Content uploaded by Marc Brasof
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Marc Brasof on Feb 16, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
Journal of Educational Administration
Building the capacity for student leadership in high school:
A review of organizational mechanisms from the field of
student voice
Journal:
Journal of Educational Administration
Manuscript ID
JEA-05-2019-0077.R5
Manuscript Type:
Academic Paper
Keywords:
Student voice, Secondary education, Youth leadership, Organizational
structures, School reform
Journal of Educational Administration
Journal of Educational Administration
While the notion of listening to students in the classroom is certainly not new, scholars have
concretized this idea through research on “student voice,” a field which has gained popularity within
the education arena over the past two decades. A search of the term in the Web of Science Citation
Index indicates the number of items (including empirical studies, editorial articles, literature reviews,
book chapters, book reviews, and conference papers) containing the term “student voice” has increased
from ten publications in 2008 to 96 in 2018. Bridging the gap from research to practice, the term
“student voice,” is now commonplace in teacher professional development workshops. While research
has identified a number of benefits of student voice (e.g., Deci and Ryan, 2007; Mitra, 2018;
Yonezawa & Jones, 2007), the full potential of student voice is not being realized. In practice, student
voice initiatives are often for youth who can participate in afterschool activities and who fit into
traditional adult views of well-spoken student leaders (Holdsworth, 2000). This monolithic concept of
student voice as a singular term may prevent educators from acknowledging the importance of a
diversity of voices weighing in on issues relevant to students’ lives (Thomson, 2011). This paper
reviews research discussing the school-wide, organizational mechanisms that make it possible for more
students to take part in and reap the benefits of student voice initiatives. This review synthesizes the
existing research and identifies five organizational mechanisms schools can use to foster student
leadership—research, consistency, governance structure, recognition, and group makeup. These five
mechanisms will enable researchers to more closely examine the effectiveness of organizational
structures on the development of student leadership, a powerful but rare form of student voice (Mitra
and Gross, 2009) and help educators identify practical strategies to build capacity for a wider range of
student leadership.
Benefits of Student Voice
Page 1 of 31 Journal of Educational Administration
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Journal of Educational Administration
Extant research has demonstrated student voice initiatives can positively impact students and
schools. Mitra’s (2018) recent literature review of the student voice field discussed developmental and
academic benefits for individual students as well as organizational improvements to school climate.
Providing opportunities to be authentic leaders in school can improve students’ positive self-regard,
feelings of competence, and engagement (Deci and Ryan, 2008). It can also improve relationships
between students and teachers (Yonezawa and Jones, 2007). Furthermore, organizational decision-
making that involves diverse stakeholder participation improves organizational outcomes (Kusy and
McBain, 2000), so involving students in school governance is in the best interest of the school itself.
Isolated Initiatives
While student voice initiatives have yielded positive impacts, the inclusivity and sustainability
of such initiatives has been limited. Rather than foster inclusivity, the way in which student voice
activity is carried out can actually reproduce existing inequalities (McMahon and Portelli, 2004). The
phrase “student voice” itself perpetuates the illusion students are a homogeneous unit (Thomson,
2011), and thus marginalizes disenfranchised students. Tokenistic student councils are often restricted
to social event planning and rarely able to address educational issues (Holdsworth, 2000; Thomson,
2011). When students do voice their opinions on important issues, adults often fail to act on the
information shared (Thomson, 2011). Student leadership relies on stakeholders’ ability and willingness
to critique systemic issues, yet many school communities lack these capacities (Fielding, 2004) and
instead, they exclude marginalized students’ voices, preferring to maintain the status quo (e.g., Silva,
2002).
Brasof (2018) explains the lack of sustainability as an organizational improvement paradox
(Goodman, 2000) that occurs because student voice initiatives often operate in isolation from the rest
of the organization (Mitra, 2006; Thomson, 2011). Author argues that the use of linkage theory can
Page 2 of 31Journal of Educational Administration
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Journal of Educational Administration
help uncover structural pathways that facilitate or hinder the spread of student leadership activities
within a school. To date, a dearth of student voice research has focused on how student voice
initiatives exist within or make adjustments to schools’ organizational structures and processes
(Brasof, 2018). Identifying structures that weave student leadership into the fabric of a school may
enable a wider range of students to experience positive outcomes (i.e., inclusivity) and ensure these
benefits are extended to future students (i.e., sustainability).
Recognizing the potential benefits of student voice initiatives for students and educational
organizations as well as the need for additional research on organizational structures, this paper aims to
help schools determine which structures and strategies may help build capacity for student leadership
that is inclusive and sustainable. Considering that many of the student voice studies that highlight
school-wide shifts took place in high school settings, this review focuses on studies conducted in
secondary schools.
Conceptual Perspectives on Student Voice
Fielding (2001) defines the term “student voice” as students’ ability to influence decisions that
affect their lives. Considering the many barriers to student voice, Lundy (2007) suggested a model that
draws attention to four components needed to overcome such barriers: space (the opportunity to
express ideas), voice (which may require adults to help students form ideas by providing time,
information, and capacity-building skills training), audience (adults truly listen to youth ideas), and
influence (youth ideas are acted on and if not, youth are given reasons why). To explicitly address
Lundy’s notion of facilitating voice, specifically, the importance of school structures and processes in
supporting student voice work and hone in on the leadership facet of student voice, the following
definition of student leadership serves as a foundation for this literature review: students working
collaboratively to affect positive change in their educational environments with support from adults
Page 3 of 31 Journal of Educational Administration
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Journal of Educational Administration
and mechanisms in the school (Lyons, 2018). When referencing the extant literature, we use the term
“student voice,” and we use “student leadership” to specify the form of student voice for which
capacity should be built. This capacity-building approach to defining student leadership not only
considers structures, it incorporates aspects of youth socio-political development and civic activism,
which are often positioned as separate from ideas of student leadership (e.g., Mitra and Kirshner,
2012), but if students are to lead effectively and with the intent to improve their communities, they
need the youth leadership competency of critical awareness. This competency aligns with Preskill and
Brookfield’s (2009) work on social justice leadership as well as the self-awareness and self-
development tenants of authentic leadership (Walumbwa, Avolio, Gardner, Wernsing, and Peterson,
2008) and is defined as “reflecting on, understanding, and questioning positive and negative attributes
of one’s self and society in order to foster equity and growth,” (Lyons, 2018). In other words, the
space, voice, audience, and influence that fosters inclusive and sustainable student leadership requires
structures and processes that bring students into the decision-making fold and adults and youth with a
specific set of leadership skills and dispositions.
The literature includes various conceptions of student voice, but few highlight the importance
of organizational context. The majority of student voice typologies center on the degree of youth-adult
collaboration (Fielding, 2011; Hart, 1992; Lee and Zimmerman, 1999; Lodge, 2005; Mitra, 2006;
Shier, 2001; Treseder, 1997; Wong, Zimmerman and Parker, 2010). Several typologies emphasize the
stages of commitment to shared decision-making (Hart, 1992; Mitra, 2006; Shier, 2001; Treseder,
1997; Wong et al., 2010). Some feature the concept of youth development (Mitra, 2006; Wong et al.,
2010). Some address whether voice is used instrumentally or relationally (Fielding, 2006; Fielding,
2011; Lodge, 2005). Others note the importance of individual contexts in their models like
developmental stage in Treseder’s (1997) student voice typology and individual experience in Rubin’s
Page 4 of 31Journal of Educational Administration
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Journal of Educational Administration
(2007) civic education typology. Civic education typologies address youth socio-political
development, categorizing citizenship by the degree to which youth act within traditional systems or
are critical of those structures (Checkoway and Aldana, 2013; Rubin, 2007; Westheimer and Kahne,
2004). In Mitra and Kirshner’s (2012) student voice typology, youth leadership, defined as “boosting
individual competencies,” is positioned as starkly different from social activism (i.e., societal critique),
appearing on opposing ends of a continuum (p. 50). Mitra and Kirshner’s (2012) typology is the only
one that addresses the relationship of student voice programs to schools (working inside schools vs.
working outside schools), yet it does not address specific mechanisms within the organization that
impact the success and spread of student voice initiatives.
Typologies from the student voice and civic education fields reflect elements of the stated
definition of student leadership: students working collaboratively to affect positive change in their
educational environments with support from adults and mechanisms in the school. Student voice
typologies reflect the importance of adult support in the form of youth-adult collaboration (Fielding,
2011; Hart, 1992; Lee and Zimmerman, 1999; Lodge, 2005; Mitra, 2006; Shier, 2001; Treseder, 1997;
Wong et al., 2010). Civic education typologies address the leadership goal to “affect positive change”
through socio-political development, specifically the degree to which youth are critical of existing
structures (Checkoway and Aldana, 2013; Rubin, 2007; Westheimer and Kahne, 2004). This is also
present in Mitra and Kirshner’s (2012) student voice typology as “social activism focus.”
Although external factors are considered in the form of individual contexts (e.g., Rubin, 2007)
and the location of student voice activity (Mitra and Kirshner, 2012), specific organizational
mechanisms are absent from existing typologies. A mechanism refers to a means by which an effect or
result is produced (mechanism, n.d.). This article aims to further concretize which organizational
mechanisms facilitate the inclusivity and sustainability of student voice initiatives in schools.
Page 5 of 31 Journal of Educational Administration
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Journal of Educational Administration
Methodology
This literature review sought to address the following questions:
Where are the gaps in existing student voice research that addresses organizational
mechanisms?
What organizational mechanisms have been identified as possible contributors to the success of
student voice initiatives in high schools?
As student voice remains a relatively new field of research, specifically with regard to the
organizational mechanisms that support student voice initiatives, the goal of this review is to identify
emergent trends and synthesize findings of studies that describe the organizational mechanisms that
contribute to the success of student voice initiatives. This review draws from two foundational
concepts: Mitra’s (2006) pyramid of student voice, which positions student leadership at the top of the
pyramid and thus the least common form of voice, as well as Mitchell and Sackney’s (2011) capacity
building framework, which highlights the importance of organizational capacity building. Therefore,
this review focused on studies situated in the intersection of these two major concepts: student
leadership and organizational capacity-building mechanisms. The following search criteria were
established:
Focus: studies of student voice that identified the presence or absence of organizational
mechanisms on attributes of student voice (e.g., decision making, youth-adult partnerships,
inclusivity, or sustainability)
Year: any year
Language: English
Publication type: empirical study published in peer-reviewed journal, doctoral dissertation
Method: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods studies
Page 6 of 31Journal of Educational Administration
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Journal of Educational Administration
Study context: high school (classes, whole school, or extracurricular clubs for high school
students)
The decision to exclude studies that did not identify organizational mechanisms distinguishes
this review from previous reviews of student voice research, as broader, high quality reviews of the
field are already in existence (e.g., Mitra, 2018). The inclusion of doctoral dissertations in this review
was a result of the low number of empirical articles published in peer review journals that discussed
organizational mechanisms supporting student voice initiatives. While there are many educators
implementing student voice initiatives, this review is limited to empirical studies to ensure the
operationalized concepts that emerge are grounded in quality research findings. Focusing on peer-
reviewed journals and dissertations also offers an opportunity to highlight methodological gaps to
inform future research. The review was limited to high school contexts, as currently, school leaders
are typically more open to older students being authentically involved in school leadership
opportunities than younger children. As this review aims to examine student leadership, specifically,
the authors believed it was more likely to find initiatives reflecting this type of student voice in high
school settings than in middle or elementary contexts.
Selection of Sources
Anticipating the number of studies may be limited, a variety of search terms that reflected
language from the conceptual perspectives on student voice were used to identify an expansive set of
studies. Search terms were variants of either “Organizational Change,” “Student Voice,” or “High
School.” (Appendix A includes the complete search string used to identify initial articles for review.
Table 1 provides the number of studies included at each step as well as exclusion rationale.) The
search string was entered into seven databases: Education Full Text, Education Research Complete,
ERIC, Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection, PsycINFO, SocINDEX with Full Text, and
Page 7 of 31 Journal of Educational Administration
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Journal of Educational Administration
Sociological Collection. After reading each of the abstracts for relevance, this search yielded seven
articles that met inclusion criteria. Due to the low number of journal articles, the search was expanded
to include dissertations with the terms student voice AND high school in the abstract using the
Proquest Dissertations and Theses Global database. Following a review of dissertation abstracts that
resulted from this search, nine additional papers were added to the list for review. Reference lists from
identified papers and dissertations were further minded for relevant articles the searches may have
missed, and seven additional articles were identified. A reverse citation search for each of the articles
yielded one additional article that matched the inclusion criteria. This resulted in a total list of 24
papers to be included in the review.
Table I.
Search Results and Exclusion Rationale
Step
Results
Studies Retained
Reasons for Exclusion
Initial Search of
Peer-Reviewed
Articles
528
7
Theoretical papers
No mention of school
mechanisms in relation to
student voice initiatives
Context other than high school
(community-based
organization, K-8 schools,
college settings)
Studies of teacher prep
programs
Dissertation
Search
87
9
No mention of school
mechanisms
Context other than high school
Studies of teacher prep
programs
Mined Citations
1,550
7
Duplicates
Theoretical papers
No mention of school
mechanisms
Context other than high school
Studies of teacher prep
Page 8 of 31Journal of Educational Administration
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Journal of Educational Administration
programs
Reverse Citation
Search
1,312
1
Duplicates
Theoretical papers
No mention of school
mechanisms
Context other than high school
Studies of teacher prep
programs
Data Extraction
Sections of each paper were highlighted in various colors per the following categories: research
questions, sample characteristics, methodology, student voice attributes, and findings relative to this
review’s guiding questions (i.e., voice-fostering mechanisms). Highlights were typed into a Microsoft
Excel spreadsheet, and each of the aforementioned categories served as column headings in addition to
article, author, and year. While all categories were synthesized as part of the review, the latter column
was heavily analyzed and served as data for coding.
Data Synthesis
To synthesize the findings, studies were categorized by the desired attributes of student voice
as well as the presence or noted absence of mechanisms that influenced the success of the
initiative. For attributes of student voice, the following categories were taken from both theoretical
and empirical literature: youth-adult partnerships, inclusivity, and sustainability. Youth-adult
partnerships, in which youth and adults engage in collaborative work to learn from one another and
take collective action (Zeldin, McDaniel, Topitzes and Lorens, 2001), are commonplace in student
voice initiatives. The attribute of inclusivity stems from the critique that student voice initiatives
exclude students. Thomson (2011) notes the use of the singular “voice” suggests homogeneity in
student perspectives and youth who do not conform to adult conceptions of “good” communicators are
not listened to or allowed to take positions of leadership (pp. 22-24). Sustainability is an issue
Page 9 of 31 Journal of Educational Administration
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Journal of Educational Administration
stemming from the isolated nature of student voice initiatives’ from persistent school structures, often
due to adult perceptions of youth’s limited capacity to participate in school decision-making (Rudduck
and Flutter, 2000), which often results in initiatives ending after a teacher advisor leaves the school or
grant funding expires (e.g. Mitra, 2009a).
Mechanisms were operationalized using Boyatzis’ steps to inductive coding (1998, pp. 45-
49). Categories of potential mechanisms were developed to represent the structures reported in the 24
papers. Descriptions of these mechanisms were created from the language used in the reviewed
studies. The mechanism categories with their definitions was used as a code and applied to the raw
data (highlighted excerpts of the 24 articles and dissertations that referred to mechanisms) to verify the
categories fit the ideas identified in the literature. Nine mechanisms were identified.
After the 24 studies were aligned to one of the nine mechanisms, Mitchell and Sackney’s
(2011) capacity building framework was used to further segment the identified mechanisms into three
capacity building dimensions: personal, interpersonal, and organizational. Five of the nine
mechanisms were categorized as organizational, as they directly tied to school culture, structures, and
ways of communicating. The other mechanisms fell into what Mitchell and Sackney (2011) would call
the personal and interpersonal capacity building dimensions. One paper was removed from inclusion in
this review as it only addressed personal and interpersonal mechanisms. The final list consisted of 23
papers for inclusion in the review. Several of these papers analyzed data from the same two studies,
thus while 23 papers were reviewed, they stem from 20 unique studies.
Findings
This section will address the gaps identified in the existing body of research, particularly with
regards to the research methods and participant demographics of the 20 studies reviewed as well as the
degree to which the inclusivity and sustainability of student voice initiatives are addressed in these
Page 10 of 31Journal of Educational Administration
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Journal of Educational Administration
studies. Then, a list of leadership-fostering organizational mechanisms are defined and explained in
the context of the studies reviewed.
Study Contexts
The largest gap in the literature reviewed was a lack of quantitative methodology. Of the
twenty studies reviewed, no studies employed quantitative or mixed methods. All twenty studies used
qualitative methods, of which nineteen employed a case study design. This places the field in the
nascent stage of research (Edmondson and McManus, 2007). In order to empirically assess the
correlation or causality of particular mechanisms in elevating student voice, reliable quantitative
instruments must be developed. “Draw[ing] from prior work...to propose new constructs” is a
common pathway for moving a field into the intermediate stage (Edmondson and McManus, 2007, p.
1165). Therefore, this literature review takes an initial step towards the development of validated
instruments needed to statistically analyze relationships between supporting structures and
manifestations of student leadership, which would be generalizable to a larger number of schools.
While study participants were representative of various racial and class backgrounds, other
historically marginalized groups were strikingly absent from the studies. Eleven of the studies focused
on schools with at least 25% of students receiving free or reduced lunch. At four of the schools,
students of color (primarily Black and Latin@ youth) made up at least half of the student body.
Additionally, four schools were depicted as racially “diverse,” but did not include further detail.
Geographically, 16 studies were located in the United States, and only one was located in a rural
setting. Few studies mentioned immigrant students or students new to English (Brown, 2010; Mitra,
2002; Ozer and Wright, 2012; Yonezawa and Jones, 2007). One looked at a program for LGBTQ
youth (Wernick, Woodford, and Kulick, 2014). Notably, no student voice studies examined the degree
of inclusion of students with Individualized Education Plans (IEPs) in student voice programs.
Page 11 of 31 Journal of Educational Administration
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Journal of Educational Administration
Geographically, the majority of studies in this review (16 of 20) were located in the United States. Two
studies were located in the United Kingdom (Fielding, 2001; Parnell and Procter, 2011), one was
located in Canada (Goodnough, 2014), and one was located in Norway (Møller, 2006).
Inclusivity and Sustainability
Sustainability and inclusivity of student voice initiatives were not commonly discussed, but
authors who addressed these attributes found both inclusivity and sustainability to be areas of concern.
Research addressing these facets of student voice work has increased in recent years as discussion of
the inclusivity and sustainability of student voice initiatives was far more prevalent in later
publications.
Only eight studies reviewed addressed student voice programs’ inclusivity (Brown, 2010;
Calvert, 2004; Mitra, Lewis, and Sanders, 2013; Ozer and Wright, 2012; Pautsch, 2010; Silva, 2002;
Wernick et al., 2014; Yonezawa and Jones, 2007). All too often, leadership opportunities are given to
economically and socially privileged students who are already heavily involved in school activities or
seen as well spoken (Holdsworth, 2000; Silva, 2002), while students of color and students who qualify
for free lunch are disproportionately ignored and pushed out of schools (National Center for
Educational Statistics, 2015). Recognizing this, most studies focused on efforts to increase the
diversity of student leadership highlighted work done with students of color and students in economic
poverty (Brown, 2010; Calvert, 2004; Mitra et al., 2013; Ozer and Wright, 2012; Pautsch, 2010; Silva,
2002; Yonezawa and Jones, 2007). Unfortunately, results showed that a third of the initiatives focused
on expanding diverse student representation experienced little to no success (Calvert, 2004; Pautsch,
2010; Silva, 2002).
Only a handful of studies referred to sustainability. Mitra noted the lack of sustainability of
student voice initiatives was a problem, as reforms often do not “[continue] beyond the initial infusion
Page 12 of 31Journal of Educational Administration
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Journal of Educational Administration
of resources and support” (Mitra, 2009a, p. 1835). The rapid disintegration of student voice initiatives
as well as the small number of articles discussing this issue highlights the need to further investigate
why these initiatives are failing and how organizational mechanisms may increase the sustainability of
student voice programs moving forward. Similarly, the lack of inclusivity in existing student voice
initiatives emphasizes the need for organization-wide structures over isolated programs that only
involve a small number of students.
Organizational Mechanisms Build Capacity
The ultimate aim of student voice researchers and practitioners is to build a school’s capacity to
embed student leadership into the fabric of the school and the process by which educational decisions
are made in a way that is inclusive and sustainable. According to Mitchell and Sackney’s (2011)
capacity building framework, organizational capacity building refers to the larger school culture,
structures, and ways of communicating, all of which should promote learning. At this level, students
and teachers are both seen as leaders and have authentic decision-making power in any decision that
impacts student learning (e.g. discipline policies, schedules, how learning occurs). To make this work,
organizational practices should promote and streamline information sharing, thoughtful questioning,
and delivery of critical feedback.
Using the inductive coding method described in the data synthesis section, the language authors
used when describing organizational capacity building mechanisms in the reviewed papers were
synthesized into five organizational mechanisms that foster student leadership. They are defined as
follows:
Research to inform decision-making, often through participatory action research (e.g.
Osberg, Pope, and Galloway, 2006; Yonezawa and Jones, 2007).
Page 13 of 31 Journal of Educational Administration
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Journal of Educational Administration
Consistency, or regularly holding meetings at the same time and location (e.g. Chopra,
2014; Yonezawa and Jones, 2007),
Governance structure, or a school’s formal system of decision-making and students’ roles
in it (e.g. Brasof, 2014; Pautsch, 2010),
Recognition, or acknowledging and compensating students for their leadership work (e.g.
Chopra, 2014; Mitra, 2009b), and
Group makeup, or a small group size with an even youth:adult ratio (e.g. Biddle, 2015;
Brown, 2010).
Research
Research strategies were used in 13 studies (Biddle, 2015; Brasof, 2014; Brown, 2010;
Denner, Meyer, and Bean, 2005; Fielding, 2001; Goodnough, 2014; Mitra, 2002; Mitra et al., 2013;
Osberg et al., 2006; Ozer and Wright, 2012; Parnell and Procter, 2011; Silva, 2002; Wernick et al.,
2014; Yonezawa and Jones, 2007). This mechanism was almost exclusively tied to the presence of
community partnerships and the partnering organization’s training of students to conduct quality
research. With training, students were able to conduct participatory action research to identify issues
in their school communities and work towards solutions for these issues. Some studies spoke to the
importance of small group size when undertaking research projects in the school (e.g. Mitra, 2007;
Yonezawa and Jones, 2007). Helping students deliver feedback in a strategic manner was instrumental
to a receptive response from educators (Ozer and Wright, 2012). Yonezawa and Jones (2007) also
noted the improved viability of student research projects when administrators co-create the goal with
youth.
Consistency
Page 14 of 31Journal of Educational Administration
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Journal of Educational Administration
Consistency appeared in twelve studies (Brasof, 2014; Brown, 2010; Calvert, 2004; Chopra,
2014; Goodnough, 2014; Mitra, 2002; Mitra, 2007; Mitra, 2009a; Mitra, 2009b; Mitra et al., 2013;
Osberg et al., 2006; Ozer and Wright, 2012; Pautsch, 2010; Yonezawa and Jones, 2007). This
mechanism was frequently absent from student voice initiatives, and authors cited the lack of
consistency as a barrier to meaningful student leadership. In some schools, students were removed
from class to attend meetings (Mitra, 2002). In one school, the student representative on a youth-adult
team was not invited to every meeting (Osberg et al., 2006). Furthermore, initiatives often fail to
continue after a teacher retires or grant funding for a community partnership runs out (e.g. Mitra,
2009a). Therefore, consistency should take the form of regularly held meetings in which all members
are invited to the same location at the same time, preferably within the school day. It should also
include stable leadership in the form of adult advisors and student members.
Governance Structure
Governance structure, although only mentioned in six studies (Brasof, 2014; Calvert, 2004;
Campbell, 2009; Møller, 2006; Ozer and Wright, 2012; Pautsch, 2010), provided insights into how to
foster inclusivity and sustainability. Of the three studies seeking to increase the inclusivity of students,
one successfully used a student-written constitution to bridge youth and adult roles (Calvert, 2004). In
the other two (Ozer and Wright, 2012; Pautsch, 2010), student councils remained isolated from adult
decision-making and mostly focused on planning social events. Brasof (2014)’s study looked at the
sustainability of student voice in a school whose unique system of governance resembles the three
branches of the U.S. government and distributes power evenly across faculty and students. The staff
controlled one branch; students ran one; and the third was made up of a mix of youth and adults. The
other study that looked at sustainability, while a model of democratic leadership, kept the student
council out of formal decision-making structures (Møller, 2006). Finally, Campbell (2009) found a
Page 15 of 31 Journal of Educational Administration
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Journal of Educational Administration
governance structure in which a student group served as an advisory board to the administration
resulted in a successful youth-adult partnership. Student input was valued and adults acted on student
advice.
Generally, students in positions of leadership were limited to social event planning (Calvert,
2004; Møller, 2006; Ozer and Wright, 2012; Pautsch, 2010). In several schools, students held
positions on school leadership teams that had the power to make decisions on budgetary or
instructional issues. However, these positions were often very few (Ozer and Wright, 2012) and they
did not translate into being able to vote (Brasof, 2014) or raise issues that may disrupt the status quo
(Calvert, 2004). While Møller (2006) noted students are able to participate in decisions on “more vital
matters” after an “uprising” of five students who were frustrated with only having the power to decide
which food was served in the lunchroom, it is unclear if that “vital matters” refers to instructional
decisions. Although, most teachers at the classroom level offered opportunities for students to co-plan
instruction and determine evaluation criteria for their work. Perhaps the most educationally relevant
and inclusive student leadership practice was found in Ozer and Wright’s (2012) study in which
students observed teaching practice and shared their findings with teachers and educational
organizations.
Recognition
Recognizing students for the work they put into student voice programs was identified in six
studies (Brasof, 2014; Brown, 2010; Chopra, 2014; Mitra, 2007; Mitra, 2009a; Mitra, 2009b; Pautsch,
2010; Yonezawa and Jones, 2007). Some schools paid students for their time (Mitra, 2007). At one
school, paying students just $100 a month for 16-20 hours of work eased the financial burden for more
students to be able to attend an after-school student voice initiative instead of going to an after-school
job. Related to the difficulty of attending after-school programs, some schools offered student voice
Page 16 of 31Journal of Educational Administration
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Journal of Educational Administration
programs as a credit-bearing course during the school day (Brasof, 2014; Chopra, 2014; Mitra, 2007;
Yonezawa and Jones, 2007). One school offered credit in their second year of implementation for
participation while activities were still conducted after-school. Perhaps as a result, a more diverse
range of students new to school leadership participated in Year 2. One of the suggestions from
students for Year 3 was to institutionalize the program as a regular course (Brown, 2010). Yonezawa
and Jones (2007) also noted the use of food and community service credit as compensation as well as
the use of public praise to recognize student work. Alternatively, Brasof (2014) and Pautsch (2010)
cited the lack of recognition and compensation for student leaders as a barrier to stronger student
voice. For example, students who need to work after school to economically support their families are
not able to engage in leadership building opportunities, as many school programs take place after
school when students must go directly to their jobs. If schools paid students for their leadership
contributions, economically disadvantaged students would not be forced to opt out of school leadership
opportunities due to a financial opportunity cost.
Group Makeup
Nine studies noted the size of the group impacted its success (Biddle, 2015; Brasof, 2014;
Mitra, 2002; Mitra, 2005; Mitra, 2007; Mitra, 2009a; Mitra, 2009b; Parnell and Procter, 2011;
Yonezawa and Jones, 2007). Mitra wrote, “The shrinking of the group leadership structure coincided
with a rapid increase in productivity in both groups” (2002, p. 164). Four studies noted large class
sizes were barriers to student voice (Brasof, 2014; Parnell and Procter, 2011), decreasing student
engagement (Yonezawa and Jones, 2007), and “destroyed” the sense of community (Mitra,
2007). Biddle (2015) described a school-wide event in which the ratio of student leaders to the rest of
the student body was too large to facilitate quality conversations. Calvert (2004) wrote positively of
the small group structure of Backyards, noting it made it easier for students to build leadership skills
Page 17 of 31 Journal of Educational Administration
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Journal of Educational Administration
and contribute their own ideas.
An additional consideration of group makeup is the youth to adult ratio, the importance of
which was argued by Osberg et al. (2006), who noted when one student was invited to an all-adult
team, the imbalance of power prevented the student’s leadership from being fully realized. The most
common ratios of youth to adults in the student voice groups ranged from five to ten students to one
adult. This type of group was present in eight studies (Brown, 2010; Calvert, 2004; Chopra, 2014;
Denner et al., 2005; Fielding, 2001; Mitra, 2002; Ozer & Wright, 2012; Silva, 2002). Eight studies
featured a fairly equal mix, ranging from a youth:adult ratio of 4:1 to 1:2 (Biddle, 2015; Brasof, 2014;
Brown, 2010; Denner et al., 2005; Goodnough, 2014; Mitra, 2002; Osberg et al., 2006; Yonezawa and
Jones, 2007). Five of the studies were set up as a student group with one advisor and had ratios
between 19:1 and 31:1 (Calvert, 2004; Campbell, 2009; Parnell and Procter, 2011; Pautsch, 2010;
Wernick et al., 2014). While these larger, advisor-run groups may have worked for theater
performances (Wernick et al., 2014) or short-term projects (Parnell and Procter, 2011), two of the three
groups based in school governance were unsuccessful (Calvert, 2004; Pautsch, 2010). Therefore,
groups that had more success were not only smaller in size, but maintained slightly more students than
adults.
A final component of group makeup is stakeholder diversity. A quarter of the studies
highlighted youth-adult partnerships that included teachers or administrators and members from
community partnerships (Biddle, 2015; Brown, 2010; Chopra, 2014; Goodnough, 2014; Silva, 2002;
Yonezawa and Jones, 2007). Biddle (2015) noted one group in her study includes four
administrators. Three studies featured groups with even more role diversity. Brown (2010)’s group
included district members. Biddle (2015) described a group made up of four teachers, one
administrator, two members of a CBO, and one board member. Finally, one study highlighted three
Page 18 of 31Journal of Educational Administration
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Journal of Educational Administration
schools that included parents in their youth-adult partnerships (Osberg et al., 2006). Of these studies
with diverse stakeholder representation, nearly all were deemed successful. In fact, Osberg et al.
(2006) identified the even distribution of stakeholders in the group as a core reason why some groups
were more successful than others.
Mechanism Summary
Mentioned in at least half of the studies reviewed, the organizational strategies that were most
commonly identified were research and consistency. Less commonly identified were the mechanisms
of governance structure, group makeup, and recognition, which were only mentioned in a few studies.
Importantly, all of these organizational mechanisms are related to structures and processes that enable
decision-making in a school. Through this lens, governance structure appears to be the principal
organizational mechanism, while the others act in service of an inclusive and sustainable governance
structure.
Limitations
The final sections of this paper discuss the limitations and implications of the review. This
review was limited to articles and dissertations written in the English language. Many of the studies
included in this review took place in U.S. school contexts, which is not representative of the student
voice work being done around the world. This may be due to variations in phrases used to describe
student voice in other countries not being included in the search terms. This is certainly a limitation of
the study, as there is a large amount of student voice research in other countries published in English,
such as England, Ireland, Australia, and New Zealand. Additionally, the lack of studies in indigenous
contexts precludes this review from being representative of U.S. contexts. Furthermore, as the United
States is one of the only countries in the world that has not ratified the United Nations (1989)
Convention on the Rights of the Child, which provides youth the right to express their ideas in all
Page 19 of 31 Journal of Educational Administration
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Journal of Educational Administration
matters affecting them, the research conducted in the U.S. exists in a unique system of education that is
not required to provide mechanisms to support student agency and does not have a national strategy for
eliciting students’ perspectives on school change as, for example, the north of Ireland does (e.g.,
Lundy, Emerson, Lloyd, Byrne, and Yohanis, 2012). An additional limitation of this review was that it
only focused on high schools. While student voice research is popular in secondary school settings,
additional reviews of studies conducted in middle school or primary school contexts may identify
additional organizational mechanisms.
Implications for Future Research
The identification of mechanisms of student leadership is a first step in ultimately being able to
determine which mechanisms have the largest impact on desired outcomes identified in the literature
such as students’ self-regard, feelings of competence, and engagement (Deci and Ryan, 2008), youth-
adult relationships (Yonezawa and Jones, 2007), and academic performance (Mitra, 2018).
Considering the existing body of literature around student voice in schools is primarily qualitative in
design, future research should develop additional tools to measure the presence leadership mechanisms
to make it possible to conduct research on which mechanisms or combination of mechanisms have the
greatest impact on student outcomes. Intervention studies could address these questions and identify
specific conditions of implementation as well as the length of time it takes for a mechanism to produce
a measurable impact.
Studies should also look at school-based student leadership initiatives with an explicit focus on
increasing sustainability and inclusivity. Do particular organizational mechanisms better support the
sustainability and inclusion of diverse and historically marginalized student voices? Studies should
also examine how students with dis/abilities, students for whom English is a new language, and
LGBTQ students perceive the inclusivity of student leadership initiatives, as these groups of students
Page 20 of 31Journal of Educational Administration
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Journal of Educational Administration
are largely absent from the existing literature. Additional research in rural settings and indigenous
communities could determine if structural needs vary by school context.
As scholars and practitioners seek to understand the logistics of implementing organizational
mechanisms to support student voice in schools, research should consider the relevance of adult
mindsets towards student voice initiatives. Amplifying student voice is more of an adaptive challenge
than a technical problem, meaning simply implementing a new practice is not enough — a change in
mindset is required (Heifetz, 1994). Schools may first want to ensure educators believe in the power
and necessity of youth voices in schools. If not, schools must first work to overcome this adaptive
challenge before adding any organizational mechanisms.
Implications for Organizational Practice
Fielding (2001) defines the term “student voice” as students’ ability to influence decisions that
affect their lives. To directly address the organizational context of a school in developing student
voice, the following definition of student leadership could be used: students working collaboratively to
affect positive change in their educational environments with support from adults and mechanisms in
the school (Lyons, 2018). This definition calls attention to the necessity of supports for students as
leaders – from adults in the school as well as the organizational mechanisms that enable student voice
initiatives to flourish.
Literature from the fields of capacity building, civic education, and student voice offer insight
for schools aiming to build their capacity for student voice. Mitchell and Sackney (2011) define
organizational capacity building as the larger school culture, structures, and ways of communicating.
They emphasize the importance of students and teachers sharing decision-making power when
decisions impact student learning. Several typologies from the student voice field highlight the ways
in which youth and adults can share decision-making power (Hart, 1992; Mitra, 2006; Shier, 2001;
Page 21 of 31 Journal of Educational Administration
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Journal of Educational Administration
Treseder, 1997; Wong et al., 2010). The five organizational mechanisms identified in the student
voice literature (research, consistency, governance structure, group makeup, recognition) all support
inclusive and sustainable school decision-making, with a representative school governance structure at
the center.
Educators may benefit from analyzing how well these five organizational mechanisms are
utilized in their schools. Schools could survey students to determine their perceptions of student
leadership mechanisms (i.e., Lyons, 2018), and review the results to determine the presence and
accessibility of organizational leadership mechanisms to all students. This analysis would be best
conducted in partnership with students. Questions to guide this discussion and data collection efforts
could include: Who is involved in making decisions in our school? What sources of data currently
inform school decisions? Which stakeholder groups are represented in the decision-making body? Are
these groups equally represented? How often do these bodies meet and is everyone invited? Are
members of this body formally recognized for their hard work? After student and adult representatives
review the results together, a co-created action plan could inform next steps to building non-existing
mechanisms and strengthening existing mechanisms or making them more accessible for all students.
As researchers and practitioners seek ways to increase student leadership, more attention
should be paid to the linkages between student voice initiatives and the organization as a whole.
Improving organizational mechanisms can enable student leadership initiatives to realize their full
potential. Identifying and putting into practice organizational mechanisms that support shared
decision-making has the potential to improve the inclusivity and sustainability of student leadership
initiatives, which has, thus far, proven difficult. Investing in inclusive and sustainable governance
structures has the potential to increase the number of individuals who benefit from participating in
student leadership initiatives and improve school-wide outcomes.
Page 22 of 31Journal of Educational Administration
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Journal of Educational Administration
References
References marked with an asterisk indicate studies included in the review.
*Biddle, C. (2015), Communities discovering what they care about: Youth and adults leading school
reform together (Doctoral dissertation), Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global.
(UMI No. 3715475)
*Brasof, M. (2014), Student voice in school reform: A case study of madison high school's youth- adult
governance model (Doctoral dissertation), Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses
Global. (UMI No. 3623116)
Brasof, M. (2018). “Using linkage theory to address the student voice organizational improvement
paradox”, [Special issue] Journal of Ethical Educational Leadership, pp. 44-65.
*Brown, B. H. J. (2010), Student voice and engagement in high school improvement: Individual
learning and organizational change (Doctoral dissertation), Retrieved from ProQuest
Dissertations & Theses Global. (UMI No. 3441282)
*Calvert, M. C. (2004), Youth development, participation, and school reform: Creating opportunities
and supports for student decision-making in a high school (Doctoral dissertation), Retrieved from
ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (UMI No. 3127982)
*Campbell, T. L. (2009), Leadership and student voice at one high school: An action research study
(Doctoral dissertation), Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (UMI No.
3382081)
Checkoway, B., and Aldana, A. (2013), “Four forms of youth civic engagement for diverse
democracy”, Children and Youth Services Review, Vol. 35 No. 11, pp. 1894–1899.
https://dx.doi.org:10.1016/j.childyouth.2013.09.005
Page 23 of 31 Journal of Educational Administration
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Journal of Educational Administration
*Chopra, C. H. (2014), New pathways for partnerships: An exploration of how partnering with
students affects teachers and schooling (Doctoral dissertation), Retrieved from ProQuest
Dissertations & Theses Global. (UMI No. 3618203)
Deci, E. L., and Ryan, R. M. (2008), “Facilitating optimal motivation and psychological well-being
across life's domains”, Canadian Psychology, Vol. 49 No. 1, pp. 14–23.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0708-5591.49.1.14
*Denner, J., Meyer, B., and Bean, S. (2005), “Young women's leadership alliance: Youth–adult
partnerships in an all-female after-school program”, Journal of Community Psychology, Vol. 33
No. 1, pp. 87-100. https://dx.doi.org:10.1002/jcop.20036
Edmondson, A. C., and McManus, S. E. (2007), “Methodological fit in management field
research”, Academy of management review, Vol. 32 No. 4, pp. 1246-1264.
https://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amr.2007.26586086
*Fielding, M. (2001), “Students as radical agents of change”, Journal of Educational Change, Vol. 2
No. 2, pp. 123-141. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1017949213447
Fielding, M. (2004), “Transformative approaches to student voice: Theoretical underpinnings,
recalcitrant realities”, British Educational Research Journal, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 295-311.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0141192042000195236
Fielding, M. (2006), “Leadership, radical student engagement and the necessity of person‐centred
education”, International Journal of Leadership in Education, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 299–313.
https://dx.doi.org:10.1080/13603120600895411
Fielding, M. (2011), “Student voice and the possibility of radical democratic education: Renarrating
forgotten histories, developing alternative futures”, In W. Kidd & G. Czerniawski (Eds.), The
Page 24 of 31Journal of Educational Administration
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Journal of Educational Administration
student voice handbook: Bridging the academic/practitioner divide (pp. 3–17). Bingley, UK:
Emerald Group Publishing Ltd.
Goodman, P. S. (2000), Missing organizational linkages: Tools for cross-level research, Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
*Goodnough, K. (2014), “Examining the potential of youth-led community of practice: Experience and
insights”, Educational Action Research, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 363–379.
https://dx.doi.org:10.1080/09650792.2013.872573
Hart, R. A. (1992), Children's participation: From tokenism to citizenship,. Florence, Italy: UNICEF
International Child Development Centre.
Heifetz, R. A. (1994), Leadership without easy answers, Cambridge, Mass: Belknap Press of Harvard
University Press.
Holdsworth, R. (2000), “Schools that create real roles of value for young people”, Prospects, Vol. 30
No. 3, pp. 349–362. https://dx.doi.org:10.1007/BF02754058
Lee, L. E., and Zimmerman, M. (1999), “A new vision for student voice”, Education Canada, Vol. 39
No. 2, pp. 34–35. Retrieved from https://www.edcan.ca/
Lodge, C. (2005), “From hearing voices to engaging in dialogue: Problematising student participation
in school improvement”, Journal of Educational Change, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 125–146.
https://dx.doi.org:10.1007/s10833-005-1299-3
Lundy, L. (2007), “‘Voice’ is not enough: Conceptualising Article 12 of the United Nations
Convention on the Rights of the Child”, British Educational Research Journal, Vol. 33 No. 6, pp.
927-942.
Page 25 of 31 Journal of Educational Administration
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Journal of Educational Administration
Lundy, L., Emerson, L., Lloyd, K., Byrne, B., and Yohanis, J. (2012), Education reform in Northern
Ireland: A human rights review, Norther Ireland Human Rights Commission.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01411920701657033
Lyons, L. B. (2018), Fostering Leadership in High School: Development and Validation of Student
Leadership Capacity Building Scales, Dissertations & Theses, 449.
https://aura.antioch.edu/etds/449
McMahon, B. and Portelli, J. P. (2004), “Engagement for what? Beyond popular discourses of student
engagement”, Leadership & Policy in Schools, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 59-76.
https://doi.org/10.1076/lpos.3.1.59.27841
Mechanism. Def. 2f. (n.d.), In Oxford English dictionary online (3rd ed.), Retrieved from
https://www.oed.com
Mitchell, C. and Sackney, L. (2011), Profound improvement: Building capacity for a learning
community (2nd ed.), New York, NY: Routledge.
*Mitra, D. (2002), Makin' it real: Involving youth in school reform (Doctoral dissertation), Retrieved
from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (UMI No. 3038124)
*Mitra, D. (2005), “Adults advising youth: Leading while getting out of the way”, Educational
Administration Quarterly, Vol. 41 No. 3, pp. 520–553.
https://dx.doi.org:10.1177/0013161X04269620
Mitra, D. (2006), “Increasing student voice and moving toward youth leadership”, Prevention
Researcher, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 7-10. Retrieved from http://www.tpronline.org
*Mitra, D. L. (2007), “The role of administrators in enabling youth-adult partnerships in schools”,
NASSP Bulletin, Vol. 91 No. 3, pp. 237-256. https://dx.doi.org:10.1177/0192636507305964
Page 26 of 31Journal of Educational Administration
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Journal of Educational Administration
*Mitra, D. (2009a), “The role of intermediary organizations in sustaining student voice initiatives”,
Teachers College Record, Vol. 111 No. 7, pp. 1834–1870. Retrieved from
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ849678
*Mitra, D. L. (2009b), “Strengthening student voice initiatives in high schools: An examination of the
supports needed for school-based youth-adult partnerships,” Youth & Society, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp.
311-335. https://dx.doi.org:10.1177/0044118X08316211
Mitra, D., and Biddle, C. (2012), Youth and adults transforming schools together: Evaluation year IV.
Unpublished manuscript, Pennsylvania State University.
Mitra, D., and Gross, S. (2009), “Increasing Student Voice in High School Reform: Building
Partnerships, Improving Outcomes”, Educational Management Administration & Leadership,
Vol. 37 No. 4, pp. 522-543. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1741143209334577
Mitra, D., and Kirshner, B. (2012), “Insiders versus outsiders: Examining variability in student voice
initiatives and their consequences for school change”, In B. J. McMahon & J. P. Portelli (Eds.),
Student engagement in urban schools: Beyond neoliberal discourses (pp. 49–72), Charlotte, NC:
Information Age Publishing, Inc.
*Mitra, D., Lewis, T., and Sanders, F. (2013), “Architects, captains, and dreamers: Creating advisor
roles that foster youth-adult partnerships”, Journal of Educational Change, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp.
177-201. https://dx.doi.org:10.1007/s10833-012-9201-6
Mitra, D. (2018), “Student Voice in Secondary Schools: The Possibility for Deeper Change”, Journal
of Educational Administration, Vol. 56 No. 5, pp. 473-487. https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JEA-01-
2018-0007
Page 27 of 31 Journal of Educational Administration
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Journal of Educational Administration
*Møller, J. (2006), “Democratic schooling in norway: Implications for leadership in practice”,
Leadership & Policy in Schools, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 53-69.
https://dx.doi.org:10.1080/15700760500498779
National Center for Education Statistics, (2015), Public high school 4-year adjusted cohort graduation
rate (ACGR), by race/ethnicity and selected demographics for the United States, the 50 states, and
the District of Columbia: School year 2012–13. (Data file).
http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/tables/ACGR_RE_and_characteristics_2012-13.asp
*Osberg, J., Pope, D., and Galloway, M. (2006), “Students matter in school reform: Leaving
fingerprints and becoming leaders”, International Journal of Leadership in Education, Vol. 9 No.
4, pp. 329-343. https://dx.doi.org:10.1080/13603120600895338
*Ozer, E. J., and Wright, D. (2012), “Beyond school spirit: The effects of youth-led participatory
action research in two urban high schools”, Journal of Research on Adolescence (Wiley-
Blackwell), Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 267–283. https://dx.doi.org:10.1111/j.1532-7795.2012.00780.x
*Parnell, R., and Procter, L. (2011), “Flexibility and placemaking for autonomy in learning”,
Educational & Child Psychology, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 77–88. Retrieved from
https://www1.bps.org.uk/publications/member-network-
publications/memberpublications/educational-child-psychology
*Pautsch, C. A. (2010), Leadership to support student voice: The role of school leaders in supporting
meaningful student government and voice (Doctoral dissertation), Retrieved from ProQuest
Dissertations & Theses Global. (UMI No. 3448752)
Preskill, S. and Brookfield, S. (2009), Learning as a way of leading: Lessons from the struggle for
social justice, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Page 28 of 31Journal of Educational Administration
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Journal of Educational Administration
Rubin, B. C. (2007), “‘There's still not justice’: Youth civic identity development amid distinct school
and community contexts”, Teachers College Record, Vol. 109 No. 2, pp. 449–481. Retrieved from
https://www.tcrecord.org/Articles.asp
Shier, H. (2001), Pathways to participation: Openings, opportunities and obligations, Children &
Society, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 107–117. https://dx.doi.org:10.1002/chi.617
*Silva, E. M. (2002), The broken mic: Student struggles for voice, power and position in urban school
reform (Doctoral dissertation), Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (UMI
No. 3063551)
Thomson, P., (2011), “Coming to terms with 'voice'”, In W. Kidd & G. Czerniawski (Eds.), The
student voice handbook: Bridging the academic/practitioner divide (pp. 19-30), Bingley, UK:
Emerald Group Publishing Ltd.
Treseder, P. (1997), Empowering children & young people: Training manual, London: Save the
Children.
Walumbwa, F. O., Avolio, B. J., Gardner, W. L., Wernsing, T. S., and Peterson, S. J. (2008),
“Authentic leadership: Development and validation of a theory-based measure”, Journal of
Management, Vol 34 No. 1, pp. 89-126. https://dx.doi.org:10.1177/0149206307308913
*Wernick, L. J., Woodford, M. R., and Kulick, A. (2014), “LGBTQQ youth using participatory action
research and theater to effect change: Moving adult decision-makers to create youth-centered
change”, Journal of Community Practice, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 47–66.
https://dx.doi.org:10.1080/10705422.2014.901996
Westheimer, J., and Kahne, J. (2004), “What kind of citizen? The politics of educating for democracy”,
American Educational Research Journal, Vol. 41 No. 2, pp. 237–269.
https://dx.doi.org:10.3102/00028312041002237
Page 29 of 31 Journal of Educational Administration
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Journal of Educational Administration
Wong, N., Zimmerman, M., and Parker, E. (2010), “A typology of youth participation and
empowerment for child and adolescent health promotion”, American Journal of Community
Psychology, Vol. 46 No. 1, pp. 100–114. https://dx.doi.org:10.1007/s10464-010-9330-0
*Yonezawa, S. and Jones, M. (2007), “Student co-researchers: How principals can recruit, train, and
enlist the help of students to examine what works and does not work in their schools”, NASSP
Bulletin, Vol. 91 No. 4, pp. 322-342. https://dx.doi.org:10.1177/0192636507309810
Zeldin, S., McDaniel, A., Topitzes, D., and Lorens, M.B. (2001), “Bringing young people to the table:
Effects on adults and youth organizations”, CYD Journal, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 20-27.
Page 30 of 31Journal of Educational Administration
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Journal of Educational Administration
Appendix A
Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria for Organizational Mechanisms Search
Inclusion Criteria
Exclusion Criteria
Empirical
Published in English
Peer-reviewed
Independent variables are school
mechanisms
Dependent variables are attributes of
student voice including: decision-making,
youth-adult partnerships, inclusivity, or
sustainability
High school setting (classes, whole school,
clubs)
Not empirical
Elementary, middle school,
or college settings
Teacher prep programs
CBO-run programs not
embedded in HS
YPAR as the dependent
variable
Note. Search terms: (Institutional Characteristics OR Organizational Development OR
Organizational Culture OR Organizational Communication OR Organizational Climate
OR Organizational Change OR structures OR strategies) AND (student voice OR pupil
voice OR participative decision making OR decision making in school administration OR
student participation in administration OR shared governance OR shared leadership OR
distributed leadership OR youth-adult partnership OR student leadership OR youth
leadership OR youth par OR YPAR OR youth participatory action research OR
participatory action research OR youth action research OR democratic schools) AND
(high school OR secondary school) using databases: Education Full Text, Education
Research Complete, ERIC, Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection, PsycINFO,
SocINDEX with Full Text, Sociological Collection; Search terms: ab(student voice)
AND ab(high school) using databases: Proquest Dissertations & Theses Global database;
citation mining and reverse citation searches used to reach saturation.
Page 31 of 31 Journal of Educational Administration
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
