Research has shown the value of including youth, especially minoritized students, in school- and district-level educational decision-making. However, power dynamics, as related to adultism, along with other inequities, are barriers to youth’s political influence. We elucidate these barriers by exploring the possible relationship between adult-adult power dynamics, on one hand, and levels of student voice in schools, on the other. Interviews with teachers and administrators about youth voice initiatives indicated that bounded rationality illuminates how limiting access to knowledge, a form of power, can impact educator decision-making. In addition, bounded rationality bolsters unilateral power structures and therefore curtails youth voice. However, we also found that building relational power between teachers and students and maneuvering beyond bounded rationality increases opportunities for youth voice.
AllenN.GrigsbyB.PetersM. L. (2015). Does leadership matter? Examining the relationship among transformational leadership, school climate, and student achievement. International Journal of Educational Leadership Preparation, 10(2), 1–22.
2.
BellibasM. S.LiuY. (2018). The effects of principals’ perceived instructional and distributed leadership practices on their perceptions of school climate. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 21(2), 226–244. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603124.2016.1147608
3.
BellJ. (2010). Understanding adultism: A key to developing positive youth-adult relationships. In AdamsM.BlumenfeldW. J.CastañedaC.HackmanH. W.PetersM. L.ZúñigaX. (Eds.), Readings for diversity and social justice (pp. 540–546). Routledge.
4.
BertrandM.BrooksM. D.DomínguezA. D. (2020). Challenging adultism: Centering youth as educational decision makers. Urban Education. 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085920959135
5.
BertrandM.SalinasS. M.DempsD.RenteríaR.DurandE. S. (2020). “It’s everybody’s job”: Youth and adult constructions of responsibility to take action for school change through PAR. The Urban Review, 52, 392–414. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11256-019-00537-y
6.
BettencourtG. M. (2020). Embracing problems, processes, and contact zones: Using youth participatory action research to challenge adultism. Action Research, 18, 153–170. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476750318789475
7.
BrennerM. E. (2006). Interviewing in educational research. In GreenJ. L.CamilliG.ElmoreP. B. (Eds.), Handbook of complementary methods in education research (pp. 357–370). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
8.
Brion-MeiselsG.AlterZ. (2018). The quandary of youth participatory action research in school settings: A framework for reflecting on the factors that influence purpose and process. Harvard Educational Review, 88(4), 429–454. https://doi.org/10.17763/1943-5045-88.4.429
9.
CammarotaJ.FineM. (2008). Revolutionizing education: Youth participatory action research in motion. Routledge.
10.
CammarotaJ.RomeroA. (2011). Participatory action research for high school students: Transforming policy, practice, and the personal with social justice education. Educational Policy, 25(3), 488–506.
11.
CaraballoL.LozenskiB. D.LyiscottJ. J.MorrellE. (2017). YPAR and critical epistemologies: Rethinking education research. Review of Research in Education, 41(1), 311–336. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732x16686948
12.
ConnerJ.OberC. N.BrownA. (2016). The politics of paternalism: Adult and youth perspectives on youth voice in public policy. Teachers College Record, 118(8), 1–48.
13.
ConnerJ. O.RosenS. M. (2015). Zombies, truants, and flash mobs: How youth organizers respond to and shape youth policy. In ConnerJ.Ebby-RosinR. (Eds.), Student voice in American education policy (Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education) (Vol. 114, pp. 203–220). Teachers College Press.
14.
CrenshawK. (1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A Black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist policies (pp. 139–167). The University of Chicago Legal Forum.
15.
DeJongK.LoveB. J. (2015). Youth oppression as a technology of colonialism: Conceptual frameworks and possibilities for social justice education praxis. Equity & Excellence in Education, 48(3), 489–508. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10665684.2015.1057086
16.
DomínguezA. D. (2021). ¡Venceremos!: Challenging school barriers with latinx youth participatory action research. Journal of Latinos and Education, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/15348431.2021.1935258
17.
DyeA. (2014). Politics with an upper and lowercase P. Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.
18.
FernándezE.Paredes ScribnerS. M. (2018). “Venimos para que se oiga la Voz”: Activating community cultural wealth as parental educational leadership. Journal of Research on Leadership Education, 13(1), 59–78.
19.
FreelonR. (2018). Transformational resistance and parent leadership: Black parents in a school district decision-making process. Urban Education, 1–29.
20.
GonzálezT.BertrandM.SalinasS. (2019). Pursuing inclusive schools: The case of youth researchers of color expanding a new vision. Multiple Voices for Ethnically Diverse Exceptional Learners.
21.
GonzalezT. E.Hernandez-SacaD. I.ArtilesA. J. (2017). In search of voice: Theory and methods in K-12 student voice research in the US, 1990–2010. Educational Review, 69(4), 451–473.
HallingerP.HeckR. (2002). What do you call people with visions? The role of vision, mission, and goals in school leadership and improvement. In LeithwoodK.HallingerP. (Eds.), Second international handbook of educational leadership and administration (pp. 9–40). Kluwer.
24.
HartR. A. (1992). Children’s participation: From tokenism to citizenship. UNICEF.
25.
IshimaruA. M. (2020). Just schools: Building equitable collaborations with families and communities. Teachers College Press.
26.
IshimaruA. M.TorresK. E.SalvadorJ. E.LottJ.WilliamsD. M. C.TranC. (2016). Reinforcing deficit, journeying toward equity. American Educational Research Journal, 53(4), 850–882. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831216657178
27.
JanksH. (2012). The importance of critical literacy. English Teaching Practice & Critique, 11(1), 150.
28.
JonesB. D. (2002). Bounded rationality and public policy: Herbert A. Simon and the decisional foundation of collective choice. Policy Sciences, 35(3), 269–284. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021341309418
29.
KahneJ.CrowD.LeeN.-J. (2013). Different pedagogy, different politics: High school learning opportunities and youth political engagement. Political Psychology, 34(3), 419–441. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2012.00936.x
30.
KohfeldtD.ChhunL.GraceS.LanghoutR. D. (2011). Youth empowerment in context: Exploring tensions in school-based YPAR. American Journal of Community Psychology, 47(1-2), 28–45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-010-9376-z
31.
Ladson-BillingsG.TateW. F.IV. (1995). Toward a critical race theory of education. Teachers College Record, 97(1), 47–68.
32.
LanghoutR. D.CollinsC.EllisonE. R. (2014). Examining relational empowerment for elementary school students in a YPAR program. American Journal of Community Psychology, 53(3-4), 369–381.
LovornM.SunalC. S.ChristensenL. M.SunalD. W.ShweryC. (2012). Who’s in control? Teachers from five countries share perspectives on power dynamics in the learning environment. Journal of Research in International Education, 11(1), 70–86. https://doi.org/10.1177/1475240911435869
35.
MansfieldK. C.WeltonA.HalxM. (2012). Listening to student voice: Toward a more inclusive theory for research and practice. In BoskeC.DiemS. (Eds.), Global leadership for social justice: Taking it from the field to practice (pp. 21–41). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
36.
MarshJ. A.AllbrightT. N.BrownD. R.BulkleyK. E.StrunkK. O.HarrisD. N. (2021). The process and politics of educational governance change in New Orleans, Los Angeles, and Denver. American Educational Research Journal, 58(1), 107–159. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831220921475
37.
MattheisA.ArdilaY.LevatonS. (2018). “We think differently”: Student representation and voice at the Los Angeles Unified School District Board of Education. Journal of Ethical Educational Leadership, Special Issue1, 155–179.
38.
MirraN.RogersJ. (2016). Institutional participation and social transformation: Considering the goals and tensions of university-initiated YPAR projects with K-12 youth. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 29, 1255–1268. https://doi.org/10.1080/09518398.2016.1192697
39.
MitraD. L. (2005). Adults advising youth: Leading while getting out of the way. Educational Administration Quarterly, 41(3), 520–553. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X04269620
40.
MitraD. L.GrossS. J. (2009). Increasing student voice in high school reform: Building partnerships, improving outcomes. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 37(4), 522–543. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143209334577
41.
MombourquetteC. (2017). The role of vision in effective school leadership. International Studies in Educational Administration, 45(1), 19–36.
42.
OwensD.JonesK. (2004). Adapting the youth participatory action research model to serve LBGTQ youth of color. Practical Anthropology, 26(2), 25–29.
43.
PechA. S.ValenciaB. G.RomeroA. J. (2020). Reflections from novice youth participatory action researchers: Emphasis on critical gender perspectives. Journal of Community Psychology, 48(2), 302–322. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.22253
44.
PriceH. E. (2012). School principal-staff relationship effects on school climate. In WubbelsT.den BrokP.van TartwijkJ., et al. (Eds.), Interpersonal relationships in education (pp.103–118). SensePublishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6091-939-8_7
45.
PriceH. E. (2015). Principals’ social interactions with teachers: How principal-teacher social relations correlate with teachers’ perceptions of student engagement. Journal of Educational Administration, 53(1), 116–139. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-02-2014-0023
46.
Quijada CerecerD. A.CahillC.BradleyM. (2013). Toward a critical youth policy praxis: Critical youth studies and participatory action research. Theory Into Practice, 52, 216–223.
47.
RodríguezL. F.BrownT. M. (2009). From voice to agency: Guiding principles for participatory action research with youth. New Directions for Youth Development, 2009(123), 19–34, 11.
48.
SaldañaJ. (2013). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (2nd ed.). SAGE.
49.
SalisburyJ. D.ShethM. J.AngtonA. (2020). “They didn’t even talk about oppression”: School leadership protecting the whiteness of leadership through resistance practices to a youth voice initiative. Journal of Education Human Resources, 38(1), 57–81. https://doi.org/10.3138/jehr.2019-0010
50.
SampsonC. (2019). “The state pulled a fast one on us”: A critical policy analysis of state-level policies affecting English learners from district-level perspectives. Educational Policy, 33(1), 158–180. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904818807324
51.
SimonH. A. (1997). Models of bounded rationality. The MIT Press.
52.
SupovitzJ.SirinidesP.MayH. (2010). How principals and peers influence teaching and learning. Educational Administration Quarterly, 46(1), 31–56. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670509353043
53.
ThomasT. (2017). Bullying is not just for the playground: Teacher experiences with administrator mistreatment in the workplace and its impact on instruction. University of Alabama [Dissertation].
WeltonA. D.BrockB.PerryM. (2014). Building a youth leadership fortress: High school women of color as visible activists. In NewcombW. S.MansfieldK. C. (Eds.), Women interrupting, disrupting, and revolutionizing educational policy and practice (pp. 79–98). Information Age Publishing.
56.
WeltonA. D.HarrisT. O.AltamiranoK.WilliamsT. (2016). The politics of student voice: Conceptualizing a model for critical analysis. In YoungM. D.DiemS. (Eds.), Critical approaches to education policy analysis: Moving beyond tradition (pp. 83–110). Springer International Publishing AG Switzerland.
