assets, outcomes were mixed: the groups successfully achieved racial and ethnic proportionality with the state, but remained predominantly urban and able- bodied in their composition.
Conclusion:
Despite the groups’ best efforts, group members’ challenges with distributed recruitment and emphasis on certain skills such as public speaking limited equitable outcomes in representation. This research makes clear that who is involved in the group at the outset and their network will shape representation. It also indicates that although technology can lower barriers to entry, it is not a panacea. Finally, this research reinforces the notion that students engage in self-policing of the group in order to gain greater legitimacy in the eyes of policymakers.
AviramN. F.CohenN.BeeriI. (2019). Wind(ow) of change: A systematic review of policy entrepreneurship characteristics and strategies. Policy Studies Journal, 48(3), 612–644.
2.
BaldridgeB. J. (2014). Relocating the deficit: Reimagining Black youth in neoliberal times. American Educational Research Journal, 51(3), 440–472.
3.
BarrettE. J. (2019). Defining their right to the city: Perspectives from lower-income youth. Urban Affairs Review, 57(3), 709–730.
4.
BertrandM. (2018). Youth participatory action research and possibilities for students of color in educational leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 54(3), 366–395.
5.
BertrandM. (2019). “I was very impressed”: Responses of surprise to students of color engaged in youth participatory action research. Urban Education, 54(9), 1370–1397.
6.
BiddleC.HufnagelE. (2019). Navigating the “danger zone”: Tone policing and the bounding of civility in the practice of student voice. American Journal of Education, 125(4), 487–520.
7.
ChristensB. D.DolanT. (2011). Interweaving youth development, community development, and social change through youth organizing. Youth & Society, 43(2), 528–548.
8.
ConnerJ. O. (2016). Pawns or power players: The grounds on which adults dismiss or defend youth organizers in the USA. Journal of Youth Studies, 19(3), 403–420.
9.
ConnerJ. O.Ebby-RosinR.BrownA. S. (2015). Introduction to student voice in American education policy. Teachers College Record, 117(13), 1–18.
10.
ConnerJ. O.OberC. N.BrownA. S. (2016). The politics of paternalism: Adult and youth perspectives on youth voice in public policy. Teachers College Record, 118(8), 1–48.
11.
ConnerJ. O.RosenS. M. (2015). Zombies, truants, and flash mobs: How youth organizers respond to and shape youth policy. Teachers College Record, 117(13), 203–220.
12.
ConnerJ.SlatteryA. (2014). New media and the power of youth organizing: Minding the gaps. Equity & Excellence in Education, 47(1), 14–30.
13.
ConnerJ.ZainoK.ScarolaE. (2013). “Very powerful voices”: The influence of youth organizing on educational policy in Philadelphia. Educational Policy, 27(3), 560–588.
14.
Cook-SatherA. (2006). Sound, presence, and power: “Student voice” in educational research and reform. Curriculum Inquiry, 36(4), 359–390.
15.
CorbinJ.StraussA. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (3rd ed.). Sage.
16.
CreswellJ. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Sage.
17.
DenzinN. K. (1989). Interpretive biography. Sage.
18.
FieldingM. (2015). “Student voice as deep democracy.” In McLaughlinC., Ed., The Connected School, 26–32.
19.
FieldingM.RudduckJ. (2002, September). The transformative potential of student voice: confronting the power issues [Paper presentation]. Annual Conference of the British Educational Research Association, University of Exeter, England (pp. 12–14).
20.
GladstoneB. M.VolpeT.BoydellK. M. (2007). Issues encountered in a qualitative secondary analysis of help-seeking in the prodrome to psychosis. Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research, 34(4), 431–442.
21.
GlaserB.StraussA. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Aldine Publishing Company.
Great Lakes Equity Center (GLEC). (2019). Equity digest: The fundamentals of educational equity. GLEC.
24.
GriffithsM. (2013). Action research for/as/mindful of social justice. In SomekhB.NoffkeS. E. (Eds.), The Sage handbook of educational action research (pp. 85–99). Sage.
25.
Groundwater-SmithS. (2011). Concerning equity: The voice of young people. Leading and Managing, 17(2), 52–65.
26.
HallettR. E. (2013). Dangers of member checking. In MidgleyW.DanaherP. A.BaguelyM. (Eds.), The role of participants: Ethics, epistemologies and methods (pp. 29–39). Routledge.
27.
HyndsA.FairclothS. C.GreenC.JacobH. (2014). Researching identity with indigenous D/deaf youth. New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies, 49(2), 176–190.
28.
IngramH.SchneiderA. (1993). Constructing citizenship: The subtle messages of policy design. In IngramH.SmithS. R. (Eds.). Public policy for democracy (pp. 68–94). Brookings Institution.
29.
JonesV.StewartC.GallettaA.AyalaJ. (2015). Creative expressions of agency: Contemplating youth voice and adult roles in participatory action research. Teachers College Record, 117(13), 135–152.
30.
Kentucky Department of Education (2017). Kentucky education facts. Commonwealth of Kentucky.
31.
KidmanJ. (2014). Representing Maori youth voices in community education research. New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies, 49(2), 205–218.
32.
KingdonJ. (1995). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies (2nd ed.). Brown, Little.
33.
KirshnerB.PozzoboniK. M. (2011). Student interpretations of a school closure: Implications for student voice in equity-based school reform. Teachers College Record, 113(8), 1633–1667.
34.
KornbluhM.NealJ. W.OzerE. J. (2016). Scaling-up youth-led social justice efforts through an online school-based social network. American Journal of Community Psychology, 57(3–4), 266–279. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajcp.12042
35.
LevinsonB. A.SuttonM.WinsteadT. (2009). Education policy as a practice of power: Theoretical tools, ethnographic methods, democratic options. Educational Policy, 23(6), 767–795.
36.
LincolnY. S.GubaE. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage.
37.
MansfieldK. C.Jean-MarieG. (2015). Courageous conversations about race, class, and gender: Voices and lessons from the field. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 28(7), 819–841. https://doi.org/10.1080/09518398.2015.1036950
38.
MattheisA. (2016). Political contestation and discourses of meaning: Revising Minnesota’s school integration revenue statute. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 24(107). https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.24.2314
39.
MerriamS. B.TisdellE. J. (2015). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. John Wiley & Sons.
40.
MilesM. B.HubermanA. M.SaldanaJ. (2020). Qualitative data analysis. Sage.
41.
MitraD. L. (2004). The significance of students: Can increasing “student voice” in schools lead to gains in youth development?Teachers College Record, 106(4), 651–688.
42.
MitraD. L. (2012). Student voice and student roles in education policy and policy reform. In SkyesG.SchneiderB.PlankD., Handbook of education policy research (pp. 835–846). Routledge.
43.
MitraD. L. (2015). Conclusion: The intersection of student voice and policy research. Teachers College Record, 117(13), 237–250.
44.
MitraD. (2018). Student voice in secondary schools: The possibility for deeper change. Journal of Educational Administration. 56(5) 473–487.
45.
MitraD. L.GrossS. J. (2009). Increasing student voice in high school reform: Building partnerships, improving outcomes. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 37(4), 522–543.
46.
NorrisJ.SawyerR. D.LundD. (2012). Duoethnography: Dialogic methods for social, health, and educational research. Left Coast Press.
47.
OzerE. J. (2016). Youth-led participatory action research: Developmental and equity perspectives. Advances in Child Development and Behavior, 50(1), 189–207.
48.
PazeyB. L.DeMatthewsD. (2016), Student voice from a turnaround urban high school: An account of students with and without dis/abilities leading resistance against accountability reform. Urban Education, 54(7), 919–956.
49.
PhillippoK.GriffinB.DottoB. J. D.CastroD.NagiE. (2019). School choice, youth voice: How diverse student policy actors experience high school choice policy. Educational Policy. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904819843589
50.
Oregon Department of Education (2017). Student enrollment reports: Fall membership report 2015–2016.
51.
QuinnR.NguyenC. (2017). Immigrant youth organizing as civic preparation. American Educational Research Journal, 54(5), 972–1005.
52.
RogersJ.MedirattaK.ShahS. (2012). Building power, learning democracy: Youth organizing as a site of civic development. Review of Research in Education, 36(1), 43–66.
53.
RosenS. M.ConnerJ. (2019). Negotiating power: How youth organizers recast the debate about school reform. Journal of Community Psychology. 2019, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.22286
54.
RubinH. J.RubinI.S. (2012). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data (3rd ed.). Sage.
55.
SaldañaJ. (2015). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Sage.
56.
SawyerR. D.NorrisJ. (2013). Duoethnography. Oxford University Press.
57.
SilvaE. (2001). Squeaky wheels and flat tires: A case study of students as reform participants. Forum, 43(2), 95–99.
58.
SinhaP. (2017). Listening ethically to indigenous children: Experiences from India. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 21(3), 272–285.
59.
SlaterR. O.BoydW. L. (1999). Schools as polities. In LeithwoodK.LouisK.S. (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational administration, 323–335.
60.
StraussA. L. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists. Cambridge University Press.
61.
UnluerS. (2012). Being an insider researcher while conducting case study research. Qualitative Report, 17(58), 1–14.
62.
U.S. Census Bureau (2019). QuickFacts.
63.
WallK. (2017). Exploring the ethical issues related to visual methodology when including young children’s voice in wider research samples. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 21(3), 316–331.
64.
WholeyJ.BurkesB. (2015). Feet to the fire: New Orleans kids rethink their devastated school system. Teachers College Record, 117(13), 221–236.
65.
YoungT. V.WangY.LewisW. D. (2016). Explaining how political actors gain strategic positions: Predictors of centrality in state reading policy issue networks. Educational Policy, 30(6), 799–819.
