This qualitative study examines the experiences of student leaders working in partnership with teacher leaders to implement Vermont’s Act 77, a state mandated personalized learning policy. Drawing on a theoretical framework that connects the zones of mediation and knowledge brokering research, this study explores the question: How do youth and adults experience youth leadership around the implementation of Vermont’s Act 77? Drawing on focus group data, interviews, and observations of youth leadership of personalized learning policy implementation across 18 high schools between 2014 and 2018, the study identifies the opportunities challenges of youth acting as knowledge brokers around state education policy in their schools. It concludes with implications for educational leaders and policymakers.
AldrichH.HerkerD. (1977). Boundary spanning roles and organization structure. Academy of Management Review, 2(2), 217–230.
3.
AllenC. D.PenuelW. R. (2015). Studying teachers’ sensemaking to investigate teachers’ responses to professional development focused on new standards. Journal of Teacher Education, 66(2), 136–149.
4.
BertrandM. (2014). Reciprocal dialogue between educational decision makers and students of color: Opportunities and obstacles. Educational Administration Quarterly, 50(5), 812–843.
5.
BiddleC. (2017). Trust formation when youth and adults partner to lead school reform: A case study of supportive structures and challenges. Journal of Organizational & Educational Leadership, 2(2), 1–11.
BiestaG. (2007). Why “what works” won’t work: Evidence-based practice and the democratic deficit in educational research. Educational Theory, 57(1), 1–22.
BrasofM. (2015). Student voice and school governance: Distributing leadership to youth and adults. Routledge.
10.
BraxtonE.BufordW.MarasiganL. (2013). National field scan. The Funders’ Collaborative on Youth Organizing.
11.
BrezichaK.HopkinsM. (2016). Shifting the zone of mediation in a suburban new immigrant destination: Community boundary spanners and school district policy-making. Peabody Journal of Education, 91(3), 366–382.
12.
BrownJ. S.DuguidP. (2001). Knowledge and organization: A social practice perspective. Organization Science, 12(2), 198–213.
CoburnC. E. (2005). Shaping teacher sensemaking: School leaders and the enactment of reading policy. Educational Policy, 19(3), 476–509.
15.
CoburnC. E. (2006). Framing the problem of reading instruction: Using frame analysis to uncover the microprocesses of policy implementation. American Educational Research Journal, 43(3), 343–349.
16.
CollatosA. M.MorrellE. (2003). Apprenticing urban youth as critical researchers. Critical Voices in School Reform: Students Living Through Change, 113, 19.
17.
ConnerJ.ZainoK. (2014). Orchestrating effective change: How youth organizing influences education policy. American Journal of Education, 120(2), 173–203.
18.
ConnerJ.ZainoK.ScarolaE. (2013). “Very powerful voices” the influence of youth organizing on educational policy in Philadelphia. Educational Policy, 27(3), 560–588.
19.
ConnerJ. O.RosenS. M. (2015). Zombies, truants, and flash mobs: How youth organizers respond to and shape youth policy. Teachers College Record, 117(13), 203–220.
20.
DobbinsM.RobesonP.CiliskaD.HannaS.CameronR.O’MaraL.DeCorbyK.MercerS. (2009). A description of a knowledge broker role implemented as part of a randomized controlled trial evaluating three knowledge translation strategies. Implementation Science, 4(1), 1–9.
21.
Farley-RippleE.MayH.KarpynA.TilleyK.McDonoughK. (2018). Rethinking connections between research and practice in education: A conceptual framework. Educational Reseacher, 47(4), 235–245.
22.
FieldingM. (2001). Students as radical agents of change. Journal of Educational Change, 2(2), 123–141.
23.
FreireP. (2005) Education for critical consciousness. Continuum International Publishing Group.
24.
GoldringE. (1990). Elementary school principals as boundary spanners: Their engagement with parents. Journal of Educational Administration, 21(1), 53–62.
25.
HaasA. (2014). Crowding at the frontier: Knowledge brokers, gatekeepers, boundary spanners and marginal-intersecting individuals. Journal of Knowledge Management, 19(5), 1029–1047.
26.
HonigM. (2006). Street-level bureaucracy revisited: Frontline district central-office administrators as boundary spanners in education policy implementation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 28(4), 357–383. http://epa.sagepub.com/content/28/4/357.short
27.
JackS. M.BrooksS.FurgalC. M.DobbinsM. (2010). Knowledge transfer and exchange processes for environmental health issues in Canadian Aboriginal communities. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 7(2), 651–674.
28.
KennedyM. M. (1983). Working knowledge. Knowledge, 5(2), 193–211.
29.
KislovR.HodgsonD.BoadenR. (2016). Professionals as knowledge brokers: The limits of authority in healthcare collaboration. Public Administration, 94(2), 472–489.
30.
LacV. T.MansfieldK. C. (2018). What do students have to do with educational leadership?: Making a case for centering student voice. Journal of Research on Leadership Education, 13(1), 38–58. https://doi.org/10.1177/1942775117743748
31.
LeiferR.DelbecqA. (1978). Organizational / Environmental Interchange : A Model of Boundary Spanning Activity. The Academy of Management Review, 3(1), 40–50.
32.
LouisK. S.RobinsonV. M. (2012). External mandates and instructional leadership: School leaders as mediating agents. Journal of Educational Administration, 50(5), 629–665.
33.
LubienskiC.ScottJ.DebrayE. (2011). The rise of intermediary organizations in knowledge production, advocacy and educational policy. Teachers College Record, 22(1), 1–3.
34.
MalinJ.BrownC. (Eds.). (2020). The role of knowledge brokers in education: Connecting the dots between research and practice. Routledge.
35.
MansfieldK. C. (2014). How listening to student voices can inform and strengthen social justice research and practice. Educational Administration Quarterly, 50(3), 392–430.
36.
MansfieldK. C.LambrinouM. (2022). “This is not who we are”: Students leading for anti-racist policy changes in Alexandria City Public Schools, Virginia. Educational Policy, 36(1), 19–56.
37.
MayesE. (2019). Reconceptualizing the presence of students on school governance councils: The a/effects of spatial positioning. Policy Futures in Education, 17(4), 503–519.
38.
MitraD. L. (2009). Student voice and student roles in education policy and policy reform. In PlankD. N.SykesG.SchneiderB. (Eds.), AERA handbook on education policy research (pp. 819–830). Routledge.
39.
NealJ. W.NealZ. P.BrutzmanB. (2022). Defining brokers, intermediaries, and boundary spanners: A systematic review. Evidence & Policy18(1), 7–24.
40.
OakesJ.WelnerK.YonezawaS.AllenR. L. (2005). Norms and politics of equity-minded change: Researching the “zone of mediation.” In M. Fullan (Ed.), Fundamental change (pp. 282–305). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-4454-2_15
41.
OplatkaI. (2018). Understanding emotion in educational and service organizations through semi-structured interviews: Some conceptual and practical insights. The Qualitative Report, 23(6), 1347–1363. https://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol23/iss6/6/
42.
ParhamS.McBroomA. (2015). Changing our selves, our schools, and our school system: Students take on the New York City Quality Review process. Teachers College Record, 117(13), 171–188.
43.
ParkV.DalyA. J.GuerraA. W. (2013). Strategic framing: How leaders craft the meaning of data use for equity and learning. Educational Policy, 27(4), 645–675.
44.
PawlowskiS. D.RobeyD. (2004). Bridging user organizations: Knowledge brokering and the work of information technology professionals. MIS Quarterly, 28(4), 645–672.
45.
PhippsD.MortonS. (2013). Qualities of knowledge brokers: Reflections from practice. Evidence & Policy, 9(2), 255–265.
46.
RubinB. C.JonesM. (2007). Student action research: Reaping the benefits for students and school leaders. NASSP Bulletin, 91(4), 363–378.
47.
RubinB. C.SilvaE. (2003). Conclusion: The dilemmas and possibilities of student-centered school reform research. In RubinB.SilvaE. (Eds.), Critical voices in school reform (pp. 203–214). Routledge.
48.
SaldañaJ. (2013). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications.
49.
SalisburyJ. D.ShethM. J.SpikesD.GraeberA. (2023). “We have to empower ourselves to make changes!”: Developing collective capacity for transformative change through an urban student voice experience. Urban Education, 58(2), 221–249.
50.
SchechterC.ShakedH.Ganon-ShilonS.GoldrattM. (2018). Leadership metaphors: School principals’ sense- making of a national reform. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 17(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/15700763.2016.1232836
51.
ScottW. R. (1997). Organizations: Rational, natural, and open systems (4th ed.). Taylor & Francis.
52.
ShethM. J.SalisburyJ. D. (2022). “School’sa Lie”: Toward critical race intersectional pedagogy for youth intellectual activism in policy partnerships. Educational Policy, 36(1), 100–141.
53.
SpearsB.KofoedJ. (2013). Transgressing research binaries: Youth as knowledge brokers in cyberbullying research. In P. Smith & G. Steffgen (Eds.) Cyberbullying through the new media (pp. 219–239). Psychology Press.
54.
StraussA.CorbinJ. (1998). Basics of qualitative research techniques. (2nd ed.). Sage Publication.
55.
TushmanM. L.ScanlanT. J. (1981). Boundary spanning individuals: Their role in information transfer and their antecedents. The Academy of Management Journal, 24(2), 289–305.
Vermont Act 77. (2013). An act relating to encouraging flexible pathways to secondary school completion § 941.
59.
WallinD. (2003). Student leadership and democratic schools: A case study. NASSP Bulletin, 87(636), 55–78.
60.
WardV. (2017). Why, whose, what and how? A framework for knowledge mobilisers. Evidence & Policy, 13(3), 477–497.
61.
WelnerK. G. (2001). Legal Rights, Local Wrongs: When Community Control Collides with Educational Equity. State University of New York Press.
62.
WeltonA. D.HarrisT. O. (2022). Youth of color social movements for racial justice: The politics of interrogating the school-to-prison pipeline. Educational Policy, 36(1), 57–99.
63.
WeltonA. D.MansfieldK. C.SalisburyJ. D. (2022). The politics of student voice: The power and potential of students as policy actors. Educational Policy, 36(1), 3–18.
64.
YonezawaS.JonesM. (2007). Using students’ voices to inform and evaluate secondary school reform. In ThiessenD.Cook-SatherA. (Eds.), International handbook of student experience in elementary and secondary school (pp. 681–709). Springer.
65.
YonezawaS.JonesM. (2009). Student voices: Generating reform from the inside out. Theory into Practice, 48(3), 205–212.
