Youth Voice Journal http://youthvoicejournal.com/ Student Voice: A Field Coming of Age by Jerusha O. Conner Youth Voice Journal 2015- Online The online version of this article can be found here: Published by: The IARS International Institute Hard copies of Youth Voice Journal are available to purchase athttp://iars.org.uk/content/youthvoicejournal Each year, IARS members will receive a collection of articles and book reviews from the Youth Voice Journal in a glossy printed format for free as part of their membership. Join us today as an IARS member. Full membership package and details at http://www.iars.org.uk/content/join-us-member. For more information: contact@iars.org.uk 2015 THE IARS INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTEARTICLE Jerusha O. Conner Student Voice: A Field Coming of Age Published in the Youth Voice Journal, June 2015 http://youthvoicejournal.com/ IARS 2015

ISSN (online): 2056 2969 Jerusha O. Conner Abstract Purpose. In the last two decades, the term student voice has entered the everyday vocabulary of educators, and student voice initiatives are proliferating around the world.As researchers attempt to keep pace with these new developments, it is imperative that they unify around shared definitions, terminology, and frameworks.This manuscript is designed to support such an effort. Approach. The paper offers a thematic and theoretical review, drawing on existing research. Findings. Based on a comprehensive literature review, the paper constructs a clear overarching definition of student voice and clarifies the relationships between student voice and other fields in which the terminology of student voice features prominently. The paper also examines similarities and differences in existing student voice frameworks and proposes a new framework that delineates two important dimensions of student voice, heretofore under-theorized in relation to each other in the literature: power and preparation. Implications. The paper raises implications for practitioners, policymakers, and researchers who seek to understand what student voice is and how to support it. ARTICLE Jerusha O. Conner Value. This paper fills a void in the field by articulating and applying a parsimonious overarching definition of student voice. In addition, its table reviewing extant conceptualizations of student voice will be a useful resource for scholars seeking to trace various developments and important ideas in the field. The new framework the paper proposes can serve as a guide for future research and practice. Keywords: Student voice; student engagement; student participation; student rights ________________________________________________________________ Corresponding Author: Jerusha O. Conner, 302 St. Augustine Center, Villanova University. 800 Lancaster Ave. Villanova, PA 19085, U.S.A. 001-610-519-3083 (phone) 001-610-519-4623 (fax) Jerusha.conner@villanova.edu Introduction Student voice has become a popular term over the course of the last two decades as scholars, teachers, administrators, and funders have increasingly embraced the view that students have unique perspectives and important insights to offer about how schools and classrooms can be improved to support their learning and development.Spurred in large part by the 1989 United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), student voice has become institutionalized in such countries as Canada as well as in England and Australia, where it is termed pupil voice (Cook-Sather, 2014). Student voice is also gaining momentum in the U.S.. As the field of student voice expands and as this research is marshaled to demonstrate to policymakers the benefits associated with involving students in educational decision-making, the time is right to step back and review the research--what it has accomplished and how it can be strengthened moving forward. ARTICLE Jerusha O. Conner The current generation of student voice research is marked by several strengths.Most notably, it has achieved a strong balance between empirical and theoretical pieces, and increasingly, researchers are integrating theoretical considerations and conceptual frameworks into their analyses and discussions of data.Student voice research spans the education continuum from K-16.It has been studied in urban, rural, and suburban school contexts, across whole schools and among specific special interest groups, such as students with disabilities (Byrnes & Rickards, 2011) and young men of color (College Board Advocacy & Policy Center, 2011).There is a wide body of research on student voice in various national contexts as well, including Kenya, Tanzania, China, Sweden, and Brazil (Czerniawski & Kidd, 2011). Despite the fact that student voice research has advanced rapidly in the last two decades and much is now known about the processes and products of student voice, the field lacks a unifying definition.The wide array of sometimes contravening definitions can lead to confusion and fuzzy conceptualizations, and the field runs the risk of reducing student voice to a catch-all term that is ultimately empty and devoid of precise meaning.Indeed, Hadfield and Haw (2001) warned of this possibility more than a decade ago when they wrote, There is a danger of [voice] becoming a buzz term that loses much of its original meaning (p. 485). Furthermore, the field is cluttered with an array of terms, many of which appear to be synonymous: youth/student participation, youth/student decision-making, student involvement, student empowerment, learner voice, pupil voice, youth/student engagement, and youth-adult partnerships.There is little consistency or clarity in how these terms are used and how they are differentiated from one another within the field. In what follows, I attend to these issues by proposing a clear overarching definition of student voice, based on extant literature, by reviewing and comparing existing models and ARTICLE Jerusha O. Conner typologies of student voice, and by introducing an additional conceptual framework to guide future research.What is Student Voice? Alison Cook-Sather (2006) contends that there can be no simple, fixed definition or explication of the term [student voice] (p. 363); nonetheless, student voice has been defined in many ways by various researchers. (See Table 1.)Common to these definitions is the idea that student voice encompasses a range of activities (Fielding & McGregor, 2005, p. 2; Toshalis & Nakkula, 2012, p. 23) by which students can actively participate in conversations about the school-related issues that affect them; however, some theorists argue that student voice is not limited to actions or activities and can include students perspectives as well (Cook-Sather, 2002; Fletcher, 2005). Certainly, student voice can be understood as a subset of youth voice. Drawing on the definitions in Table 1, I understand student voice as a strategy that engages students in sharing their views on their school or classroom experiences in order to promote meaningful change in educational practice or policy and alter the positioning of students in educational settings.In other words, student voice efforts have three primary goals: 1) to share students perspectives on core educational matters with adults; 2) to call for reform that the students feel will better address the learning needs of themselves and their peers; and 3) to change the social construction of students in the school or in the school system from passive and powerless to agentive and powerful (Conner, Ebby-Rosin, & Brown, 2015).The latter two goals differentiate student voice initiatives from efforts designed simply to solicit students accounts or analyses of their schooling experiences.Student voice spans at least five fields: student leadership; student activism and organizing; youth participatory action research; service-learning and student expression. In these ARTICLE Jerusha O. Conner fields student voice figures prominently, either as a term or as a set of principles and activities. Though student voice encompasses a variety of activities, not all activities in these five arenas can be counted as examples of student voice.Only those activities designed to advance the three goals articulated above (sharing students perspectives on educational matters; articulating reform possibilities; and repositioning students) can be considered emblematic of student voice.In what follows, I offer examples of activities in each of the five fields that do and do not meet the student voice criteria I set out.Youth LeadershipThe field of youth leadership encompasses both school-based programs and opportunities, such as student government, and community-based youth development programs that seek to build young peoples capacities as leaders.Because student voice activities are often designed to promote youth leadership (Mitra & Kirshner, 2012), the two terms are sometimes used interchangeably, and students engaged in student voice initiatives are often referred to as student leaders or youth leaders (see, for example, Mitra, 2008, p. 45).Within schools, leadership opportunities are often limited to participation in school clubs or the student government.Scholars of student voice have sought to distinguish student voice work from efforts undertaken by student government, such as raising funds or negotiating special dress up days, carnivals, or dances (McMahon, 2012, p. 34).Although all three student voice goals articulated above would mark such prototypical student government undertakings as distinct from student voice, the first goal offers perhaps the easiest test to apply to these cases.Student government activities like these provide neither an opportunity for students to think about and reflect on educational issues that affect their learning experiences, nor a mechanism for them to share their perspectives with adults in the school.By contrast, Montpelier High ARTICLE Jerusha O. Conner Schools Solon Circle, a regular meeting space in which students can voice concerns and ideas about school curriculum and policy and share in decision-making with adults is an example of a governance structure that embraces student voice (Evans, 2009).Such structures, however, remain rare.Pautsch (2010), for example, finds that student councils are entrenched in the tradition of being a vehicle only for certain (social) events, even when challenged and supported by administrators and educators to facilitate opportunities for more meaningful and authentic student voice (p. 151). Youth Organizing and ActivismYouth organizing is a strategy that builds the collective capacity of youth to challenge and transform the institutions in their communities to make them more responsive to the developmental needs and aspirations of young people, particularly low-income youth of color.Youth organizing overlaps with youth leadership because one of its central goals is to develop leaders.It also aims to create meaningful institutional change and to alter power relations between youth and adults.Youth organizing groups may choose different focal areas, such as criminal justice, food security, or environmental justice. Though these activities exemplify youth voice, they do not constitute student voice unless the organizers campaigns focus explicitly on educational issues. Student voice is a popular term among youth organizers working on educational reform.The U.S.-based Boston Student Advisory Council, which was founded as a result of student-led organizing in the 1970s, describes itself as a citywide group of student leaders who strive to increase student voice and engagement in education policy at the school, district, and national levels (Boston Student Advisory Council, 2012, p. 153). In Chile, student organizers have claimed their right to student voice; their Social Agreement for Chilean Education," a set of ARTICLE Jerusha O. Conner demands related to educational reform, calls for repealing laws that forbid students from participating in university government (McSherry & Mejia, 2011). Youth-led Participatory Action Research Youth-led participatory action research (YPAR), a branch of participatory action research, is research conducted in youth-adult collaboration on issues that directly impact the lives of those involved in the research (Cammarota & Fine, 2008; Gavrielides, 2014; McIntyre, 2008).YPAR is a common strategy of youth organizers.In YPAR, the youth researchers are involved in every step of the process, from research-question formation, to method selection, to data collection and analysis, to the dissemination of findings (Kirshner, 2010). Fundamental to the YPAR process is the recognition that each member of the research team brings valuable indigenous knowledge to the study (Duncan-Andrade & Morrell, 2008).In this way, YPAR differs from traditional research because in YPAR, those whose backs research has historically been carried on are instead researched alongside (Tuck, Allen, Baha, Morales, Quinter, Thompson, & Tuck, 2008, p. 50).YPAR also seeks to drive action, to enable the transformation of systems that influence the problem or issue studied (Cammarota & Fine, 2008; Kirshner, 2010; Rodriguez & Brown, 2009).As Duncan-Andrade and Morrell (2008) write, YPAR is not just research intended to understand problems; it is a research process designed to intervene in problems, to make them go away (p. 109). All YPAR projects are necessarily emblematic of youth voice, but YPAR projects can facilitate student voice when students are members of the research team and when the topic of research pertains to core education issues.When this occurs, YPAR enables education [to be] something students do- instead of something being done to them, (Cammarota & Fine, 2008, p. 10).YPAR projects have been conducted at the school level (Mitra, 2008), the city/district level ARTICLE Jerusha O. Conner (Duncan-Andrade & Morrell, 2008), and the national level (Garcia, Agbemakplido, Abdela, Lopez, & Registe, 2006). For example, Voight (2014) studied three YPAR projects implemented in an urban middle school to address issues of disruptive students, bullying, and a lack of engaging leaning activities. He described these projects as school-based student voice initiatives (p. 3). By contrast, YPAR projects that tackle community problems, such as aggressive policing practices, though important, represent youth voice, rather than student voice. Youth Expression and Youth Media Youth expression refers to products created by young people, including artistic renderings, documentaries, and creative and expository writing, which showcase their viewpoints and perspectives.The term voice features prominently in this field, where it is often used to refer to the individuals personal style or mode of communication. Youth media is a form of youth expression that has an intended audience and is meant for wide distribution.The term youth media has a broad history, referring at various points to teaching about media, teaching through media, media consumed by youth, and media produced by youth (Soep & Chavez, 2010).Today, youth media most often refers to the wide array of media developed, published and produced by youth (often in youth-adult partnership) (Soep & Chavez, 2010).References to voice are common throughout the field of youth media as youth media organizations provide a platform for collective activity that builds and broadcasts a critical mass of youth voices (Soep & Chavez, 2010, p. 15).In the context of youth media, youth voice often refers to self-expression through the communication of ones point of view (Kotilainen, 2009).Yet Soep and Chavez (2010) differentiate point of view, which suggests a way of seeing from point of voice, which demands strategic expression, provocation, and action (p. 16).It is the latter of these two, point of voice, that best exemplifies student voice ARTICLE Jerusha O. Conner when the author or creator is a student, when the topic is education-related, and when reform is called for and action is proposed.Maceo Bradleys (2015) essay on truancy tickets, originally published in LA Youth, an online magazine written by and for teens, offers a case in point. In the essay, Bradley describes his experience receiving a ticket for arriving late to school and his subsequent organizing work to change district policy. Bradley discusses how he and his peers educated themselves about the policy, and how they prepared to testify before City Council about its impact: If we only complained about the truancy tickets they'd probably think we wanted to get rid of the ticket policy just so we could be late. I wanted them to know how scared I felt when I got the ticket, how it made me feel like a juvenile delinquent, and how worried my mom and I were about getting a $250 fine. That could be money we used to pay bills or buy groceries. Although the Council did not eliminate truancy tickets entirely after hearing from the youth activists, Bradley writes that he was encouraged that they decided to issue warnings to students twice before imposing fines. His essay is intended to demonstrate the power of student voice in education reform and galvanize other students to take similar action to address injustices in their schooling. He concludes his piece with a direct plea to his peers: If you see a problem in your community you should stand up for what you believe is right, because you aren't alone. When the content the youth produce focuses on educational matters, it becomes possible to switch the modifier of voice from youth to student; however, voice, as I conceptualize it, only overlaps with expression or media when the other two goals identified in my proposed definition are also animated.Students accounts of their experiences in schools penned in their journals, in essays for English class, in articles in student newspapers or articulated on radio or video segments do not amount to student voice if they neither engage in an explicit discussion of ARTICLE Jerusha O. Conner reform possibilities nor work in some way to empower students relative to adults.Such narratives represent student expression and showcase student perspective, rather than student voice.Service-learningService-learning is an approach to teaching that links formal, classroom-based education to community service.Students learn about real-world problems or issues not only through readings or lectures but also through first-hand experiences in communities.Reflection is a hallmark of service-learning, as students learn to make sense of their experiences and to integrate the knowledge they gain from the field with the knowledge they gain from more traditional curricular resources.Service-learning projects can be designed and implemented in a wide variety of ways, and several scholars draw important distinctions among the orientations and approaches utilized in service-learning (Furco, 1996; Mitchell, 2008).Student voice has been identified as one of seven elements of high-quality service-learning (RMC, 2007).In this context, student voice refers to the active participation of students in the choice, planning, and implementation of the service project (Fredericks, Kaplan & Zeisler, 2001).In other words, student voice in service-learning involves students input into the curriculum and the shape of their learning experience.RMC Research Corporation (2007) finds a growing trend toward increasing youth voice in service-learning (para. 1), and numerous scholars have written about the benefits that can accrue both to students and to the community when students have a voice in their service-learning program (Billig, 2000; Borrero, Conner, & Mejia, 2012; Fredericks, Kaplan, & Zeisler, 2001; Middaugh, 2012); however, not all service-learning projects meet this standard.ARTICLE Jerusha O. Conner In summary, student voice is a commonly used term in the fields of youth leadership, youth activism, YPAR, youth media, and service-learning. In each of these fields, there are activities and initiatives that exemplify student voice as well as others that do not. Delineating these boundaries is important, so that the term itself does not become co-opted, misused, or misunderstood; however, doing so means planting some stakes around a clear definition. As the principles and language of student voice are taken up in other fields, such as youth civic engagement, teacher professional development, and education reform, it may be helpful to consider how the three goals of student voice identified as definitional (sharing students perspectives on educational matters; articulating reform possibilities; and repositioning students) are or are not honored in any effort that is said to entail student voice.Student Voice Models, Typologies, and Frameworks Existing Frameworks Many researchers have developed typologies or models for conceptualizing student voice or related constructs of student involvement, youth engagement, and learner voice.(See Table 1.)These conceptual frameworks include pyramids and tiers (Mitra, 2006; Mitra & Gross, 2009; Kennedy & Datnow, 2011), ladders (Fletcher, 2005; Hart, 1992; Holdsworth, 2000; Pope & Joslin, 2011), spectrums or continuums (Delgado & Staples, 2008; Jones & Perkins, 2005; Lee & Zimmerman, 1999; Toshalis & Nakkula, 2012), matrices (Lodge, 2005; Mitra & Kirshner, 2012), and cycles (Campbell, 2011; Fletcher, 2005).In addition, several researchers have proposed non-visually oriented frameworks for analyzing student voice efforts (Fielding, 2001a, 2001b; Hadfield & Haw, 2001; Joselowsky, 2007; Levin, 2000).As can be seen in Table 1, these frameworks and typologies each call attention to different aspects of student voice.The vast majority focus on cataloguing and comparing ARTICLE Jerusha O. Conner various student voice activities, identifying different roles for students.About half of these frameworks differentiate the activities according to the degree of power or agency students assume relative to either adults or to their more traditional role of passivity in school.Less common are frameworks or typologies that highlight the topic of student voice (what it is students are speaking about), the relative ubiquity or obscurity of the activities, or the process of engaging students in student voice work; nonetheless, at least two frameworks focus on each of these areas.Five frameworks address the purpose of the student voice initiative or the rationales for student voice, and two work to identify the various dimensions or facets of student voice.No frameworks focus on comparing the effects (or effectiveness) of various student voice activities. While each of these frameworks offers a distinct lens and conceptualizes student voice in a different way than any other framework, there are limitations to consider as well.Some frameworks can be overwhelming to apply and could be more parsimonious; others run the risk of becoming too reductionist.By far the largest limitation of existing frameworks, however, concerns the dimensions or aspects of student voice that have not been conceptualized or considered.New Frameworks The definition of student voice I propose responds to this problem, building on existing frameworks by establishing three clear goals defining student voice initiatives that are heavily discussed in the literature, though not apparent in extant frameworks.In addition, this definition acknowledges that student voice can work at various systems levels, expanding the activity sites beyond the classroom and school to district, country, region, state, and country.This conceptualization can move the field forward by helping to define and situate student voice activities; however, it is also important to recognize the difference between identifying student ARTICLE Jerusha O. Conner voice initiatives on the basis of goals and evaluating those initiatives according to how well those goals have been realized.Fletchers (2005) ladder of student involvement offers a useful heuristic for assessing how well student voice projects accomplish our definitions third goal of granting students agency and disrupting entrenched power dynamics.In Table 2, I collapse Fletchers ladder into three categories (non-participation, circumscribed involvement, active engagement in decision-making) and then link these with another important consideration, largely neglected by extant theoretical frameworks and models: whether or not the students have received training and support to reflect upon and reconstruct their perspectives and to develop the skills they need to participate effectively in decision-making.As Middaugh (2012) points out, in order to have real influence in the process of defining and addressing issues, youth need to be prepared not just to speak, but to speak effectively and with accountability (p. ii). I use raw to refer to those student voice initiatives in which student do not receive training or mentoring, and refined to denote those in which they do.The integrated framework I introduce in Table 2 can help to distinguish student voice programs from one another on the basis of student agency vis vis student preparedness.This 3x2 matrix generates six different types of student voice activities. Below, I discuss examples of each type to illustrate these differences.First, the unsupported non-participant can be exemplified by the non-voting student representative on a school board or other educational governance structure.He or she has little agency because he or she possesses little ability to shape policy, design initiatives, or influence board members votes.Furthermore, assuming he or she did not receive any explicit instruction in educational politics or training, in how to engage in policy analysis, or in how to speak to adults in positions of power prior to or concomitant with his or her appointment, he or she would exercise raw voice.Moving one row down, ARTICLE Jerusha O. Conner circumscribed, unprepared participants might be students assigned to give feedback to their teacher, without receiving any training or guidance in how to do so.For example, in some school districts, teachers are now required to survey their students at the end of the year to solicit their perspectives on their learning experiences in the classroom.Teachers in these contexts report that they make up their own surveys, distribute them in a mad rush at the end of the year, often before they have submitted their students final grades, and then look at them quickly, without knowing how to make sense of them or process them (Conner, 2015).At the bottom left of Table 2, the actively engaged but unsupported participants might include students who are elected to serve as voting members of their schools site councils as part of a new teachers union contract. These students are unlikely to receive any explicit training in working collaboratively with adults or in analyzing school-level policy and practice.They may not be instructed, for example, in how to read or interpret school-level results from state tests.The lack of explicit structures and systems of support place their voice in the raw bin; however, because they are invested with the authority to vote as members of their schools decision-making body, they assume greater agency and engagement in decision-making alongside adults. In the second column, an example of supported non-participants might be students who were involved in Philadelphia School Districts T.A.C.K.L.E.Truancy campaign (see http://salsen.com/tackletruancy/default.php#).These students received support, financial resources, and guidance to develop a campaign addressing their peers truancy problems; however, the campaign they crafted did not involve them in any kind of decision-making related to school or district educational practice, policy, or culture.Indeed, their campaign was largely rhetorical and did not result in any concrete demands, suggesting that their agency was limited and their work merely decorative and tokenistic.By contrast, the students who participate in the ARTICLE Jerusha O. Conner Teaching and Learning Together Initiative at Bryn Mawr College and Haverford College demonstrate a well-supported, refined voice expressed in the context of consultation. These students are trained during weekly sessions to work individually with college instructors and provide validation, feedback, and suggestions to the instructors based on their observations of their teaching.Although they are not responsible for making instructional decisions, they do have a profound influence on the instructors thinking and pedagogy (Cook-Sather & Agu, 2012).Finally, in the bottom right corner, we find the students who are actively involved and well supported. The student members of Redwood Schools Stressed-Out Students (SOS) School Team (Osberg, Pope, & Galloway, 2006) offer one such example.The SOS team is comprised of two students, two parents, two faculty members and the school principal, all of whom are invested in working to design programs to change school culture, policy and practice in order to support greater student wellbeing and academic engagement.At Redwood School, student members participated on an equal footing with their adult counterparts, exercising both veto power and decision-making authority as the team worked to support the student-led revision of the schools honor code, implementation of the new test calendar, and inquiry into a schedule change.These students also spoke with a refined voice, having benefited from a university-based workshop that specifically focused on developing and asserting student voice as a member of the schools SOS team. I argue that both dimensions of Table 2, student agency and student preparedness, are important because investing students with authority to make decisions about substantive schooling issues, without giving them any training to do so may be as demeaning and disempowering as giving students support and training, but then dismissing their ideas or manipulating their perspectives through training that advances a covert agenda.Taken together, ARTICLE Jerusha O. Conner the definition of student voice I propose and Table 2 may serve as useful guides not only for future research, but also for student voice practice, guiding practitioners to consider what supports students might need and how best to provide these without infringing on student autonomy and authority. Given that student voice necessarily engages with issues of positioning, power and privilege, a particularly useful line of questioning for future research would be to consider the various models in Table 2 in light of issues of class, race, gender, disability status, sexuality, and language. Do adults and institutions tend to provide more support and training for developing a refined voice to youth who are already privileged by their race or class, consigning low-income youth of color or language minority students to the raw voice column? Do they grant agency more easily to some groups of youth than others? How do youth negotiate opportunities for agency, training and support for themselves and one another? Silva (2001), for example, finds that some youth involved in a student voice program might actively discourage their language minority peers from speaking up on behalf of the group, for fear of embarrassing the group. Do youth who have been traditionally marginalized in schools by virtue of their class, race, or learning differences require different supports, training, and opportunities for agency than youth who have been traditionally granted greater privilege and authority in school settings? Applying an intersectional perspective that accounts for how youths multifaceted identities intersect with adult support for student voice to Table 2 could help us better understand the social forces that constrain and facilitate student voice as well as the complex dynamics of this work. Although much has been written about institutional and cultural barriers to student voice (Conner, Ebby-Rosin, & Brown, 2015; Cook-Sather, 2002; Fielding, 2001b; Mitra, 2008; York & Kirshner, ARTICLE Jerusha O. Conner 2015), Table 2 can clarify how these barriers are animated by structural factors that oppress youth in schools, school systems, and other educational settings.Conclusion Student voice has been called one of the most powerful tools schools have to improve learning (Toshalis & Nakkula, 2012, p. i).It is widely understood as vehicle for important academic and developmental outcomes for students, and it is increasingly recognized as a promising strategy for educational reform (Beattie, 2012; Fletcher, 2005; McMahon & Portelli, 2012; Smyth, 2012).With hundreds of examples of student voice initiatives populating the internet, and with a solid base of empirical studies and theoretical pieces now accessible, this once nascent area of practice and inquiry is firmly establishing itself as an active and healthy field of scholarship.One indication that a field is coming of age is that it attracts backlash and criticism.Some popular writers and scholars have begun to question whether student voice is a fad or a clich (Bessant, 2004; Bolstad, 2011).Others have issued calls for more critical investigations of the construct and its attendant practices (Kirshner, Bemis, & Estrada, 2013; Lundy, 2007; Robinson & Taylor, 2013).I add to these calls, seeking work that can address emergent and lingering questions about student voice, while bringing to bear greater conceptual clarity and definitional precision.Such research will help the field mature and transition from first generation studies, which introduced student voice as a viable field of scholarship, to second generation studies, which will develop, document, and deconstruct ever more sophisticated efforts to institutionalize student voice in educational systems. As examples of student voice continue to proliferate and as the term gains increased cachet in education circles, it is important that research not simply keep pace with these trends, ARTICLE Jerusha O. Conner but help to refine our understanding of what constitutes student voice; how to develop, support, and sustain it; and how to leverage it to realize its full potential to engage students and transform educational institutions. ARTICLE Jerusha O. Conner References Beattie, H. (2012). Amplifying student voice: The missing link in school transformation. Management in Education, 26, 158-160. Bessant, J. (2004). Mixed messages: Youth participation and democratic practice. Australian Journal of Political Science, 39, 387-404. Billig, S. (2000). The effects of service-learning. School Administrator, 14-18. Retrieved from http://www.aasa.org/SchoolAdministratorArticle.aspx?id=14436 Bolstad, R. (2011). From student voice to youth-adult partnerships: Lessons from working with young people as partners for educational change. SET: Research Information for Teachers, 1, 31-33. Borrero, N., Conner, J., & Mejia, A. (2012). Promoting social justice through service-learning in urban teacher education: The role of student voice. Partnerships:A Journal of Service-Learning and Civic Engagement, 3, 1-24. Boston Student Advisory Council (2012). We are the ones in the classroom-Ask us! Student voice in teacher evaluations. Harvard Educational Review, 82, 153-166. Bradley, M. (2015). We fought fairness and won. In J. Conner, R. Ebby-Rosin, & A. S. Brown (Eds.), Speak Up and Speak Out: Student Voice in Education Policy. National Society for the Study of Education Yearbook, 114.New York: Teachers College Record. Byrnes, L., & Rickards, F. (2011). Listening to the voices of students with disabilities: Can such voices inform practice? Australasian Journal of Special Education, 35, 25-34. Cammarota, J., & Fine, M. (2008). Youth participatory action research. In J. Cammarota & M. Fine (Eds.), Revolutionizing education: Youth participatory action research in motion (pp. 1-11). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.ARTICLE Jerusha O. Conner Campbell, F. (2011). How to hear and heed the student voice. In G. Czerniawski & W. Kidd (Eds.), The student voice handbook: Bridging the academic/practitioner divide (pp. 265-276). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group. College Board Advocacy and Policy Center. (2011). The educational experience of young men of color: Capturing the student voice. New York, NY: Author. Conner, J. (2015). Teacher perspectives on student voice. Manuscript submitted for publication. Conner, J., Ebby-Rosin, R., Brown, A. (2015) Introduction. In J. Conner, R. Ebby-Rosin, & A. Brown (Eds.), Speak Up and Speak Out: Student Voice in American Educational Policy. A National Society for the Study of Education Yearbook, 114. New York: Teachers College Record Cook-Sather, A. (2002). Authorizing students perspectives: Toward trust, dialogue, and change in education. Educational Researcher, 31, 3-14.Cook-Sather, A. (2006). Sound, presence, and power: Student voice in educational research and reform. Curriculum Inquiry, 36, 359- 390. Cook-Sather, A., & Agu, P. (2012, October 27). Students of color and faculty members working together towards more culturally-responsive classrooms. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Professional and Organizational Development Network, Seattle, WA.Czerniawski, G., & Kidd, W. (Eds.) (2011). The student voice handbook: Bridging the academic/practitioner divide. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group. Delgado, M., & Staples, L. (2008). Youth-led community organizing. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Duncan-Andrade, J.M.R., & Morrell, J. (2008). The art of critical pedagogy. New York, NY: Peter Lang. ARTICLE Jerusha O. Conner Evans, P. M. (2009). Student voice on a high school decision-making team: A principals model of listening to students. In A. Cook-Sather (Ed.), Learning from the students perspective (pp. 162-174). Boulder, CO: Paradigm.Fielding, M. (2001a). Students as radical agents of change. Journal of Educational Change, 2, 123-141.Fielding, M. (2001b). Beyond the rhetoric of student voice: New departures or new constraints in the transformation of the 21st century schooling, FORUM, 43, 100-110. Fielding, M., & McGregor, J. (April, 2005). Deconstructing student voice; new spaces for dialogue or new opportunities for surveillance. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal.Fletcher, A. (2005). Meaningful student involvement: A guide to students as partners in school change (2nd ed.). Seattle, WA: HumanLinks Foundation.Francis, M., & Lorenzo, R. (2002). Seven realms of childrens participation. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 22, 157-169. Fredericks, L., Kaplan, E., & Zeisler, J. (2001). Integrating youth voice in service-learning. Learning In Deed issue paper. Denver, CO: Education Commission of the States. Furco, A. (1996). Service-Learning: A balanced approach to experiential education. Expanding Boundaries: Service and Learning. Washington, DC: Corporation for National Service, 2-6. Gavrielides, T. (2014). Moving beyond frail democracy: Youth-led youth studies and social policy. In P. Kelly & A. Kamp (Eds.), Critical Youth Studies for the 21st Century (pp. 426-443). Leiden: Brill. ARTICLE Jerusha O. Conner Garcia, V., Agbemakplido, W., Abdela, H., Lopez, O., & Registe, R. (2006). High school students perspectives on the 2001 No Child Left Behind Acts definition of a highly-qualified teacher. Harvard Education Review, 76, 698-724. Hadfield, M., & Haw, K. (2001). Voice, young people, and action research. Educational Action Research, 9, 485-499.Hart, R.A. (1992). Childrens participation from tokenism to citizenship. Florence, Italy: UNICEF International Child Development Centre.Holdsworth, R. (2000). Schools that create real roles of value for young people. UNESCO International Prospect, 3, 349362. Jones, K.R., & Perkins, D.F. (2005). Determining the quality of youth-adult relationships within community-based youth programs. Journal of Extension, 43, 90-109. Joselowsky, F. (2007). Youth engagement, high school reform, and improved learning outcomes: Building systemic approaches for youth engagement. NASSP Bulletin, 91, 257-276. Kennedy, B.L. & Datnow, A. (2011). Student involvement and data-driven decision-making: Developing a new typology. Youth and Society, 43, 1246-1271. Kotilainen, S. (2009). Promoting youth civic participation with media production: The case of Youth Voice Editorial Board. Comunicar, 16, 243-259. Kirshner, B. (2010). Productive dilemmas in youth participatory action research. In W. R. Penuel & K. O'Connor (Eds.), Learning research as a human science (pp. 238-251). National Society for the Study of Education Yearbook, 109, New York, NY: Teachers College. Kirshner, B., Bemis, C. & Estrada, A. (2013, April). The social production of transformative student voice. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.ARTICLE Jerusha O. Conner Lee, L., & Zimmerman, M. (1999). Making a difference: A new vision for student voice. Education Canada, 39, 3435. Levin, B. (2000). Putting students at the centre in education reform. Journal of Educational Change, 1, 155-172. Lodge, C. (2005). From hearing voices to engaging in dialogue: Problematising studentparticipation in school improvement. Journal of Educational Change, 6, 125146. Lundy, L. (2007). Voice in not enough: Conceptualizing Article 12 of the United NationsConvention on the Rights of the Child. British Educational Research Journal, 33, 927-942. McIntyre, A. (2008). Participatory action research. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.McMahon, B. (2012). Education in and for democracy: Conceptions of schooling and student voice. In B. McMahon & J. Portelli (Eds.), Student engagement in urban schools: Beyond neoliberal discourses (pp. 29-47). Charlotte, NC: Information Age. McMahon, B. & Portelli, J. (Eds.), Student engagement in urban schools: Beyond neoliberal discourses. Charlotte, NC: Information Age. McSherry, J. & Mejia, R. (2011). Chilean students challenge Pinochets legacy. NACLA Report on the Americas, 44, 29-34. Middaugh, E. (2012, Jan.). Service and activism in the digital age: Supporting youth engagement in public life. DML Central Working Paper. Retrieved from dmlcentral.net/sites/dmlcentral/files/resource_files/sa.pdf Mitchell, T. (2008). Traditional versus critical service learning: Engaging the literature to differentiate two models. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 14, 50-65, ARTICLE Jerusha O. Conner Mitra, D.L. (2006). Increasing student voice and moving toward youth leadership. The Prevention Researcher, 13, 7-10. Mitra, D.L. (2008). Student voice in school reform. Albany: State University of New York. Mitra, D.L., & Gross, S. (2009). Increasing student voice in high school reform. Educational Management, Administration, and Leadership, 37, 522-543. Mitra, D.L. & Kirshner, B. (2012). Insiders versus outsiders: Examining variability in student voice initiatives and their consequences for school change. In B. McMahon & J. Portelli (Ed.), Student engagement in urban schools: Beyond neoliberal discourses (pp. 49-71). Charlotte, NC: Information Age. Obserg, J., Pope, D., & Galloway, M. (2006). Students matter in school reform: Leaving fingerprints and becoming leaders. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 9, 329-3343. Pautsch, C. (2010). Leadership to support student voice: The role of school leaders in supporting meaningful student government and voice. (Doctoral dissertation). Available from Proquest UMI Dissertation publishing database. (UMI No.3448752). Pekrul, S., & Levin, B. (2005). Building student voice for school improvement. In D. Thiessen & A. Cook-Sather (Eds.), International handbook of student experience in elementary and secondary school (pp. 711-726). AA Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.Pope, R., & Joslin, B. (2011). Learner voice in post-compulsory education and training. In G. Czerniawski & W. Kidd (Eds.), The student voice handbook: Bridging the academic/practitioner divide (pp. 143-154). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group. ARTICLE Jerusha O. Conner RMC Research Corporation. (2007). Research in support of youth voice and service-learning. National Service-Learning Clearinghouse, Fact Sheet. Retrieved from www.servicelearning.org/instant_info/facts_sheets/k-12_facts/support_youth-voice Robinson, C., & Taylor, C. (2013). Student voice as a contested practice: Power and participation in two student voice projects. Improving Schools, 16, 32-46. Rodriguez, 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.Silva, E. (2001). Squeaky wheels and flat tires: A case study of students as reform participants. Forum, 43, 95-99. Smyth, J. (2012). Doing research on student voice in Australia. Management in Education, 26, 153-154. Soep, L., & Chavez, V. (2010). Drop that knowledge: Youth Radio stories. Berkeley: University of California Press. Toshalis, E., & Nakkula, M. (2012). Motivation, engagement, and student voice. Washington DC: Jobs for the Future.Tuck, E., Allen, J., Baha, M., Morales, A., Quinter, S., Thompson, J., & Tuck, M. (2008). In J. Cammarota & M. Fine (Eds.), Revolutionizing education: Youth participatory action research in motion (pp. 49-83). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.Voight, A. (2014). Student voice for school climate improvement. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology. doi: 10.1002/casp.2216 York, A. & Kirshner, B. (2015). How positioning shapes opportunities for student agency in schools. In J. Conner, R. Ebby-Rosin, & A. Brown (Eds.), Speak Up and Speak Out: ARTICLE Jerusha O. Conner Student Voice in American Educational Policy. A National Society for the Study of Education Yearbook. New York: Teachers College Record ARTICLE Jerusha O. Conner Table 1. Typologies, Models and Frameworks of Student Voice DesignAuthorFocus/HighlightsHow voice/involvement is conceptualized or defined Pyramid/TiersMitra 2006, 2007; Mitra & Gross 2009 Distinguishes 3 distinct forms of student voice, each with different role for students Highlights how common each form is Student Voice is either being heard, collaborating with adults, or engaging in youth-led initiatives Kennedy & Datnow 2011 Distinguishes 3 tiers of student engagement in data-based decision-making, based on students role Highlights how common each form is (based on empirical research) Student Involvement in DDM ranges from Tier 3, which engages students in data analysis to Tier 1, which engages students actively, dialogically in reform process Ladders & LevelsFletcher 2005; Hart 1992 Distinguishes 8 types of student involvement, including three rungs of non-participation and Student Involvement in school ranges from students being informed and assigned to student-ARTICLE Jerusha O. Conner five rungs of participation Ranks levels of involvement, according to student agency and authority initiated shared decision-making. Tokenism, decoration, and manipulation are not forms of involvement. Holdsworth 2000 Distinguishes 6 rungs or levels of youth participation, with increasing youth agency and inclusion Ranks levels according to response of adults Student voice is lowest level of participation; ladders moves from speaking out to shared decision-making, implementation of action and reflection on the action with young people. Pope & Joslin 2011 (adapted from Shuttle, 2007) Distinguishes 5 levels of participation Ranks levels according to active involvement and authority of students to contribute to decision-making Highlights processes Student voice is equated with learner participation in decision-making, which can range from institution-led, in which students are informed of decisions, to student-led, in which students are ARTICLE Jerusha O. Conner and activities associated with each level empowered to plan and control activities and decisions. Spectrum/continuumLee &Zimmerman 1999 Distinguishes 4 points on spectrum of student involvement, based on how active the role is that the student assumes Student voice is equated with student involvement in decision-making in classrooms and/or schools, ranging from non-participant, to information source, to participant, to designer Jones & Perkins 2005 Distinguishes 5 types of youth-adult relationships in community organizations, with youth-adult partnership located in center of continuum, adult-centered leadership at one end and youth-centered leadership at the other end Youth involvement is measured quantitatively according to youth reports of their levels of youth voice and decision making, responsibility, and commitment to the project. ARTICLE Jerusha O. Conner Delgado & Staples, 2008 Distinguishes 4 models of youth-adult relationships in community organizing, with increasing youth power and diminishing adult power as one moves across spectrum from left to right Youth power reaches its pinnacle when youth control decision-making processes, with support from adult allies as directed and determined by the youth. Toshalis & Nakkula, 2012 Distinguishes 6 types of student voice activity, with students sharing their perspectives and acting as data sources on the far left, and students directing or leading activities on the far right.Student voice is a broad term describing a range of activities in which students influence the decisions that shape their own and their peers lives. Agency is central. MatricesLodge 2005Distinguishes 2 reasons for involving students in school improvement: instrumental vs. developmental Student involvement in school development can take different forms depending on the goals and the agency of ARTICLE Jerusha O. Conner Distinguishes 2 types of roles students can assume: active vs. passiveIdentifies 4 approaches to student involvement students. These forms include quality control, students as sources of information, compliance, and dialogue. Mitra & Kirshner 2012 Distinguishes focus of reform: youth leadership vs. social activism Distinguishes locus of reform: insider vs. outsider Student voice comprises activities that allow youth to participate in the school decisions that affect their lives and the lives of their peers. Diagrams with circles Fletcher 2005Distinguishes 7 forms of meaningful student involvement in school reform, based on the roles students assume Student involvement can take many different forms, including engaging students as education planners, teachers, researchers, learning evaluators, advocates, organizers, and systemic decision-makers ARTICLE Jerusha O. Conner Pekrul & Levin 2007 Offers a school improvement frameworks that highlights roles for all stakeholders and places student learning and engagement at center Distinguishes five types of student voice activities, according to the roles students assume Student voice occurs when students have a credible voice in and impact on the institution(s) that play a major role in their lives. It includes students as learners/doers; advocates; researchers; advisors; and networked individuals. CyclesFlecther, 2005Distinguishes 5 steps in a cycle of meaningful student involvement in school reform, moving from listening to validating, authorizing, mobilizing, reflecting, and then back to listening.Student involvement is the process of engaging students as partners in every facet of school change. Campbell, 2011 Distinguishes five steps or stages practitioners Student voice is students perspectives on the things ARTICLE Jerusha O. Conner and researchers can take in carrying out action research that employs student voice, beginning with framing and planning the work and concluding with evaluating the process and feeding back to students that matter to them in classroom or school. Frameworks without visual elements Fielding 2001a 2001b Proposes a series of questions, each clustered around a different dimension of student voice: speaking; listening; skills; attitudes & dispositions; systems; organizational culture; spaces; action; the future Student voice covers a range of activities that encourage reflection, discussion, dialogue and action on matters that primarily concern students, but also, by implication, school staff and the communities they serve (Fielding & McGregor, 2005, p. 2).Pope & Joslin 2011 Proposes a series of questions to stimulate Learner voice is equated with student participation ARTICLE Jerusha O. Conner development and reflection on practice of student voice in decision-making at classroom and school levels. Levin 2000Proposes 5 warrants for student voice, all of which are pragmatic, but the last two of which have educational value as well. Student involvement includes student engagement in defining, shaping, managing and implementing all aspects of educational reform. Joselowsky 2006; Forum for Youth Investment Distinguishes 4 different strategies for engaging young people in their educational experience: engaging youth in their own learning, in their peers learning, in improving educational opportunities, and in their community. Youth engagement refers to empowering youth to take control over their lives and greater responsibility for their learning Hadfield & Haw, 2004 Differentiates 3 types of voice, which reflect different processes of Voice stems from personal experience and is linked to issues of ARTICLE Jerusha O. Conner articulation and intended outcomes: authoritative critical and therapeutic. participation, social change, and empowerment. Francis & Lorenzo, 2002 Highlights 7 realms or approaches to childrens participation in city planning and design, including advocacy, romantic, needs, learning, rights, institutionalization, and proactive Child participation is the inclusion of children and youth in the design and planning of the environments they use; it has advanced from tokenism to effective participation to institutionalization. Table 2. Student Agency in and Preparation for Student Voice Work Raw Voice (no training or support) Refined Voice (training & support) Non-participation: Tokenism, decoration, manipulation (rungs 1-3 on Fletchers ladder) Non-voting student representative on school board T.A.C.K.L.E.Truancy Campaign Circumscribed participation: Assignment or Consultation(rungs 4-5 on Fletchers ladder) District mandate to survey students at end of year Teaching and Learning Together Initiative Engagement in decision-making: Adult or student-initiated & shared or student-led decision-making(rungs 6-8 on Fletchers ladder) 2 student members with full voting rights, elected to each schools Site Council, Boston Redwood Schools SOS Student Team Members