Collective Transformative Agency: The Power of Ordinary People to Create Systemic Change

Abstract

Background:

The design of educational policy is typically dominated by those in positions of power, such as elected officials, education departments, school districts, and administrators. However, ordinary people, such as students, parents, and community members, who are often perceived as passive recipients of policy, do have rights to educational policy design. It is essential to address cultures of exclusion as a foundation for a transformative co-design process that honors and leverages the knowledge, experience, and expertise of ordinary people who are typically sidelined and silenced in educational policy design.

Purpose:

This paper explores how a diverse group of stakeholders, including school and district administrators, teachers, students, parents, and community members, form their collective transformative agency—their ability to challenge and break away from traditional rules and norms about expertise in education policy. Specifically, the study looks at how these stakeholders address cultures of exclusion that have historically marginalized certain groups in the co-design process. Through the use of the Learning Lab methodology, this paper examines how Lab members formed a collective transformative agency to co-design a district-level policy. This process allowed them to create an inclusive, student-centered protocol that challenges existing power dynamics and fosters a more equitable approach to policy co-design.

Research Design:

This qualitative study was conducted in the Aleph School District (ASD) in the U.S. during the 2022–23 academic year. The Learning Lab intervention involved 16 members. After the intervention, we conducted individual interviews with Lab members, and we analyzed the emergence of their collective transformative agency. We analyzed data from Lab meetings and interview recordings, along with ethnographic memos, to explore how transformative agency manifested within the Learning Lab.

Conclusions:

Collective transformative agency is critical for achieving a truly inclusive co-design of educational policy that moves beyond incremental and tokenistic efforts toward inclusion. In ASD, transformative agency gradually fostered the development of a new, inclusive culture within the district that extended beyond the Learning Lab. District leadership began to seek out the valuable knowledge, expertise, and power that students and families bring to the district decision-making processes. As a result, students’ perspectives and the voices of parents and the community are now seen as legitimate contributors and knowledge creators in educational policy development at the district.

Keywords

school-community-university collaboration inclusive policy co-design learning lab cultural change school reform

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Ainscow

(2024). Developing inclusive schools: Pathways to success. Routledge.

Allan

(2008). Rethinking inclusive education: The philosophers of difference in practice. Springer.

Bal

(2018). Culturally responsive positive behavioral interventions and supports: A process-oriented framework for systemic transformation. Review of Education, Pedagogy, and Cultural Studies, 40(2), 144–174. https://doi.org/10.1080/10714413.2017.1417579

Bal

Afacan

Cakir

H. I.

(2018). Culturally responsive school discipline: Implementing Learning Lab at a high school for systemic transformation. American Educational Research Journal, 55(5), 1007–1050. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312187687

Bal

Kozleski

E. B.

Schrader

E. M.

Rodriguez

E. M.

Pelton

(2014). Systemic transformation from the ground–up: Using Learning Lab to design culturally responsive schoolwide positive behavioral supports. Remedial and Special Education, 35(6), 327–339. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932514536995

Bal

Schrader

E. M.

Afacan

Mawene

(2016). Using Learning Labs for culturally responsive positive behavioral interventions and supports. Intervention in School and Clinic, 52(2), 122–128. https://doi.org/10.1177/1053451216636057

Bal

Thorius

K. K.

Kosleski

(2012). Culturally responsive positive behavioral support matters. The Equity Alliance at ASU.

Bang

Vossoughi

(2016). Participatory design research and educational justice: Studying learning and relations within social change making. Cognition and Instruction, 34(3), 173–193. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2016.1181879

Bertrand

Durand

E. S.

Gonzalez

(2017). “We’re trying to take action”: Transformative agency, role re-mediation, and the complexities of youth participatory action research. Equity & Excellence in Education, 50(2), 142–154. https://doi.org/10.1080/10665684.2017.1301837

10.

Bertrand

Rodela

K. C.

(2018). A framework for rethinking educational leadership in the margins: Implications for social justice leadership preparation. Journal of Research on Leadership Education, 13(1), 10–37. https://doi.org/10.1177/1942775117739414

11.

Biddle

Hufnagel

(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. https://doi.org/10.1086/704097

12.

Björgvinsson

Ehn

Hillgren

P. A.

(2010, November). Participatory design and democratizing innovation. In Proceedings of the 11th Biennial Participatory Design Conference (pp. 41–50).

13.

Calabrese Barton

Tan

. (2019). Designing for rightful presence in STEM: The role of making present practices. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 28(4–5), 616–658. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2019.1591411

14.

Cho

Trent

(2006). Validity in qualitative research revisited. Qualitative Research, 6(3), 319–340. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794106065006

15.

Conner

Mitra

D. L.

Holquist

S. E.

Rosado

Wilson

Wright

N. L.

(2024). The pedagogical foundations of student voice practices: The role of relationships, differentiation, and choice in supporting student voice practices in high school classrooms. Teaching and Teacher Education, 142, 104540. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2024.104540

16.

Creswell

J. W.

Creswell

J. D.

(2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage.

17.

De Martins Bastos

F. B.

Bal

. (2022). Learning Lab methodology for expansive learning and inclusive education during the Covid-19 pandemic in Brazil. In Proceedings of the 16th International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS 2022) (pp. 1441–1444). International Society of the Learning Sciences.

18.

Edwards

(2007). Relational agency in professional practice: A CHAT analysis. Actio: An International Journal of Human Activity Theory, 1(3), 1–17.

19.

Engeström

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

20.

Engeström

(2016). Studies in expansive learning: Learning what is not there yet. Cambridge University Press.

21.

Engeström

Sannino

(2017). Studies of expansive learning: Foundations, findings and future challenges. In Daniels

(Ed.), Introduction to Vygotsky (3rd ed., pp. 100–146). Routledge.

22.

Engeström

Sannino

Virkkunen

(2014). On the methodological demands of formative interventions. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 21(2), 118–128. https://doi.org/10.1080/10749039.2014.891868

23.

Epstein

J. L.

(1995). School/family/community partnerships: Caring for the children we share. Phi Delta Kappan, 76, 701–712.

24.

Every Student Succeeds Act, 20 U.S.C. § 6301 (2015). https://www.congress.gov/bill/114thcongress/senate-bill/1177

25.

Farrell

C. C.

Penuel

W. R.

Coburn

C. E.

Daniel

Steup

(2021). Research-practice partnerships in education: The state of the field (p. 56). William T. Grant Foundation. http://wtgrantfoundation.org/research-practice-partnerships-in-education-the-state-of-the-field

26.

Fielding

(2011). Student voice and the possibility of radical democratic education: Re-narrating forgotten histories, developing alternative futures. In Czerniawski

Kidd

(Eds.), The student voice handbook: Bridging the academic/practitioner divide (pp. 3–17). Emerald.

27.

Foot

K. A.

(2014). Cultural-historical activity theory: Exploring a theory to inform practice and research. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 24(3), 329–347. https://doi.org/10.1080/10911359.2013.831011

28.

Freire

(2008). Pedagogy of the oppressed. Continuum International.

29.

Fullan

Quinn

McEachen

(2018). Deep learning: Engage the world, change the world. Corwin Press.

30.

Gutierrez

K. D.

Jurow

A. S.

(2016). Social design experiments: Toward equity by design. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 25(4), 565–598. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2016.1204548

31.

Haapasaari

Engeström

Kerosuo

(2014). The emergence of learners’ transformative agency in a Change Laboratory intervention. Journal of Education and Work, 29(2), 232–262. https://doi.org/10.1080/13639080.2014.900168

32.

Haapasaari

Engeström

Kerosuo

(2016). The emergence of learners’ transformative agency in a Change Laboratory intervention. Journal of Education and Work, 29(2), 232–262. https://doi.org/10.1080/13639080.2014.900168

33.

Holquist

S. E.

Mitra

D. L.

Conner

Wright

N. L.

(2023). What is student voice anyway? The intersection of student voice practices and shared leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 59(4), 703–743. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X231178023

34.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(1)).

35.

Ishimaru

A. M.

Bang

(2022a). Designing with families for just futures. Journal of Family Diversity in Education, 4(2), 130–140.

36.

Ishimaru

A. M.

Bang

(2022b). Solidarity-driven codesign. In Peurach

D. J.

Russell

J. L.

Cohen-Vogel

Penuel

W. R.

(Eds.), The foundational handbook on improvement research in education (pp. 383–402). Rowman & Littlefield.

37.

Ishimaru

A. M.

Bang

Nolan

C. M.

Rajendran

Chen

J. C.

(2023). Expanding theories of educational change in family and community-led designs. Journal of Family Diversity in Education, 5(2), 83–114.

38.

Ishimaru

A. M.

Barajas-López

Sun

Scarlett

Anderson

(2022). Transforming the role of RPPs in remaking educational systems. Educational Researcher, 51(7), 465–473. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X221098077

39.

Kajamaa

Kumpulainen

(2019). Agency in the making: Analyzing students’ transformative agency in a school-based makerspace. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 26(3), 266–281. https://doi.org/10.1080/10749039.2019.1647547

40.

Kirk

(2025). Student voice and agency for transformative change in matters that matter: Impactful inquiry in primary science. The Australian Educational Researcher, 52(1), 411–430. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-024-00721-4

41.

Bal

Bird Bear

Orie

Mawene

(2022). Indigenous Learning Lab as prefigurative political action to dismantle settler-colonial system of exclusion. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 28(11), 2642–266. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2022.2119488

42.

Bal

Bird Bear

Orie

Mawene

(2023). Learning Lab as a utopian methodology for future making: Decolonizing knowledge production toward racial justice in school discipline. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 30(1), 5–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/10749039.2023.2205391

43.

Bal

Mawene

Orie

Yoo

Schrader

(2024). Dismantling the settler-colonial punitive school system: Speculative future-making with a rural high school community amid uncertainty and political backlash. Teachers College Record, 126(10), 88–122. https://doi.org/10.1177/01614681241308103

44.

Kulkarni

Kim

Holdman

(2024). Using Virtual Learning Labs to (re)mediate exclusionary discipline practices for young children of color with disabilities. Critical Education, 15(4), 110–131. https://doi.org/10.14288/ce.v15i4.186857

45.

Mawene

Bal

Bird Bear

Orie

Mayer-Jochimsen

(2024). Creating thirdspace: Indigenous Learning Lab to transform a school discipline system. American Educational Research Journal, 61(4), 842–878. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312241260322

46.

Mawene

Bal

Orie

Schrader

Yoo

(2025). Decolonizing agency: A framework for an inclusive co-design of behavioral support systems in indigenous land. Exceptional Children, 92(1), 90–109. https://doi.org/10.1177/00144029251350059

47.

Mawene

Mejia

Mella

Cass

H. N.

Tohuey-Childress

Chandrashekhar

(2025). Fostering inclusion: Students’ voices in the co-design of a school-district level policy. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2025.2496419

48.

Mitra

D. L.

(2008). Balancing power in communities of practice: An examination of increasing student voice through school-based youth–adult partnerships. Journal of Educational Change, 9(3), 221–242. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-007-9061-7

49.

Mitra

D. L.

(2012). Student voice and student roles in education policy and policy reform. In Sykes

Schneider

Plank

D. N.

(Eds.), Handbook of education policy research (pp. 819–830). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203880968

50.

Mitra

D. L.

(2018). Student voice in secondary schools: The possibility for deeper change. Journal of Educational Administration, 56(5), 473–487. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-01-2018-0007

51.

Mueller

(2004). Ella Baker and the origins of “participatory democracy.” In Bobo

Hudley

Michel

(Eds.), The Black studies reader (pp. 91–102). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203491348

52.

Patel

(2017). Rejecting a politics of inclusion. https://decolonizing.net/2017/07/27/

53.

Penuel

W. R.

(2019). Co-design as infrastructuring with attention to power: Building collective capacity for equitable teaching and learning through design-based implementation research.In Pieters

Voogt

Pareja Roblin

(Eds.), Collaborative curriculum design for sustainable innovation and teacher learning (pp. 387–401). Springer Open.

54.

Pizmony-Levy

Pallas

A. M.

Baek

(2018). Americans’ views of stakeholders in education [Research brief]. Teachers College, Columbia University.

55.

Postholm

Vennebo

(2020). Applying cultural historical activity theory in educational settings. Routledge.

56.

Rodela

K. C.

Bertrand

(Eds.). (2023). Centering youth, family, and community in school leadership: Case studies for educational equity and justice. Taylor & Francis.

57.

Sandoval Mena

Waitoller

F. R

. (2025). Students as agents of school change for inclusive education: International approaches and methodological pluralism. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 38(3), 331–337. https://doi.org/10.1080/09518398.2025.2455981

58.

Sannino

Engeström

Lemos

(2018). Formative interventions for expansive learning and transformative agency. In Cole

Penuel

O’Neill

(Eds.), Cultural-historical activity theory approaches to design-based research (pp. 113–147). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203703106

59.

Severance

Penuel

W. R.

Sumner

Leary

(2016). Organizing for teacher agency in curricular co-design. Journal of Learning Sciences, 25, 531–564. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2016.1207541

60.

Stevenson

(2010). Critical pedagogy, democracy, and capitalism: Education without enemies or borders. The Review of Education, Pedagogy, and Cultural Studies, 32(1), 66–92. https://doi.org/10.1080/10714410903482674

61.

Tyack

(1990). “Restructuring” in historical perspective: Tinkering toward Utopia. Teachers College Record, 92(2), 170–191. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146819009200208

62.

Virkkunen

(2006). Dilemmas in building shared transformative agency. Activités, 3(1), 43–66. https://doi.org/10.4000/activites.1850

63.

Waitoller

F. R.

Kozleski

E. B.

(2013). Working in boundary practices: Identity development and learning in partnerships for inclusive education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 31, 35–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2012.11.006

64.

Weis

(1993). At the intersection of silencing and voice: Discursive constructions in school. Educational Studies, 24(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326993es2401_1