Building Student Voice for School Improvement

Revised version for International Handbook of Student Experience

October, 2005

Sharon Pekrul Ben Levin

Winnipeg School Division Ontario Ministry of Education
Building Student Voice for School Improvement

Sharon Pekrul, Winnipeg School Division

Ben Levin, Ontario Ministry of Education
Oct, 2005 revised version

Introduction

Over the last 15 years the Manitoba School Improvement Program (MSIP) has worked to
develop student voice as a key part of its secondary school improvement strategies in the
province of Manitoba, Canada. This chapter tells the story of those efforts and assesses
their strengths and limitations. Through research and student-centered initiatives, MSIP
has developed an understanding of the importance of student voice in creating
meaningful change in high schools. In fact, in some cases the voices of students provide
the tipping point to shift the culture and practices of high schools. Combining
collaborative and authentic tasks that build skills and confidence, and widening the arena
of student influence, student voice processes can give students a credible voice in and
impact on the institution that plays a major role in their lives.

In giving this account we are conscious of the need to balance advocacy for student voice
with careful attention to evidence and grounding in a critical theoretical perspective. As
participants in the experiences we describe, we do not pretend that our account is
dispassionate. At the same time, our analysis is grounded in research – our own and
others - and has evolved over time as we have confronted the evidence of our efforts and
those of others. We do not claim that we have achieved a definitive understanding but
we do believe that our experience, sustained over time, can help others develop their own
views. MSIP has practiced what it preaches and been diligent about collecting data on its
own practices, including several independent evaluations – discussed further later in this
chapter. Our account is therefore not based only on our own predispositions, but on
careful attention to substantial third-party evidence about our work. The quotations cited
in this chapter are representative of the findings of these external evaluations.

There is, as readers of this Handbook will realize, a substantial and rapidly growing
literature on student voice. The second author has been a regular contributor to this
literature for more than 25 years (Bryant, Lee & Levin, 1997; Levin, 1977; 1993, 1994a,;
1994b; 1998). In developing our ideas we have also drawn on the work of other scholars
such as Corbett & Wilson (1995), Erickson & Schultz (1992), Fielding (2001), Cook-
Sather (2002), Rudduck and Flutter (2000), and Thomson and Holdsworth (2003), The
many authors and sources in this Handbook show just how wide this body of scholarship
is. We have also been impressed with work that addresses the key role of student
engagement and motivation as levers for improving school outcomes (Newmann, 1992;
Nicholls & Hazzard, 1993; McCombs & Whistler, 1997). An important but insufficiently
known Canadian project that looks at student engagement and participation across the
country can be found in Smith et al., (1998). Our overall framework for thinking about
student voice in school reform is described in Levin (2000), where five arguments, both
pragmatic and educational in nature, are outlined in support of a key student role.

2
1. Effective implementation of change requires participation by and buy-in from all
those involved; students no less than teachers;
2. Students have unique knowledge and perspectives that can make reform efforts more
successful and improve their implementation;
3. Students’ views can help mobilise staff and parent opinion in favour of meaningful
reform;
4. Constructivist learning, which is increasingly important to high standards reforms,
requires a more active student role in schooling;
5. Students are the producers of school outcomes, so their involvement is fundamental
to all improvement.

The first three of these arguments involve considerations of how meaningful change in
organisations is created and sustained. These ideas are widely promoted in regard to all
kinds of organizations, not only schools. For example, principles of quality management
include similar claims about the importance of participation by all members of an
organization. The latter two arguments, however, are unique to education because they
have to do with how it is that learning occurs. Our position on student voice, then, is one
that seeks to embody both philosophical and pragmatic arguments. The MSIP project
work described in this chapter used these multiple perspectives, supporting various kinds
of work on student voice for all the reasons outlined above,

The Manitoba School Improvement Program (MSIP)

Manitoba School Improvement Program (www.msip.ca) is an independent, non-profit,

non-governmental organization dedicated to the improvement of public secondary
schools in Manitoba, with particular focus on improving learning experiences and
outcomes for students at risk. It acts as a broker and catalyst to Manitoba public high
schools and their community partners in their voluntary school improvement and change
processes. MSIP is unique in Canada as an independent third party school reform entity.
It focuses on school improvement planning, emphasises collaborative school cultures,
and is school-centered and community partnership-oriented (Pekrul, 2000).

MSIP is highly unusual in being a self-financing third-party school improvement

organization that has been in operation for nearly a decade and a half. Established in
1991 as a pilot program by the Walter and Duncan Gordon Foundation, headquartered in
Toronto, MSIP has evolved into a self-supporting organization devoted to improving
learning opportunities for Manitoba youth in public secondary schools with a particular
focus on students at risk. More than 50 schools in 13 districts are part of the MSIP
network. (Manitoba has a total of about 200 secondary schools, so MSIP is a substantial
presence.) The organization’s work has been cited in national and international literature
on school improvement (e.g. Harris ***).

During the 1990s, public education in Manitoba, as in many other jurisdictions, was
subject to a series of changes and reforms that created considerable controversy. Among
other steps, the Manitoba government reduced real funding to schools, took away some

3
collective bargaining rights and benefits from teachers, tightened secondary school
curriculum requirements, increased province-wide testing of students, and promoted
school choice (Levin, 2005). There were other more positive changes as well, it should
be noted, such as growing attention to student diversity, more emphasis on site based
management and a requirement for school planning, but many educators felt themselves
under siege from public criticism and reduced funding. One of the appeals of MSIP, we
believe, was that during these difficult years it offered schools a positive direction,
opportunity to network with like minded people and some discretionary funds to support
improvement initiatives.

In 1999 a new provincial government was elected whose education policy was much
closer to MSIP’s approach (Levin, 2005); although the organization had worked closely
with the Department of Education from the start, the link is now stronger in a number of
areas, though MSIP also retains its independent status and strategy.

No single reform strategy has been able to show substantial lasting effects on secondary
school performance across many schools. Given that backdrop, evaluations of MSIP
have shown some significant impacts. Documented results of MSIP initiatives (Earl &
Lee, 1998) include improved academic performance, increased student enrolment,
increased family and community involvement in schools, reduced disciplinary incidents,
improved class attendance and increased student graduation rates. The most recent
evaluation of MSIP (Earl et al, 2003) provided additional support for the organization’s
impact and identified a number of processes MSIP uses to support schools’ success,
described more fully below.

An elected volunteer board of directors drawn from the business, education and
community sectors governs MSIP. The six or so staff work with a volunteer Education
Advisory Committee (EAC) that provides input on its programs and activities.
Community and corporate foundations, private donations, the Manitoba Department of
Education and MSIP’s participating schools and school districts (called ‘divisions’ in
Manitoba) fund the work of MSIP.

MSIP works as a ‘critical friend’ to schools, providing both pressure and support through
school-based planning, data driven analysis of issues and strategies, consultant services,
and grants to schools and school divisions to support change and improvement. MSIP
has also built networks of schools and districts interested in improving outcomes for
students. MSIP works with these networks to provide professional development to staff
and students. In addition to working with schools, MSIP has several partnerships with
school divisions that bring the division into better alignment with all its secondary
schools. In recent years the organization has also placed more emphasis on trying to
affect the broader policy context around secondary education by working with
community groups and the media as well as by influencing government policy.

Evaluation is a central part of all MSIP work, both for participating schools and for the
organization itself. MSIP began with a strategy for reform that was to be bottom-up and
staff driven at the level of individual schools. Over the years based on what the

4
organization learned, including three independent external evaluations (Earl et al., 2003;
Earl & Lee, 1998; Fullan et al, 1995), MSIP gradually began to provide more direction to
the schools with which it worked, although staff teams in each participating school
continue to play a key role. For example, early on MSIP required schools to gather some
data on their situation at the outset because we learned that this step was vital to schools’
being able to identify their true improvement needs. Another requirement was an
authentic process of engaging the broader school community early in the process, as
against the common tendency to want to have everything sorted out in the staff before
communicating with parents. Increasing focus on drawing school divisions into the
process and on influencing the public policy context were also changes in strategy
growing out of the evaluations, as it became evident that school change would not occur
or last without support at the district level (Fullan, Bertani & Quinn, 2004; Togneri &
Anderson, 2004). The organization has also asked all participating schools to think about
how to engage students in the improvement process, as described more fully below.

Figure 1 illustrates MSIP’s School Improvement Framework. This framework has

developed over time through dialogue between MSIP’s staff, participating schools, and
the Education Advisory Committee. The process has benefited from the presence on the
EAC of such outstanding thinkers in educational change as Michael Fullan, Andy
Hargreaves, Louise Stoll, and Lorna Earl.

The chart shows the multiple elements that require attention if real change is to occur. In
the MSIP model, student learning and engagement must be at the centre of all change
efforts. This focus is not as automatic as it might seem; it has required ongoing effort to
get school change proposals focused on learning rather than on structures and
organization. Our model also gives priority to engagement of all partners – students,
parents and the broader community. While teachers continue to play a critical role, our
belief is that change that is owned only by the staff is less likely to have the desired
impact. The models also advocates distributed leadership, not only across the staff, but
with students and community members as well.

5
The MSIP change model also pays attention to affective as well as cognitive dimensions.
We recognize the importance of ‘will’ – the motivation to change – as well as ‘skill’ – the
ability to do things differently. These attributes must be developed together through a
process of data-based inquiry and capacity-building.

The Development of Student Voice

MSIP had an interest in students as partners in school reform from its inception, but an
organizational focus on supporting student voice work began to emerge later in the 1990s
as part of the changes in the strategy just described (Pekrul, 2004). Based both on our
initial work with schools and our continued engagement with the relevant research, the
organization put steadily increasing emphasis on a stronger role for students in secondary
school improvement work. Over the last few years, a series of ‘student voice’ activities
has been undertaken, using at various points all five of the rationales outlined in Levin
(2000). These projects were designed as individual activities in order to attract the
necessary funding. However all were part of a larger commitment by MSIP to give
priority to various aspects of student voice, and all have been part of our learning,
including external evaluation, of what works in this area. Specific activities have
included:

1. Students as learners/doers: Students were given a steadily more significant role in

the MSIP application and planning process in all participating schools. Schools were
asked to involve students in their planning, to collect data from students as part of their
internal needs assessment, and to look specifically at how student engagement in change
could be built. At the same time, support to schools has given increasing emphasis to
changes in teaching and learning in classrooms, again with attention to the views and
roles of students. MSIP and its network of schools together created a Student Voice
curriculum as part of the Students at the Centre initiative outlined later in this chapter.

2. Student networking: MSIP, in partnership with its schools and school divisions,
organized various activities to provide high quality training specifically for students on
‘What is Student Voice’. Activities included facilitation skill development and
opportunities for students from across the province to network, including an annual
student voice conference, planned and led largely by students, that brings together
students from many schools.

3. Students as advocates: With support from Manitoba Association of School Trustees

(MAST), MSIP has conducted the Student Perspectives in Educational Decision-Making
(SPED) project to foster student participation and engagement in the democratic process
of school district policy development;

4. Students as researchers: Working with partners, MSIP supported student action

research initiatives and presentations on educational issues by students to other students,
school staffs, parent advisory groups, school boards, provincial organizations such as
MAST, forums held by the Manitoba Department of Education, and community
organizations such as service clubs;

6
5. Students as advisors: MSIP’s Educational Advisory Committee (EAC), which
reviews and recommends on all school change proposals, has included student members
for many years. More recently, the organization has created a process for students from
participating schools to review and comment on all school change proposals and reports
to ensure that student voice perspectives were adequately represented.

Each of these initiatives is next described more fully.

Students as Learners/Doers:

In the fall of l998, MSIP began a pilot project called Students at the Centre (SAC),
designed to explore the potential of student voice in supporting positive change in high
schools. This initiative involved over 75 students and 15 teachers in five urban high
schools. The purpose of the project was to empower students to have a voice, both in
their own learning and in the direction of the school. It would be fair to say that at least in
some schools there was resistance to this idea, but once in place it did have some positive
impact. As one student commented in the evaluation (Lee & Ursel, 2001):

I really enjoyed working with staff as a member of the planning committee, since
I felt I had a voice on the committee. I was able to contribute my thoughts on
behalf of the student body.
A school principal spoke of students’ learning to ‘become learners’ through their
involvement with SAC. She argued that the activities not only ‘broadened their world’
and made them more confident, but also taught them research and presentation skills that
supported their academic development (Lee & Ursel, 2001).

A product of the SAC initiative was a Student Voice curriculum that schools can utilize.
The curriculum has three modules: Helping Students Succeed Using Emotional
Intelligence Theory; Discovering Students’ Strengths through Multiple Intelligences; and
Student Voice through Action Research. Each module addresses four general outcomes
with further specific outcomes within these:
I. Students will become aware of their own personal learning style and share their
knowledge to promote self-initiated, lifelong learning.
II. Students will gain awareness of the school, the school system, and the school
culture within which they exist while also exploring the larger community.
III. Students will experience having a shaping voice in their school community by
conducting an action research project.
IV. Students will become empowered to create a forum for student voice in their own
school by organizing a student conference with students from other schools.

Educators from the MSIP Network of Schools wrote the curriculum for grade 9, 10 and
11 students, including both ‘at-risk’ and adept learners. The learning activities in each
module are designed to reach those students who do not feel a personal connection either
to their learning or the school and to encourage adept learners to articulate how they

7
learn. Schools have used this curriculum to provide school-initiated course credit and or
have integrated units into other curricula.

Student Networking

Simultaneously with the implementation of the SAC project, MSIP initiated a student
conference titled Make a Choice! Raise Your Voice! This is now an annual province-wide
MSIP Student Voice event. The conference, primarily organised by high school students,
is part of a strategy to place issues of ‘student voice’ at the centre of school reform
efforts. Each year more than two hundred students from across Manitoba spend a day in
sessions talking about ways in which their participation in the life and work of the school,
and especially in school improvement, can be strengthened. An evaluation of the 2004
conference by more than 100 students, or 45% of those attending, indicates the
following:
 93% say they had enough time to learn practical ways that they could have a
voice in their school;
 78% said they plan to act on a Student Voice idea at their school;
 76% of them said that their willingness to act was a result of attending the
conference; and,
 77% said they were interested in being part of a network of schools that focused
on Student Voice issues.

Feedback from students illustrates the value of student participation and their ownership
of the conference. One student wrote that the conference was ‘…a chance for students to
see what others have done and question how they can improve their school’.1

As another example of the value of bringing students together from different schools, in
the fall of 2004, MSIP hosted a one-day forum for students and teachers titled Learning is
Not a Spectator Sport. Approximately 100 students and 15 teachers from the MSIP
network of schools attended a day of dialogue and activity challenging traditional
thinking about learning. The group explored the following questions:
1. What is the purpose of learning?
2. What are the conditions that facilitate learning?
3. What are the processes to facilitate and support learning?

Although these are central educational questions, in our experience they are rarely
addressed directly in high schools. The students at the session focused largely on
practical purposes for learning, especially preparation for employment. However they
also often referred to personal development and socialization as primary purposes with
particular emphasis on citizenship, respect for others, and social skills (Proactive, 2005).
One student commented, “School is about marks and competition, not about learning.”
Student responses are consistent with a considerable body of evidence discussed
elsewhere in this volume. They indicated that teachers played a significant role in
1
Quotes in this section from the evaluation of the Manitoba School Improvement Program Inc. Student
Voice Conference, Fall 2003, reported by Proactive Information Services Inc. March 2004.

8
creating the conditions for student learning. They cited teacher enthusiasm, support,
creation of a safe classroom environment, exhibiting passion for the content
(subject/course), making connections with students and demonstrating the relevance of
the content to students as vital attributes for teachers to demonstrate. The students made
numerous references to what some of them referred to as the ‘curriculum coverage
epidemic’ they saw in the way teachers worked. They felt rushed, overwhelmed and
frustrated with the push to cover curriculum and indicated they wanted freedom to
diverge, go deeper, and have choice in their learning. The students felt they knew they
were learning when they experienced a sense of relevance with the content, the content
was interesting, and when the learning occurred naturally and their confidence increased.
Ultimately, they said they knew they were learning when they were able to teach
something to someone else and apply it elsewhere in their schooling and personal lives.

Students were asked for their opinions on re-inventing secondary schools. They cited
opportunities to learn about other places and cultures; having choice which equates to
passion for learning; moving away from age-grouped classrooms; being able to focus on
exploration and inquiry; having some flexible time; and accommodation for differing
learning styles. One student suggested, “The government should stop funding schools
and start funding learning” (Proactive, 2005).

Students as Advocates:

In 2001, MSIP, in partnership with Manitoba Council for Leadership in Education

(MCLE – a consortium of Manitoba organizations working together to develop
educational leadership), created an initiative called Student Voice: Voices of Today and
Tomorrow (SVT). This initiative is designed to expand the public’s view of educational
practices and successes in Manitoba schools. SVT brings youth from rural and urban high
schools into contact with business and professional men and women in their local
communities. This initiative has been developed around four goals:

 Provide authentic opportunities for student leadership and the advancement of

student voice;
 Broaden the horizons of the students;
 Enhance public knowledge of education; and,
 Promote an accurate view of educational practices in today’s Manitoba schools.

The SVT program involved students in MSIP network schools meeting with or speaking
to local business and professional organizations in their communities, such as Chambers
of Commerce of Kinsmen or Kiwanis groups. Students engaged only with groups that
were open or inclusive in their membership. Participating students had to be
representative of the full student population in the school. The topic of the presentation is
at the discretion of the individual school as long as the presentation seeks to represent
current school practice and was intended to enhance and expand the public’s view of
education. Immediately following each presentation members of the community
organization are asked to complete an evaluation of the student presentation. Since the

9
inception of this project in 2001, more than 100 students from 29 schools have presented
to 29 rural and urban service club organizations amounting to 1,143 business and
professional men and women. The initiative continues to receive requests from business
and professional organizations.

The evaluations show substantial appreciation by the community organizations and that
the events increased their understanding of and support for students and schools. The
following are quotes from evaluation slips audience participants were asked to complete
(Gitzel & Mandryk 2004):
Evidence that our young people are as good and as sensible as ever. Well done!

I contrast with an article I read last week, which cast such a negative shadow on
our youth to what I was hearing from these young people. There is great hope for
the future.

It is much easier to pay taxes now that I know my tax dollars are being well used
in the field of education.

The coordinators of SVT also ask teacher leaders to complete an evaluation after each
event. One teacher wrote, “This experience was a very positive one for the students and
myself. We don’t often have the opportunity to explain to a captive audience how we
feel about our school. We are often battling stereotypes about teenagers, high schools
and even about our particular school and so having the opportunity to tell the real story of
our school was wonderful. (The students) they will be sharing the presentation with our
Student Council and parent association.” (Gitzel & Mandryk 2004).

Students from MSIP Network of Schools are also called upon to make presentations at
forums and think tanks. As an example, in July of 2003 a group of students supported by
MSIP consultants conducted a workshop titled “What is this thing call Student Voice?” at
the conference of the Canadian School Boards Association in Winnipeg. The students
introduced participants to ways students can have a voice in the classroom, how students
can impact their school, and how students can share what they are learning. They
highlighted MSIP’s Students at the Centre project and Student Voice Curriculum as well
as action research in MSIP’s schools through SPED (described below).

Students as Researchers

Student Perspective in Educational Decision-Making (SPED) was designed to create

bridges between students and decision-makers (school board officials), to create
meaningful dialogue about student views concerning their own education and to
encourage and support student involvement in the democratic education process. The
project, in partnership with the Manitoba Association of School Trustees (MAST), was
intended to address many of the problems that both elected decision-makers and students
encounter by increasing the active participation and engagement of high school students
in their classes, in the life of their school, and with school board officials. It also had the

10
purpose of informing MSIP and MAST on the effect student engagement could have on
educational policy development and models or conditions that would support such
effects.

An evaluation of SPED (Proactive, 2005) suggests that its potential to change the way
policy-makers do business in a sustained manner is affected by the culture of school
boards and schools and the prior experience of schools and school trustees with student
voice initiatives. This prior experience shapes attitudes as to whether students can and do
make a difference if their voice is allowed to be heard. The lessons learned show that
MSIP as an independent third party played a key in supporting teachers and students
involved in SPED. However, with the focus on influencing decision makers, MSIP and
MAST, in concert, needed to intervene more directly and more often with local decision
makers to make sure that student input was indeed heard, since this approach ran against
standard practice and beliefs. Action was most likely to occur where there was alignment
of issues between students and school trustees. For example, healthy food choices in
school cafeterias were an area in which student and school boards views coincided in
several cases, leading to quick action. However in other areas boards were less willing to
‘hear’ students’ voices.

In both the SPED project and the Student Voice Curriculum, action research is a tool
used to engage students in school issues. Action research involves students working with
teachers or a professional evaluator to explore school issues such as school climate,
teaching methods, school spirit, and school policies. For students, learning about action
research offers practical skill building in research methods and presentations, increased
commitment to school, and recognition of others’ points of view. For teachers, teaching
about action research offers a way to get to know their students’ opinions and aptitudes,
as well as an opportunity to have in-depth conversations with students about school
issues (Bryant, Lee & Levin, 1997).

Each school approaches student action research differently. At one school the research
was part of a peer mentorship course, at another research was conducted on teaching and
learning on drug and alcohol issues, while yet another researched building positive
relations with the surrounding community. In all these cases and many other examples
not cited, students developed an action research project that the school community
believed could lead to school improvement, they determined which research methods to
use, they acquired competencies in design of research instrument(s) and interpretation of
research results, and they were required to present the findings to appropriate school and
community members, in most cases including school boards. Many schools build student
action research into credit courses, increasing both student and staff engagement in the
activity, but students often go well beyond course requirements once they get interested
in an action research project. Thus action research can be a strong vehicle for building
student engagement and modeling practices of constructive pedagogy.

Students as Advisors

11
MSIP practices what it expects of its network of schools –meaningful engagement and
capacity building for students. From quite early in its history, the Education Advisory
Committee (EAC) of MSIP has had representation from high school students. In fact,
some of the students who served on the EAC promoted creation of a youth membership
category for MSIP so they could remain engaged after their graduation.

An environmental scan of students attending the 2003 Student Voice Conference moved
the EAC to create a Student Chapter of the EAC. With the support of the United Way of
Winnipeg, MSIP now engages students in the review of school improvement plans.
Schools and school divisions (districts) submit annual improvement plans to MSIP’s
EAC for feedback and recommendations ultimately resulting in allocation of funds and of
MSIP’s staff support. Each year, a group of 12 – 15 students from several schools within
the MSIP Network are approached to act as the EAC Student Chapter. MSIP consultants
train students in reviewing school and division plans to assess the degree of student voice
exhibited in the plans. The student feedback is presented to the EAC and is included in
feedback and recommendation letters from the EAC to each school or school division.
The EAC has consistently found the student comments to be insightful and has asked
schools to respond to those comments in further planning and action. The student
comments constantly push schools and the EAC to give full recognition to the importance
of involving students in meaningful ways at every step of the improvement process.

MSIP consultants conducted structured conversations with the Student Chapter in the fall
of 2004. The focus of these conversations centered upon the value to the students of their
role as Student Chapter. The students valued the chance to see what other schools were
working on and said that they got ideas from the material that they could incorporate in
their own schools. Overall, they felt that if school improvement is really for students,
students should be evaluating school plans. When asked what they learned about schools
and about student voice they thought most plans seemed to gloss over the really big
challenges. Schools do not seem to have a lot of evidence to justify their decisions to
work on certain priorities. One student said, “Teachers and principals have most of the
control. Sometimes the strategies in the plans seem to be about how to make schools
better for teachers i.e. getting students to behave and show up on time.”

What we have learned about student voice

Based on our reading of the research, described at the outset of this chapter, as well as the
experiences described in this chapter, we draw the following conclusions about student
voice:

Motivated, engaged students are central to lasting school improvement. It is a mistake to

think that reform done to students by well meaning adults will be successful, since in the
end it is students who must do the learning. Students can play an important role in school
improvement when they are asked to do so and conditions created to allow them to do so.

MSIP schools that have been most open to and supportive of student voice have
consistently found – sometimes to their surprise – that students can be tremendous allies

12
in their work, including having a powerful effect on parental and community support for
change. We also believe that students often have greater ambitions for what schools
could be than do adults, so harnessing their idealism and energy has the potential to
expand our sense of what is possible.

Student voice is not just about supporting school improvement but has educational
benefits in its own right. Participating students in the various initiatives described here
have found the experience valuable to their learning as well as developing confidence and
leadership skills. Thus as suggested in the framework at the start of this chapter, student
participation in reform has both political and educational justifications.

Although student voice has many positive aspects, it is not nearly as widespread as one
might wish. The reality is that many high school students are not invested in schools,
seeing their education as a matter of jumping through the hoops in order to move onto
other things in their lives such as out of school opportunities, careers, or post-secondary
education. MSIP has learned that a voice requires a listener. In order for students to be
involved actively in their learning, decision-makers must be prepared to listen, to respond
and make changes to their policies and practices. The reality is also that most secondary
schools are not organized to bring students actively into the discussion of school
improvement. Many MSIP schools initially resisted a more active role for students,
although some initial activity often shows educators clearly just how valuable to them
this work can be. Even after 10 years of steady effort, we find that most new
participating schools start out skeptical about the value of student voice.

Student voice only happens where there is commitment and support from the school. It is
easy to shut down student input, something that happens often even in supposedly well-
meaning schools. Our experience is that student voice is a lasting phenomenon only in
those schools that continue to give it ongoing attention. As with any other key element of
change, advocates must be in relentless pursuit of creating the understandings and
conditions to foster student voice. Principals play a key role in shaping the willingness of
a school to give students a real voice.

Like teachers, students need support to help them develop their voice effectively.
Students enjoy and can benefit from training that helps them understand school decision-
making processes and improve their capacity to participate in those processes. It is
especially important to engage not only the articulate, successful students, but also those
whose voices are otherwise not heard. This can be done, but it takes careful work and
attention. One MSIP school tells the story of students presenting their action research
findings at a school division wide conference. A conference participant indicated that he
was concerned that this group of students was obviously drawn from high performing and
motivated students, whereas in fact the presenting students were representative of
disenfranchised students who had found an avenue in this project for engagement in their
own learning. However we recognize that these success stories are the exception, not the
rule, and ongoing vigilance is required to build an inclusive approach to student voice.

13
Because students’ tend to have short time horizons, they need to see action following
from their participation and regular demonstrations that their voices are valued. This is
counter to the tendency in our organizations to work through change very slowly.

Our work on student voice has made us both optimistic and pessimistic. The potential for
students to play a powerful role in school improvement while also achieving important
educational benefits gives grounds for hope about what might be done in this area.
Working with students provides constant affirmation of their interest and potential to do
more. The fact that despite the strong evidence so few secondary schools are seriously
involved in developing student voice is disappointing. This Handbook, however, shows
that many people in many places are working actively on a stronger role for students in
the educational process and we look forward to continuing to participate in those efforts.

References

Bryant, C., Lee, L. & Levin, B. (1997). Developing student voice: A follow-up study
with students as researchers. Paper presented to the American Educational Research
Association, Chicago, March.

Cook-Sather, A. (2002). Authorizing students' perspectives: Toward trust, dialogue, and

change in education. Educational Researcher, 31 (4) 3-14

Corbett, D. & Wilson, B. (1995). Make a difference with, not for, students: A plea to
researchers and reformers. Educational Researcher 24(5), 12-17.

Earl, L. & Lee, L. (1998). Evaluation of the Manitoba School Improvement Program Inc.
Toronto: Walter & Duncan Gordon Foundation. Available at www.msip.ca

Earl, L., Torrance, N., Sutherland, S., Fullan, M., and Ali, A.S. (2003). Manitoba School
Improvement Program Final Evaluation Report. OISE/UT. Toronto: Walter & Duncan
Gordon Foundation. June. Available at www.msip.ca

Erickson, F. & Schultz, J. (1992). Students’ experience of the curriculum. In P. Jackson

(Ed.), Handbook of research on curriculum (465-485). New York: Macmillan.

Fielding, M. (2001). Students as radical agents of change. Journal of Educational Change,

2(2), 123-141.

Fullan, M., Bertani, A. & Quinn, J. (2004). New lessons for district-wide reform.
Educational Leadership (vol) l, 42-46.

Fullan, M., Lee, L. & Kilcher, A. (1995). Early Lessons: The Manitoba School
Improvement Program. Prepared for Walter & Duncan Gordon Foundation. Toronto:
Canada. www.msip.ca

14
Gitzel, J. & Mandryk, D. (2004). Student Voice: Voices of Today and Tomorrow
Project Overview. Report to MSIP and MCLE Board of Directors. Winnipeg, May.

Levin, B. (1977). The silent partner: Student participation in school decision-making.

Yearbook of the Canadian Society for the Study of Education. 109-114.

Levin, B. (1993). Students and educational productivity. Educational Policy Analysis

Archives. epaa.asu.edu/epaa. 1(5), May 5.

Levin, B. (1994a) Education reform and the treatment of students in schools. Journal of
Educational Thought. 28(1), 88-101.

Levin, B. (1994b) Improving educational productivity through a focus on learners.

Studies in Educational Administration, 60, 15-21.

Levin, B. (1998) The educational requirement for democracy. Curriculum Inquiry, 28(1),
57-79.

Levin, B. (2000) Putting students at the centre of education reform. Journal of

Educational Change. 1(2), 155-172.

McCombs, B. & Whistler, J. (1997). The learner-centred classroom and school:

Strategies for increasing student motivation and achievement. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.

Newmann, F. (Ed.) (1992). Student engagement and achievement in American

secondary schools. New York: Teachers College Press.

Nicholls, J. & Hazzard, S. (1993). Education as adventure: Lessons from the second
grade. New York: Teachers College Press.

Pekrul, S. (2004). Student Voice: Voices of Today and Tomorrow. iNet On-line
Conference on Educational Leadership. The Specialist Schools Trust (United Kingdom)
and sst-inet.net. www.msip.ca

Proactive Information Services Inc. (2005). Manitoba School Improvement Program

Inc.(MSIP) and the Manitoba Association of School Trustees (MAST) evaluation of
Student Perspectives in Educational Decision making (SPED). www.msip.ca

Rudduck, J and Flutter, J (2000) Student participation and student perspective: ‘Carving
and new order of experience’. Cambridge Journal of Education 30 (1) 75-89

Smith, W., Butler-Kisber, L., LaRocque, L., Portelli, J., Shields, C., Sparkes, C. and
Vibert, A. (1998). Student engagement in learning and school life: National project

15
report. Montreal: McGill University Office of Research on Educational Policy.
(www.cel.mcgill.ca./orep).

Thomson, P., & Holdsworth, R. (2003) Theorizing change in the educational ‘field’:
re-readings of ‘student participation’ projects International .Journal of Leadership In
Education, 6 (4) 371–391

Togneri, W., & Anderson, S. (2003). Beyond islands of excellence: What districts can do
to improve instruction and achievement in all schools. Alexandria, VA:ASCD.

16