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 at

http://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-usmember. For more information: contact@iars.org.uk

2015 THE IARS INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE

ARTICLE

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 Leadership
The 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 Activism
Youth 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-learning
Service-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 servicelearning (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 servicelearning 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 universitybased 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, EbbyRosin, & 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 ServiceLearning 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. 265276). 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 highlyqualified 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 student
participation in school improvement. Journal of Educational Change, 6, 125146.
Lundy, L. (2007). Voice in not enough: Conceptualizing Article 12 of the United Nations
Convention on the Rights of the Child. British Educational Research Journal, 33, 927942.
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

Design

Author

Focus/Highlights

How voice/involvement
is conceptualized or
defined

Pyramid/Tiers

Mitra 2006,

Distinguishes 3 distinct

Student Voice is either

2007; Mitra &

forms of student voice,

being heard,

Gross 2009

each with different role

collaborating with adults,

for students

or engaging in youth-led

Highlights how

initiatives

common each form is

Kennedy &

Datnow 2011

Distinguishes 3 tiers of

Student Involvement in

student engagement in

DDM ranges from Tier 3,

data-based decision-

which engages students

making, based on

in data analysis to Tier 1,

students role

which engages students

Highlights how

actively, dialogically in

common each form is

reform process

(based on empirical
research)
Ladders & Levels

Fletcher 2005;
Hart 1992

Distinguishes 8 types of

Student Involvement in

student involvement,

school ranges from

including three rungs of

students being informed

non-participation and

and assigned to student-

ARTICLE

Jerusha O. Conner

five rungs of

initiated shared decision-

participation

making. Tokenism,

Ranks levels of

decoration, and

involvement, according

manipulation are not

to student agency and

forms of involvement.

authority
Holdsworth

2000

Distinguishes 6 rungs or Student voice is lowest

levels of youth

level of participation;

participation, with

ladders moves from

increasing youth agency

speaking out to shared

and inclusion

decision-making,

Ranks levels according

implementation of action

to response of adults

and reflection on the

action with young
people.

Pope & Joslin

2011 (adapted
from Shuttle,

2007)

Distinguishes 5 levels

Student voice is equated

of participation

with learner participation

Ranks levels according

in decision-making,

to active involvement

which can range from

and authority of

institution-led, in which

students to contribute to

students are informed of

decision-making

decisions, to student-led,

Highlights processes

in which students are

ARTICLE

Jerusha O. Conner

and activities associated

empowered to plan and

with each level

control activities and

decisions.

Spectrum/continuum Lee &

Distinguishes 4 points

Student voice is equated

Zimmerman

on spectrum of student

with student involvement

1999

involvement, based on

in decision-making in

how active the role is

classrooms and/or

that the student assumes

schools, ranging from

non-participant, to
information source, to
participant, to designer

Jones &
Perkins 2005

Distinguishes 5 types of

Youth involvement is

youth-adult

measured quantitatively

relationships in

according to youth

community

reports of their levels of

organizations, with

youth voice

youth-adult partnership

and decision making,

located in center of

responsibility, and

continuum, adult-

commitment to the

centered leadership at

project.

one end and youthcentered leadership at

the other end

ARTICLE

Jerusha O. Conner

Delgado &

Staples, 2008

Distinguishes 4 models

Youth power reaches its

of youth-adult

pinnacle when youth

relationships in

control decision-making

community organizing,

processes, with support

with increasing youth

from adult allies as

power and diminishing

directed and determined

adult power as one

by the youth.

moves across spectrum

from left to right
Toshalis &

Nakkula, 2012

Distinguishes 6 types of

Student voice is a broad

student voice activity,

term describing a range

with students sharing

of activities in which

their perspectives and

students influence the

acting as data sources

decisions that shape

on the far left, and

their own and their peers

students directing or

lives. Agency is central.

leading activities on the

far right.
Matrices

Lodge 2005

Distinguishes 2 reasons

Student involvement in

for involving students in school development can

school improvement:

take different forms

instrumental vs.

depending on the goals

developmental

and the agency of

ARTICLE

Jerusha O. Conner

Distinguishes 2 types of

students. These forms

roles students can

include quality control,

assume: active vs.

students as sources of

passive

information, compliance,

Identifies 4 approaches

and dialogue.

to student involvement
Mitra &

Kirshner 2012

Distinguishes focus of

Student voice comprises

reform: youth

activities that allow youth

leadership vs. social

to participate in the

activism

school decisions that

Distinguishes locus of

affect their lives and the

reform: insider vs.

lives of their peers.

outsider
Diagrams with
circles

Fletcher 2005

Distinguishes 7 forms

Student involvement can

of meaningful student

take many different

involvement in school

forms, including

reform, based on the

engaging students as

roles students assume

education planners,
teachers, researchers,
learning evaluators,
advocates, organizers,
and systemic decisionmakers

ARTICLE

Jerusha O. Conner

Pekrul &

Levin 2007

Offers a school

Student voice occurs

improvement

when students have a

frameworks that

credible voice in and

highlights roles for all

impact on the

stakeholders and places

institution(s) that play a

student learning and

major role in their lives.

engagement at center

It includes students as

Distinguishes five types

learners/doers; advocates;

of student voice

researchers; advisors; and

activities, according to

networked individuals.

the roles students

assume
Cycles

Flecther, 2005

Distinguishes 5 steps in

Student involvement is

a cycle of meaningful

the process of engaging

student involvement in

students as partners in

school reform, moving

every facet of school

from listening to

change.

validating, authorizing,
mobilizing, reflecting,
and then back to
listening.
Campbell,
2011

Distinguishes five steps

Student voice is students

or stages practitioners

perspectives on the things

ARTICLE

Jerusha O. Conner

and researchers can take that matter to them in

in carrying out action

classroom or school.

research that employs

student voice, beginning
with framing and
planning the work and
concluding with
evaluating the process
and feeding back to
students
Frameworks without

Fielding 2001a

visual elements

2001b

Proposes a series of

Student voice covers a

questions, each

range of activities that

clustered around a

encourage reflection,

different dimension of

discussion, dialogue and

student voice: speaking;

action on matters that

listening; skills;

primarily concern

attitudes & dispositions;

students, but also, by

systems; organizational

implication, school staff

culture; spaces; action;

and the communities they

the future

serve (Fielding &

McGregor, 2005, p. 2).

Pope & Joslin

2011

Proposes a series of

Learner voice is equated

questions to stimulate

with student participation

ARTICLE

Jerusha O. Conner

development and

in decision-making at

reflection on practice of

classroom and school

student voice

levels.

Proposes 5 warrants for

Student involvement

student voice, all of

includes student

which are pragmatic,

engagement in defining,

but the last two of

shaping, managing and

which have educational

implementing all aspects

value as well.

of educational reform.

Distinguishes 4

Youth engagement refers

2006; Forum

different strategies for

to empowering youth to

for Youth

engaging young people

take control over their

Investment

in their educational

lives and greater

experience: engaging

responsibility for their

youth in their own

learning

Levin 2000

Joselowsky

learning, in their peers

learning, in improving
educational
opportunities, and in
their community.
Hadfield &
Haw, 2004

Differentiates 3 types of

Voice stems from

voice, which reflect

personal experience and

different processes of

is linked to issues of

ARTICLE

Jerusha O. Conner

articulation and

participation, social

intended outcomes:

change, and

authoritative critical and empowerment.

therapeutic.
Francis &
Lorenzo, 2002

Highlights 7 realms or

Child participation is the

approaches to childrens inclusion of children and

participation in city

youth in the design and

planning and design,

planning of the

including advocacy,

environments they use; it

romantic, needs,

has advanced from

learning, rights,

tokenism to effective

institutionalization, and

participation to

proactive

institutionalization.

Table 2. Student Agency in and Preparation for Student Voice Work

Raw Voice

Refined Voice

(no training or support)

(training & support)

Non-participation:

Non-voting student

T.A.C.K.L.E.

Tokenism, decoration,

representative on school

Truancy Campaign

manipulation

board

(rungs 1-3 on Fletchers ladder)

Circumscribed participation:

District mandate to survey

Teaching and Learning

Assignment or Consultation

students at end of year

Together Initiative

Engagement in decision-making:

2 student members with full

Redwood Schools SOS

Adult or student-initiated & shared

voting rights, elected to each

Student Team Members

or student-led decision-making

schools Site Council, Boston

(rungs 4-5 on Fletchers ladder)

(rungs 6-8 on Fletchers ladder)