The sustainability of change efforts continues to be an important and challenging question in educational research.
Purpose/Objective/Research Question/Focus of Study
By examining 13 programs aimed at increasing student voice in school reform, this article examines conditions that enable and constrain the sustainability of this challenging form of educational change.
Population/Participants/Subjects
The 13 high schools in this study all received grant funding from a local foundation in the San Francisco Bay Area to work on building a student voice initiative in their school. All the grant recipients and their schools in the sample were situated within an urban environment, either within an inner city or a bedroom community in the Bay Area that possessed urban characteristics of the region. These characteristics include an ethnically diverse population comprising students of Asian, Latin, African, and European descent, insufficiently funded public schools, and high concentrations of poverty.
Intervention/Program/Practice
When placed into practice, student voice initiatives provide youth with opportunities to participate in school decision-making that will shape their lives and the lives of their peers. Student voice can range from the most basic level of youth sharing their opinions of problems and potential solutions, to allowing young people to collaborate with adults to address the problems in their schools, to youth taking the lead on seeking change.
Research Design
This study consists of a multiple case study designed for the purpose of explanation building.
Data Collection and Analysis
Semistructured telephone interviews served as the primary data source for this article. Observations, documents, and external evaluations served as validity checks and sources of triangulation for this study.
Findings/Results
The data indicate that the persistence of a student-voice effort after the initial influx of funds and support disappeared requires support from an intermediary organization (IO)—an organization located outside the auspices of school walls. IOs can help with fostering a clear and long-term vision, providing a more stable source of leadership, identifying ongoing financial and collaborative resources, and building a network for knowledge generation and sharing.
Conclusions/Recommendations
Although they are a part of many reform initiatives, partnerships with IOs are usually considered to be short-term relationships during the implementation phase of an initiative. This research instead suggests that IOs might be better suited as long-term partners in many change efforts. An awareness of the important roles that IOs can play in the long-term work toward change could help researchers, practitioners, and policy makers think more intentionally about how to plan for stabilizing such partnerships as an avenue toward sustaining reform initiatives.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AdelmanH. S., & TaylorL. (2003). On sustainability of project innovations as systemic change.Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 14, 1–25.
2.
AndersonS., & StiegelbauerS. (1994). Institutionalization and renewal in a restructured secondary school.School Organization, 14, 279–293.
3.
BeckerH. S. (1998). Tricks of the trade: How to think about research while you're doing it.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
4.
BerendsM., BodillyS., & KirbyS. N. (2002). Facing the challenge of whole-school reform: New American Schools after a decade.Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
5.
BraggS. (2007). “It's not about systems, it's about relationships”: Building a listening culture in a primary school. In ThiessenD. & Cook-SatherA. (Eds.), International handbook of student experience in elementary and secondary school (pp. 659–680). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
6.
BrownJ. S., & DuguidP. (2000). The social life of information.Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
7.
CoburnC. (2003). Rethinking scale: Moving beyond numbers to deep and lasting change.Educational Researcher, 32(6), 3–12.
8.
CoburnC. (2005). The role of nonsystem actors in the relationship between policy and practice: The case of reading instruction in California.Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 27, 23–52.
9.
Cochran-SmithM., & LytleS. L. (1992). Teacher research as a way of knowing.Harvard Educational Review, 62, 447–474.
10.
CogginsC. (2004, April). Reform coaching as a strategy for promoting knowledge sharing and teacher change across schools in a district.Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.
11.
CohenD., RaudenbushS., & BallD. (2000). Resources, instruction, and research.Seattle: University of Washington, Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy.
12.
Cook-SatherA. (2006). “Change based on what students say”: Preparing teachers for a more paradoxical model of leadership.International Journal of Leadership in Education, 9, 345–358.
13.
CooperR., SlavinR. E., & MaddenN. (1997). Success for All: Exploring the technical, normative, and socio-cultural dimensions of scaling up (Report No. 16). Baltimore: Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed at Risk, Johns Hopkins University.
14.
DatnowA. (2005). The sustainability of comprehensive school reform models in changing district and state contexts.Education Administration Quarterly, 41, 121–153.
15.
DatnowA., HubbardL., & MehanH. (2002). Extending educational reform: From one school to many.London: Routledge/Falmer.
16.
DatnowA., LaskyS., StringfieldS., & TeddlieC. (2005). Systemic integration for educational reform in racially and linguistically diverse contexts: A summary of the evidence.Journal of Education for Students Placed At Risk, 10, 445–453.
17.
Della PortaD., & DianiM. (1999). Social movements: an introduction.Malden, MA: Blackwell.
18.
DonohueD. M., BowerJ., & RosenbergD. (2003). Learning with and learning from: Reciprocity in service learning in teacher education.Equity and Excellence in Teacher Education, 36, 15–27.
19.
EcclesJ., & GootmanJ. A. (2002). Community programs to promote youth development.Washington, DC: Board on Children, Youth, and Families, Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences Education, National Research Council and Institute of Medicine, National Academies of Science.
20.
ElmoreR., & BurneyD. (1997). Staff development and instructional improvement: Community District 2, New York City.Paper prepared for the National Commission on Teaching and America's Future.
21.
FieldingM. (2001). Students as radical agents of change.Journal of Educational Change, 2, 123–141.
22.
FineM., TorreM. E., BurnsA., & PayneY. A. (2007). Youth research/participatory methods for reform. In ThiessenD. & Cook-SatherA. (Eds.), International handbook of student experience in elementary and secondary school (pp. 805–828). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
23.
FisherD. (2000). So many initiatives, so little time: Sustaining change in an urban high school.National Association of Secondary School Principals, NASSP Bulletin, 84(620), 89–92.
24.
FlorianJ. (2001). Sustaining education reform: Influential factors.Aurora, CO: Mid-Continent Research for Education and Learning. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED453583)
25.
FlutterJ., & RudduckJ. (2004). Consulting pupils: What's in it for schools?London: Routledge/Falmer.
26.
FullanM. (2001). The new meaning of educational change (3rd ed.). New York.: Teachers College Press.
27.
GlaserB., & StraussA. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory.Chicago: Aldine.
28.
GoldmanG., & NewmanJ. B. (1998). Empowering students to transform schools.Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
29.
HargreavesA., & FinkD. (2000). The three dimensions of reform.Educational Leadership, 57(7), 30–34.
30.
HonigM. (2009). No small thing: School district central office bureaucracies and the implementation of New Small Autonomous Schools Initiatives.American Educational Research Journal, 46, 387–422.
31.
HonigM. I. (2004). The new middle management: Intermediary organizations in education policy implementation.Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 226, 65–87.
32.
KirshnerB., O'DonoghueJ. L., & McLaughlinM. W. (Eds.). (2003). New directions for youth development: Youth participation improving institutions and communities.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
33.
LevinB. (2000). Putting students at the centre in education reform.International Journal of Educational Change, 1, 155–172.
34.
LiebermanA., & GrolnickM. (1996). Networks and reform in American education.Teachers College Record, 98, 7–45.
35.
LincolnY. S., & GubaE. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry.Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
36.
LodgeC. (2005). From hearing voices to engaging in dialogue: Problematising student participation in school improvement.Journal of Educational Change, 6, 125–146.
37.
LouisK., & MilesM. (1990). Improving the urban high school: What works and why.New York: Teachers College Press.
McLaughlinM. W. (1993). Embedded identities: Enabling balance in urban contexts. In HeathS. B. & McLaughlinM. W. (Eds.), Identity and inner-city youth (pp. 36–68). New York: Teachers College Press.
40.
McLaughlinM. W., & MitraD. (2001). Theory-based change and changed-based theory: Going deeper and going broader.Journal of Educational Change, 2, 301–323.
41.
McQuillanP. J. (2005). Possibilities and pitfalls: A comparative analysis of student empowerment.American Educational Research Journal, 42, 639–672.
42.
MeziasS., & GlynnM. (1993). The three faces of corporate renewal: Institution, revolution, and evolution.Strategic Management Journal, 14, 77–101.
43.
MilesM. B., & HubermanA. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
44.
MitraD. L. (2001) Opening the floodgates: Giving students a voice in school reform.Forum, 43(2), 91–94.
45.
MitraD. L. (2003). Student voice in school reform: Reframing student-teacher relationships.McGill Journal of Education, 38, 289–304.
46.
MitraD. L. (2004). The significance of students: Can increasing “student voice” in schools lead to gains in youth development?Teachers College Record, 106, 651–688.
47.
MitraD. L. (2005). Increasing student voice and moving toward youth leadership.The Prevention Researcher, 13(1), 7–10.
48.
MitraD. L. (2006). Student voice or empowerment? Examining the role of school-based youth-adult partnerships as an avenue toward focusing on social justice.International Electronic Journal for Leadership in Learning, 10(22). Retrieved May 30, 2008, from http://www.acs.ucalgary.ca/∼iejll/
49.
MitraD. L. (2007). Student voice in school reform: From listening to leadership. In ThiessenD. & Cook-SatherA. (Eds.), International handbook of student experience in elementary and secondary school (pp. 727–744). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
50.
MitraD. L. (2008). Student voice in school reform: Building youth-adult partnerships that strengthen schools and empower youth.Albany: State University of New York Press.
51.
MoffettC. A. (2000). Sustaining change: The answers are blowing in the wind.Educational Leadership, 57(7), 35–38.
52.
MooreK. (1999). Political protest and institutional change: The anti-Vietnam war movement and American State. In GiugniM., McAdamD., & TillyC. (Eds.), How social movements matter (pp. 97–115). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota.
53.
MunceyD. E., & McQuillanP. J. (1996). Reform and resistance in schools and classrooms: An ethnographic view of the Coalition of Essential Schools.New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
54.
NeufeldB., & RoperD. (2003). Coaching: A strategy for developing instructional capacity.Cambridge, MA: Education Matters.
55.
NonakaI., ToyamaR., & ByosiéreP. (2001). A theory of organizational knowledge creation: Understanding the dynamic process of creating knowledge. In DierkesM., BerthoinA., AntalA., ChildJ., & NonakaI. (Eds.), Handbook of organizational learning and knowledge (pp. 491–517). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
56.
OakesJ., & LiptonM. (2002). Struggling for educational equity in diverse communities: School reform as a social movement.Journal of Educational Change, 3, 383–406.
57.
PluyeP., PotvinL., & DenisJ. L. (2004). Making public health programs last: Conceptualizing sustainability.Evaluation and Program Planning, 27, 121–133.
58.
RogersE. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York: Free Press.
59.
RudduckJ., & DemetriouH. (2003). Student perspectives and teacher practices: The transformative potential.McGill Journal of Education, 38, 274– 288.
60.
RudduckJ., & FlutterJ. (2000). Pupil participation and perspective: “Carving a new order of experience.” Cambridge Journal of Education, 30, 75–89.
61.
ScottW. R. (1995). Institutions and organizations.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
62.
SengeP., KleinerA., RobertsC., RossR., RothG., & SmithB. (1999). The dance of change: The challenges of sustaining momentum in learning organizations.New York: Doubleday/Currency.
63.
ShultzJ., & Cook-SatherA. (Eds.). (2001). In our own words: Students’ perspectives on school.Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
64.
SteinM. K., & D'AmicoL. (1998). Content-driven instructional reform in Community School District #2.Pittsburgh, PA: Learning Research and Development Center, University of Pittsburgh.
65.
StraussA., & CorbinJ. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques.Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
66.
TaylorJ. E. (2005). Sustainability: Examining the survival of school's comprehensive school reform efforts.Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research.
67.
TyackD., & CubanL. (1995). Tinkering toward Utopia: A century of public school reform.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
68.
UcelliM. (1999, December) What key reformers have learned about reform.Panel presentation at the annual conference of the National Staff Development council, Dallas, TX.
69.
WoodA., & TalbertJ. (2007, April). Evidence-based practice in reforming school districts: Promises, puzzles and paradoxes.Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Education Research Association, Chicago, IL.
70.
YinR. K. (1994). Case study research: Designs and methods (2nd ed., Vol. 5). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
71.
YonezawaS., & StringfieldS. (2000). Special strategies for educating disadvantaged students follow-up study: Examining the sustainability of research based school reforms.Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University CRESPAR.
72.
YouensB., & HallC. (2006). Incorporating pupil perspectives in initial teacher education—Lessons from the pupil mentoring project.Teacher Development, 10, 197–206.
