“Kids Have Taught Me. I Listen to Them”: Principals Legitimizing Student Voice in Their Leadership

Abstract

Few studies have shared insights on how principals invite student voice to enact equitable leadership practice. The purpose of this study was to explore the ways in which principals demonstrated their commitment to equity via advocating for student voice using in-depth interview data from six school principals in the United States. We present three findings that contribute to the field of leadership and student voice: (a) motivation for student voice, (b) desires and concerns for student future, and (c) student voice for authentic learning. This study advances how school leaders develop student democratic agency and critical consciousness through pursuing and welcoming student voice.

Introduction

Researchers have long valued and advocated applying student voice in educational research (C. Robinson & Taylor, 2013). Student voice has been discussed to improve school policy reform and culture. Nevertheless, the validation of student voice in U.S. schools encounters resistance as a result of conflict with issues of power (Cook-Sather, 2007; Fine, 1987; Phillips, 2013; Rudduck & Fielding, 2006), as a result of the existence of Whiteness (Irizarry & Welton, 2014; Jervis, 1996), and the dominant view by educators to see students as subjects rather than actors in their education (Cook-Sather, 2010).

Although there exists a substantial body of student voice literature in educational leadership (e.g., Bertrand, 2014, 2018; Mansfield, Fowler, et al., 2018; Mansfield, Welton, et al., 2018; Welton et al., 2017), studies of student voice highlighting the principal as its advocate are sparse (E. Cheng et al., 2020; Cook-Sather, 2007; Mansfield, 2014). Student voice literature in educational leadership addresses such topics as students as coagents of educational change (Ab Kadir, 2019) and student voice in secondary school reform (Mansfield, Fowler, et al., 2018), and points out a lack of conceptual framework for understanding student voice (Graham et al., 2019). Few studies have shared insights on how principals invite student voices to enact social justice leadership practice, especially using evidence in the U.S. context. Therefore, using in-depth interview data from six principals in the United States, we explore how principals demonstrated their commitment to equity via advocating for student voice. To achieve this purpose, we sought to answer the following research question: How do principals advocate for student voice in their practice for equity?

We acknowledge that both student voice and youth voice are commonly used in discussions about students’ engagement in decision-making in education. It is important to note that scholars have critiqued the use of voice for “what it means to recognize, accept, and work with youth as leaders and not just voices” (Rodela, 2022, p. 35). However, critical to this study was that all participants used the word “voice” in their responses, with three explicitly using the phrase “student voice” to indicate their actions. Also, we align with Cook-Sather’s (2006) argument that student voice “calls for a cultural shift that opens up spaces and minds not only to the sound but also to the presence and power of students” (p. 363). Thus, we believe the principals in this study demonstrate that listening to students meant a recognition of their capacity to enact institutional change, and so we adopt student voice for this article to authentically represent the participants perspectives.

First, we present literature on student voice broadly and concerning school leadership. Next, we introduce Welton and colleagues’ (2017) four components of student voice as praxis—(a) context, (b) politics, (c) learning, and (d) changing—as our theoretical framework. Then, we present our themes identified from the data: (a) principals’ motivation for listening to student voice, (b) student voice connected to their future, and (c) student voice to create an authentic student learning environment. We close our study by discussing how our findings support and expand on the extant student voice literature. At the same time, implications suggest agendas for future research on student voice intersecting with school leadership.

Literature Review

Student Voice Research From Students’ Perspective

Research on student voice has grown in K–12 educational research since its emergence in the 1990s and 2000s (Cook-Sather, 2014, 2020). The growing body of literature has examined how student voice could impact areas of educational practices, instruction, relationship with teachers, and school reform (Cook-Sather, 2007; Irizarry & Welton, 2014; Mitra, 2006; Phillips, 2013) and the development of student democratic citizenship and agency (Cook-Sather, 2010; Lincoln, 1995; Otoya-Knapp, 2004). Student voice research has examined issues of power where adults often seek to maintain control of the schooling experience (Bertrand, 2014; Cook-Sather, 2014; Mayes, 2020; Rodela & Bertrand, 2021, 2022). Nevertheless, researchers who advocate for student voice initiatives have proposed that such school practices can positively lead to student empowerment (Cook-Sather, 2007, 2020; McGinnis & Mitra, 2022; Mitra & Serriere, 2015).

Many researchers have argued that the dilemma of power is deeply embedded in the relationship between adults and students in schools (Cook-Sather, 2014; Fine, 1987; Mayes, 2020). In her study of a school initiative that proposed to include student voice in school governance, Mayes (2020) found the school maintained the status quo while professing to give students opportunities to participate in citizenship education. Similarly, in their study of the potential for collective visioning between students of color and high school educators, Rodela and Bertrand (2021) found students face constant barriers to having adults in the school listen to their vision. Rodela and Bertrand (2021) argue that “professional educators were unprepared to incorporate youth and parents’ visions, despite each groups’ repeated advocacy” (p. 476). The significance is evident that even within well-intentioned educators, the tension of power often suppresses student voice advocacy. In a participatory action research project with Latina/o high school students, Irizarry and Welton (2014) found students can help unmask often overlooked structural practices in schools that marginalize students of color. Irizarry and Welton propose that “without the perspectives of the youth of color we can never really know anything about their schooling experiences or respond appropriately to meet their educational needs” (p. 251). They conclude voices from students of color can improve current schooling practices.

The literature on student empowerment mainly focuses on agency, identity, self-awareness, and social consciousness tied to school improvement (Gonzalez et al., 2017). To build student agency, schools must include students in purposeful opportunities to voice their perspectives on teaching and learning through engagement, recognition, and letting them know their contribution is valued (Cook-Sather, 2020). Otoya-Knapp’s (2004) research on ninth-grade urban school students that examined their experiences with race, class, gender, and power issues suggested that students expressed a desire for opportunities to engage in teaching and learning that could help them reimagine and confront barriers. As a result of her study, Otoya-Knapp concludes students “must have a place where they can deconstruct oppressive conditions, make sense of their experiences, and imagine humanizing possibilities” (p. 168). Meanwhile, Jervis (1996) argues that safe spaces for adults and students to discuss race issues seldom exist, “especially when Whites [educators]—who tend not to think of race all that often—determine the agendas, and teachers from other backgrounds become used to the absence of talk about race or are convinced they will not be heard” (p. 573). Research on student voice from students' perspectives reveals an emerging area of research in education that positions students as holders of knowledge and advocates of their learning rather than passive recipients of education.

Student Voice From a Leadership Perspective

Just as student voice research from students’ perspectives focused on the positive impact of implementing student perspectives, leadership literature similarly highlights the significant benefits of implementing such practices, including students of color contributing to transformative improvement of schools, using community cultural wealth (Salisbury, 2022), developing student agency and civic efficacy (Mitra & Serriere, 2015), implementing restorative practice in secondary schools (Lustick, 2021), and student research group informing school behavior policy (Sellman, 2009).

For instance, examining a high school’s discipline data in the United States, Mansfield, Fowler, et al. (2018) illustrate restorative practice as instrumental in increasing student voice. They conclude that student voice contributes to reducing discipline gaps across student groups in terms of race, gender, and students with disabilities. Other benefits of implementing student voice include its contribution to teacher learning (Hill, 2020; Smit, 2013), school policy (Green, 2018; Lac & Mansfield, 2018; Mansfield, Welton, et al., 2018), and inviting students as coresearchers to examine problems of practice (Bertrand, 2014, 2018; C. Robinson & Taylor, 2013; Smit, 2013; Welton et al., 2017). Using a case of a collaborative action research project conducted by a group of teachers and students in a Dutch context, Smit (2013) illustrates how teachers experience changes in the ways they interact with students and improve their teaching practice, while students also reported increased motivation and dedication towards schoolwork.

Scholarship from leadership highlights limitations and challenges in implementing student voice. Research suggests that the amount of power is not equally distributed between educators and students in implementing student voice, often ending up prioritizing adults' voice (Bertrand, 2014, 2018; A. Cheng, 2012; Graham et al., 2019; Lac & Mansfield, 2018; Rodela & Bertrand, 2021; Salisbury et al., 2023; Welton et al., 2017) or even ignoring student viewpoints, following adults’ assumptions that students’ views are not credible (Ab Kadir, 2019).

Still, others explore specific mechanisms by which the voices of “some” students are heard, whereas others’ voices are not. For example, using an in-depth case analysis of two students with disabilities in an England context, McKay (2014) suggests that the legitimacy of student voice and whether adults buy into their voice could be influenced either positively or negatively by contexts and relationships between adults and students. One special education student who experienced ongoing conflicts with school officials was consistently not invited to meetings with school leaders and service providers, although another student whose relationships with school was productive, was regularly invited to meetings with school leaders and service providers and thus to share his voice on interventions (McKay, 2014). Robinson and Taylor’s (2013) study illustrates a school’s dominant culture or principal’s ideology is associated with silencing student voice. Their study examined the extent to which a school’s Student as Researcher (SaR) projects provided genuine venues for student voice to contribute observable school improvement. This study suggested that when the research topics students proposed did not align with the school’s dominant culture or the principal’s ideologies, student voice was silenced either in an active or subtle way (Robinson, & Taylor, 2013).

In terms of the notable gap in student voice literature, questions of how principals’ leadership practices focus on equity interplay with student voice remain largely unaddressed (Lyons & Brasof, 2020). Additionally, less is known about the specific leadership behaviors and philosophies that support student voice. Despite the explicit advocacy for youth leadership by the Professional Standards for Educational Leaders (PSEL), how much schools and districts proactively support student voice and activism is underresearched (Lac & Mansfield, 2018). Related, whether and to what extent leadership preparation programs focus on promoting student voice and youth leadership is an additional area that requires further research.

Theoretical Framework

We use Welton et al.’s (2017) student voice framework that illustrates the ways in which within-school politics of power interacts with realizing the full potential of student voice praxis. Freire (1974/2005) argues praxis develops from critical understanding that leads to critical action. Welton and colleagues (2017) identify four components of their student voice as a praxis framework: (a) context, (b) politics, (c) learning, and (d) changing. Context suggests that schools’ daily routines are not context-neutral but are impacted by school-wide context as well as broader societal structures and ideologies. Politics recognizes that student voice is situated in prevalent power dynamics that privilege certain voices aligned with the dominant institutional structures. The components of learning and changing highlight the need for both adults and students to learn from each other and change the established norms and status quo. Research has pointed to student voice capacity for praxis to inform school reform and leadership practice (Davis et al., 2023; Irizarry & Welton, 2014; Mansfield, 2014).

Welton et al.’s (2017, 2022) student voice framework recognizes the importance of examining the context or sociopolitical environments that schools exist in and the politics of power dynamics between student-educator relationships for effectively enacting student voice within the school. Moreover, the framework discusses the political distinction between power to, a positive form of power, versus power over, the unequal control of student voice. Unfortunately, adults are subject to preserving the status quo that usurps students’ influence, which some refer to as “adultism” (Bell, 2010; Bertrand et al., 2020; Rodela & Bertrand, 2021). According to Bell (2010), adultism denotes “behaviors and attitudes based on the assumption that adults are better than young people, and entitled to act upon young people without their agreement” (p. 540). Relatedly, Bertrand et al. (2020) argue that adultism is demonstrated in a multifaceted way through interactions, institutional practices and policies, and the curriculum; however, educators can contest adultism by acknowledging and having an openness to yielding their power. Thus, adults need to learn from students as learners and be open to using student voices to change school policies and norms. This framework facilitated our data analysis and mapped the findings to our three themes of motivation for student voice, participant's value of student voice based on their desires and concern for their students’ future, and student voice for authentic student learning.

Methods

We conducted a secondary analysis (Heaton, 2008) of a qualitative study relying on interviews with six principals to investigate their commitment to student voice while focusing on equity. The primary research included eight participants who were identified and selected through purposeful sampling (Patton, 2015). Participants were identified and recommended by community members, an assistant superintendent, several faculty members from a university’s principal preparation program, the first author’s recognition from a previous study (Flores, 2018), and snowball sampling with selected participants who were recognized as demonstrating implementing equitable practices in their schools.

The original research study was to investigate how principals working towards equity in their schools understand their commitment towards equity and how they promote equity in their schools. The original study had eight participants, but this article will discuss only the six principals identified as having student voice as part of their equity leadership. Of note for the use of secondary analysis was how often participants would include characteristics like hearing, listening, and talking with their students, when asked questions like, What approaches do you take towards equity in your school? What would it take to reach equity? What does equity mean to you? Or what is their philosophy of education? Our recognition of principals indicating these characteristics prompted us to engage the secondary analysis of the original dataset to explore how these school leaders showed their commitment to equity via advocating for student voice.

All these principals indicated (a) evidence of the creation of student leadership councils; (b) documented student advocacy, such as student-led peace march; and (c) evidence that their leadership practice included direct discussion of having conversations seeking out student voices.

Participants

The six participants worked in two districts in a metropolitan region in a U.S. northeastern state. The participating principals include two Black men and three Black females in five different schools in the same urban school district, while one participant was a White man working in a suburban school district a few miles from the urban center. Table 1 presents detailed information on the six participants' demographic and school backgrounds. Pseudonyms are applied for all names and locations to protect the identity of the participants.

Table 1

Participant Background and School Information

Participants	Age	Race	Gender	Years in Education	Years in Leadership	School Level	School Location	# of Students	% of Students of Color	% of Low-SES Students
Grant	48	Black	Female	26	10	PreK–5	Urban	270	90	70
Chambers	33	white	Male	12	2	K–5	Suburban	340	20	40
Green	40	Black	Male	15	7	6–12	Urban	530	95	90
Thompson	43	Black	Female	22	17	K–5	Urban	280	95	65
O’Neal	37	Black	Male	14	3	PreK–5	Urban	900	95	70
Stanfield	38	Black	Female	16	9	K–5	Urban	300	80	60

Note. Pseudonyms are used to protect the identity of participants. Also, the number of students, percentage of students of color, and students on free and reduced lunch have been rounded to protect participants’ identities. Here, we use the percentage of students on free and reduced lunch to indicate low-SES. SES = socioeconomic status.

Dr. Grant identifies as a Black woman in her late 40s with a career in education that spans 26 years. Her first teaching job was as a science teacher in a primarily White Christian school that she did not like and left after 1 year. Dr. Grant then worked as a middle school and high school science teacher, assistant principal, principal, and central office administrator, all in the same urban school district. She was in her 3rd year at an elementary school.

Mr. Chambers identifies as a White European-American male. He is in his early 30s and has been an educator for 12 years. His first teaching job was in an urban district where he taught for 3 years; but for the last 9 years, he has worked as an English language classroom teacher, English as a second language supervisor, assistant principal, and principal in suburban school districts. He was completing his 2nd year as a principal.

Mr. Green identifies as a 40-year-old African American male. His career in education spans 15 years. He worked as a secondary math teacher in an urban school district for 8 years before transitioning to assistant principal at a suburban high school. He was in his 2nd year as a high school principal.

Dr. Thompson identifies as an African American woman in her early 40s. Over her 20-year career in education, Dr. Thompson has been an elementary teacher and served as assistant principal in an urban school district's elementary and secondary settings. She was in her 6th year as an elementary principal.

Dr. O’Neal identifies as an African American male in his late 30s. With 14 years in education, Dr. O’Neal worked for over a decade as an elementary teacher before becoming an assistant principal for 1 year and then quickly transitioning to his current role of elementary principal for the last 3 years. A unique experience for him was he took over the principalship in the urban elementary where he was a teacher.

Mrs. Stanfield identifies as a Black woman in her late 30s. Her 16 years in education began as an elementary substitute teacher, where at the end of the academic year, the principal offered her a permanent position. She served as an elementary teacher and reading coach and was in her 9th year as principal of her urban elementary school.

Data Collection

Data collection involved three semistructured interviews with each principal. The interviews explored the participants’ experiences from their experience as K–12 students to their current role as school principals. The first interview consisted of questions addressing the school leaders’ experience as students, their ethical perspectives on education, the path to their leadership role, and their definition and interpretation of equity. The second interview examined the participants’ commitment to equity by posing probing questions about their experience in areas of equity, leadership approaches toward supporting social justice, successes and challenges in their work, and the role of relationships in meeting student needs. The third interview prioritized how their various identities (i.e., gender, race, and parenting) influenced their leadership goals, decisions, and practices. The total interview data collected ranged between 3 to 5 hours for each interviewee. The interviews were tape-recorded and transcribed verbatim for analysis.

Data Analysis

We situate our secondary data analysis principles by investigating a new research topic and inviting the second author, who was not involved in the previous research study, to collaborate in the analysis and writing of the current study (Heaton, 2008). We took an interpretive coding approach to give meaning to the data (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). We began by taking part in several meetings to acquaint the second author with the data and establish the focus for analyzing the data on student voice. After that, both authors engaged in a multiphase coding process using Dedoose software, memo-writing, grouping and classifying themes, and recoding to identify the article’s three themes (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016; Saldaña, 2013). We worked independently during the first phase of the analysis process, after which we met to review and establish an intercoder agreement (Saldaña, 2013) of our open codes. Some examples of open codes informed by the theoretical framework include the context (e.g., underserved community), politics (e.g., former President Trump's policies and recognition of race issues), and learning and changing (e.g., student engagement and voice is a privilege). At the same time, we established a codebook to return to the data. In our second phase of data analysis, we established a coding agreement of our common focused codes of sentences, paragraphs, and stories coded with themes relevant to student voice.

In the second phase, we revised the codebook to list only agreed-upon codes with unique numeric identifiers associated with each code. We confirmed codes only one author coded in our final analysis step. The confirmation of codes resulted in the creation of 24 codes (e.g., student voice for equity, student voice for democracy, and student leadership opportunity). We grouped these codes within the three findings for this article. We introduce our three findings following Welton et al.’s (2017) framework where Theme 1 aligns with context, Theme 2 covers politics, and Theme 3 displays learning and changing findings. Overall, our interpretations were supported and challenged, and this article presents findings from our agreed-upon interpretative analysis results.

Researcher Positionality

We came into this study with distinct personal and professional backgrounds. Yet, our shared experience as K–12 educators and our desirability to improve the lives of our students permitted us to make sense of the importance related to motivation and support for student voice. Relevant to our topic, the first author’s career path in education was strongly influenced by the silence around race in his K–12 education. As a Latino male who graduated from urban public schools, I was not prepared for my transition to college with predominately White students. Such experience motivated me to become a teacher, and for 4 years, I worked as a high school history teacher in the same urban school district I graduated from. As an educator, I desired to engage my students in order to raise their critical consciousness, as I saw them as a reflection of my younger self. As an immigrant and former high school English teacher and teacher leader in an Asian country, the second author brings firsthand professional experience promoting student voice into the current research project. While creating and facilitating youth participatory action research groups, where students addressed critical topics such as student-adult power dynamics in school and presenting their research to the school community, the second author observed the influence of student voice on transforming the school into an authentic learning place as well as an unequal power dynamic that often prioritized adults’ voice, which directly informed data analysis in the current study.

Findings

Our data analysis resulted in three themes. First, our findings indicated that the principals’ motivation for seeking and listening to student voices emerges from their past and present lived experiences. Next, the participants’ value of student voice is based on their desires and concern for students to develop a critical consciousness as democratic citizens. Then, we present insights into the participants’ use of student voice to create an authentic learning environment in their schools.

Motivation for Student Voice

The underpinning of the school leaders’ foundation for their decision to be open to and support students voice in their schools was influenced by two key factors: (a) the principals’ experiences advocating for themselves in their experiences as K–12 students or administrators and (2) principals’ recognition of student voice as a critical component to their equity purpose. The two factors came together to influence participating principals’ current beliefs to appreciate and invest efforts to infuse their leadership practice with student voice. Pertinent to such efforts was the context (Welton et al., 2017) that participants were consciously aware of how their racial identity situated them in relation to larger societal race issues. For the White principal, it was his acknowledgement of his White privilege and having to challenge himself; for the Black principals, it was their recognition and response to challenging deficit thinking based on their race.

Also, it was evident that the participants’ past and present experiences as students and administrators with raising their voices became a clear antecedent of their actions to commit to student voice. Building off of such prior experiences, the school leaders valued embedding student voices in current engagement in equity work. All the participants openly shared stories from their past as former students who had to advocate for their education needs and presently as school administrators having to stand up to procure the resources their schools needed. These experiences became integral to influencing their mindfulness about advocating student voice. It is important to highlight that the Black participants’ support of the power of speech for their students is influenced by their own racialized experiences with schooling and society and having to advocate for themselves. Dr. O’Neal, a Black male, shared several instances from his high school and college experiences relevant to his support for student voice. Reflecting on his high school days, he vividly recalled an example of being denied participation in Advanced Placement classes. Dr. O’Neal stated,

So, even though my teachers didn’t push me, I had to basically advocate for myself to get into that class. . . . So, I had to, like, fight for making sure I got into those classes. And I ended up getting into those classes ’cause I had a meeting with the principal on my own, like, “Yo, I need to get into these classes.”

In the above reflection, Dr. O’Neal highlights two critical points that connect to and highlight his support for student voice: He demonstrates (a) his action to vocalize his educational need, and (b) his engagement with the high school principal. Such critical reflection of self-advocacy as students by participants stands out when they discuss their leadership practice of being open to student voice.

Dr. Thompson, a Black woman elementary principal, also revealed the intersection between her previous experiences based on her racial identity and the promotion of student voice in her leadership practice. By reflecting on her own experiences, Dr. Thompson detailed how her college experiences using an asset-based lens translates into her advocacy for student voice. A lasting memory of college was when she campaigned to create a pep squad to raise the voices of students of color at her college. Her work resulted in creating the first Black pep squad at the college, and she believes “it was a way for our voices to be heard in a positive way, for us to represent our school in a positive way.” In speaking of a current practice of having students perform unity celebration in the auditorium, Dr. Thompson stated, “Students who may not be academically excelling have an opportunity to show up as artists. Whether it be presenting through African drumming, dancing, or spoken poetry—we find multiple ways to showcase student excellence.” Dr. Thompson’s leadership practice for students to showcase their excellence is something she has desired based on her own experiences.

Participants strongly expressed a connection between student voice being salient to a commitment to equity. Relevant to this theme, participants demonstrated examples of their acknowledgement that their school sites are not context-neutral in two ways: (a) challenging their White privilege and (b) championing for limited available resources (Welton et al., 2017). For example, Mr. Chambers, the only White principal among participants, shared, “We can’t just enact what's in our heads as school leaders . . . bring the parents in. Give them a voice. Let the students have a voice.” Mr. Chambers believed that hearing from parents and students was one possible venue to reach equity. Furthermore, in discussing what he thinks it takes to create a culturally responsive culture in his suburban school, context is “an understanding that we have room for growth and that our learning isn’t just going to come from me, a White male, it’s going to come from adopting the perspectives of the community and listening.” Here, we see how listening (Welton et al., 2017) is salient to Mr. Chambers, especially as he connects his leadership work to building a culturally responsive climate (Khalifa et al., 2016).

In addition to their past experiences as motivators to promote student voice, all the participants shared multiple stories of having to stand up and advocate for the needs of their schools as current administrators. Thus, the principals’ past and present experiences provided the impetus for the current leadership practice of supporting student voice. The circumstances that led to the principals having to use their voice were in response to increasing budget constraints, pushing back against central administration initiatives they disagreed with, or pushing for the ability to conduct their initiatives to central office leadership. When asked what advice she would offer other principals who desire to work towards equity, Dr. Grant, a Black woman, in a deep and cogent response, said the following:

If you desire to work towards equity, you are going to have to fight for your own kids . . . you can’t fight for equity and be status quo and just go along with what they [central office] are asking you to do. . . . And I guarantee you most districts aren’t going to give you what you need. They are not standing up, saying, “Sure, we are going to give all the money to your school because your kids need it.” No! You got to go find or fight for it or whatever it takes to get what you need to support your school. ’Cause nobody is helping you. They're not. They're not going to.

Above, Dr. Grant demonstrates her disposition that school leaders who commit themselves to an equity purpose must commit to standing up and fighting to make sure they get the resources their students need. Related to context (Welton et al., 2017), participants understood that schools are a microcosm of societal inequities, which influenced their commitment to fighting for resources as administrators connect to their current leadership practice to advocate for student voice.

Desires and Concerns for Student Futures

For the participants in this study, seeking out and valuing students’ voices meant developing students to be democratic citizens and shaping their critical consciousness to stand up, fight, and survive. This finding links to the political desire of the participants that align with students having the power to have a voice (Welton et al., 2017) at the micropolitical level of the school site. More importantly, the end goal for the participants was the culmination aspiration to have students gain institutional power beyond the school site and reach the larger society as active, democratic citizens in the United States. Yet distinctively critical was that, for the Black principals, the micropolitical was directly racialized. They understood that their Black and Brown students needed to develop critical consciousness to advocate and fight against institutional racial inequities. For example, the six school leaders all championed student voice but for distinctly different reasons. Although all participants connected student voice to help students develop life skills that they saw would be vital for them to possess as adults, there was a distinction between our White male participant and Black participants’ purpose for developing such skills. Student voice operated as a vehicle by which our White principal desired to cultivate students as democratic citizens, whereas for Black principals, it meant a matter of students’ survival in our racialized society.

Mr. Chambers, the only White participant among the participants, wanted his students to learn what it means to be active participants in the United States’ democratic society. Mr. Chambers readily shared the significance of the recent creation of a student leadership academy (SLA) during his 2nd year as an administrator. One crucial institutional change resulting from the SLA was the development of a recycling program. Mr. Chambers shared, “A fourth-grade girl really had the idea [recycling program], she ran with it, she created all the signage, she drummed up the support, wrote a letter, I backed her, and we got it.” Mr. Chambers then went on to share his standpoint on student voice and what it meant for the future of his students, saying,

[Students] realize how to move systems, whether it’s when they get into the job force, in the real world, whether they have something societally or politically that they disagree with, [and] there is something you could do to change [it]. We let them know that they have a voice. And I think that empowerment is important.

Above, Mr. Chambers connects his reasoning for learning from students as an opportunity to allow his students to develop skills and dispositions that will help them become active rather than passive participants in a democratic society.

Meanwhile, the Black school leaders were more concerned with helping students seek their interests, ideas, and the right to survive and thrive. Black principals’ building opportunities for their students of color to engage in advocacy was an approach to help students understand the racialized reality that they would need to stand up and fight for their needs in the future. Dr. Thompson feels compelled in her students “to attain any life goals, to contribute to society in any way that they feel called to contribute or lead.” During the third round of the interview, she also openly shared a three-stanza poem she had written, titled “Excellence for All,” as a self-reflection of her many years teaching in urban schools. Notably, Dr. Thompson wrote the poem from the perspective of her students. In the third stanza, she wrote,

I need you to be honest when you say that

You’re glad that I made it to school today

My night was long, and boy do I need

someone in my life who insists that I succeed.

Train me up, cause I really can achieve

But that will only happen if you first believe

That I can, I will, I must, to survive

Unwrap this gift before you, and watch me come alive!

Above, we capture the intrinsic nature of Dr. Thompson's poem through the language of her Black and Brown students’ eyes. Moreover, the word “survive” indicates her frame of mind that educating Black and Brown students is strongly connected to their survival, alongside the position of survival rest aspiration and feel-good hopefulness for students.

When asked what he desired for his students, Mr. Green stated, “I desire for them to truly understand that there is nothing that they can’t do. I desire for them to just dream. To be able to really dream and understand that whatever their dreams is, they can achieve it.” Meanwhile, Dr. O’Neal feels what “sits at the core” of his leadership purpose is thinking about the future of his students and “that they can get out here and make a living, you know a good living.”

Also, learning from students via student voices coalesces with teaching students well for the racial realities they will face. During a point in the interview, Dr. Grant was asked about the significance of school leaders working towards equity for Black and Brown students. She paused and responded,

Don’t feel sorry for ’em, because they have a lot to offer us if you wanna learn from ’em. You can't feel sorry for ’em—you’d better help prepare them for the cold reality that lies ahead. You’re not a help. You’re just as much a part of the system as everything else.

Participants believed that Black and Brown students needed to be prepared to respond to racialized experiences they will encounter in the future. Dr. Grant continued, “It’s scary because I have to be real with them [students]—there are structures in the world that are gonna hold them, so I have to give them the reality of what life is”; and such beliefs resulted from her understanding that “it just goes back to our racial foundation as a country . . . and how our minorities are looked at—So, for me, it does get down to race.” Such statements reveal how Dr. Grant’s overcoming and transforming systems relies on students’ capacity to use their voices to affect change.

The five Black school leaders saw embedding student voice in their leadership practices to develop the critical consciousness (Freire, 1974/2005) of students of color to combat the negative racialized realities they would encounter in society. Mrs. Stanfield shared why she engaged her student in conversations:

I desire for them to really become critical thinkers and to question the status quo and to persist and to take on challenges and know . . . if they stumble, if they struggle—keep fighting . . . I just want them to value learning. And learning isn’t just reading and math. You know, learning is what’s happening in this world. You know, how is your family impacted? So, developing like that critical consciousness. Are things right and fair and just—for all? And like, where is your place in that? What are you going to do?

As this response by Mrs. Stanfield illustrates, she seeks to engage students in her school with conversations that help build critical consciousness and question systems if they do not see themselves in them.

Student Voice for Authentic Learning

The third theme shows how the concepts of learning and changing (Welton et al., 2017) inform leadership approaches that the principals take to use student voice to establish an authentic student and adult learning environment in their schools. The theme is best interpreted via these two concepts as learning refers to educator’s willingness to learn from student voice, and changing concerns educator’s actual response to change dominant institutional norms and practices (Welton et al., 2017). More specifically, participating principals used student voice to shape school policies, empower students, develop principals’ and teachers’ disposition for socially just practices, and implement culturally responsive pedagogy. First, the principals invited student voices to establish school-level policies, such as building-level goals and behavior-management policies. Mr. Green, a Black male high school principal, shared how he proactively invited student voices to be instrumental in crafting school policy. He states,

It would be about checking with the different voices–students, staff, community. But then, coming up with the plan and then going back through those same, different populations, and “Here is what I thought [about school policies], what do you think?” And then once you have a plan that you have buy-in with, then you take it to the powers, and you demand it, and this is what I need to be successful.

Similarly, Dr. Grant added a powerful illustration of using student voice to empower students for leadership roles by having her students coconstruct and lead a peace march to improve the conditions in their community (Theoharis, 2010). She shared how a third-grade student approached her to talk about the violence within the local community. This conversation led Dr. Grant’s students to lead a peace march throughout the neighborhood. Students first interviewed community residents about how they desired to improve the community, visiting and taking pictures of their favorite neighborhood sites they wanted to change. She said,

We culminated the whole experience with a peace rally. The kids invited the mayor, the superintendent . . . the state representative. They gave speeches, and then we did a one-mile march around the community, telling them, “Stop the violence!”

According to Dr. Grant, her students were “so engaged in learning that they [were] co-planning lessons with teachers and really digging in and thinking about themselves as learners and what helps them learn better.” Discouraged by continued violence in the local community, another third-grade student approached her and said, “We need to do it again. We need to do it with more people.” Students took the lead in making the second peace march happen, inviting four other schools into the event and garnering increased support from community residents to stop the violence. She added,

My kids feel like, “We did something. We matter. They are paying attention to us.” I am like, “That's right! Cause your important; your voice is being heard.” And that’s what I like to elevate with my kids.

Although these peace march examples illustrate student voice being instrumental in impacting the local community, it further speaks to its possibility to reframe the school as an authentic learning place by helping students realize that their voice is being heard and makes a difference in policy creation and even curriculum (e.g., peace march). Thus, we argue that student voice presents a unique opportunity to reshape the school into a place that goes beyond the traditional school, where teachers are mostly framed as the “sages on the stage” (King, 1993, p. 30) who disseminate the knowledge versus students passively learn from them.

Along with these prevalent themes, principals repeatedly illustrated how inviting student voices into their leadership and teaching practice contributed to the principal’s and teacher’s growth as socially just educators. For example, Dr. Grant’s following remark illustrates how inviting student perspectives into her leadership practice contributes to her development as a school leader:

I have learned how to be a good educator from the kids. Kids have taught me. I listen to them. They tell me what I need to do better. They show me different ways of doing things that I may not have thought of before.

This remark from Dr. Grant suggests that student voice may contribute to expanding leadership perspectives concerning equity and addressing the unique learning needs of students, especially those of color.

As another illustration that student voice is critical to educator development, Mrs. Stanfield shared how she and her teachers implemented culturally responsive pedagogies by inviting students to express their learning needs. Mrs. Stanfield presented the example of a female teacher who regularly implements culturally responsive teaching practices:

She’s an English as a second language teacher, so she’s always thinking about the language, but she’s also thinking about race, too. We have our Latino kids, our Hispanic students, and you know, African children; they like to be close and collective. So, she’s like, I’m always planning for them to work with a partner or work just because it helps them to feel more comfortable, right? She’s always thinking about who those children we talk about enriching the curriculum and then having them to share experiences from home or experiences from Guatemala, Congo, and Tanzania that they had that would inform what they’re learning today. Like she’s always looking at like what they’re bringing to the learning space.

She further shared how other teachers incorporate student voice into their planning culturally responsive activities: “They’re planning to bring in, you know, incorporate what they know about the children in their planning, or having the children to share what do we need? What do I need from you to make your learning experience better?” Reflecting upon the overarching themes emergent from the principals, we argue that empowered student voice may play a crucial role in reshaping the school into an authentic and more socially just learning environment, illustrated by its capacity to impact school policy; empower students; and build school-community relations, culturally responsive teaching practices, and educator growth as a social justice leader.

Discussion

The study aims to advance research on student voice in relation to the principal’s leadership. Previous research acknowledges the principal’s importance in legitimizing and sustaining a school culture that bolsters student voice (Cook-Sather, 2007; Rudduck & Fielding, 2006) but underexplored the perspectives of school leaders on student voice (Mansfield, Welton, et al., 2018). The increasing literature on student voice has engendered critical discussions around issues of power, school policy, and developing student citizenship existing in educational institutions (e.g., Chappell, 2022; Domínguez et al., 2022; Mitra & Serriere, 2015). Using Welton et al.’s (2017) student voice framework as a praxis helped us situate the findings within an understanding of school leadership that welcomes student voice. Their framework and our findings also remind us that implementing student voice requires educators’ enhanced awareness of context, politics, and learning and changing. Too often, school leaders fall short in being able to decenter their power and privilege in order to authentically listen to students (Bertrand, 2018; Rodela & Bertrand, 2021, 2022; Salisbury et al., 2020, 2023). Our results, however, demonstrate how six principals, who are open to student voice, demonstrate a reimagined power dynamic that identifies and validates student voices for educational equity. In addition, strongly influenced by their racial identities, we capture a critical nuance of the significance of developing student voice as part of affecting the future outcomes of students (Bertrand, 2014). All participants understood the connection of student voice as building students’ future capacity to become involved in democratic citizenship as adults; but for our Black leaders, fostering student voice was meant to encourage students’ skills to survive as adults in a racialized society (e.g., getting a good job, standing up against injustice, and improving the community).

Another important aspect was their actions as school leaders who actively advocated for resources their schools needed. Based on their own experience and practice of voicing concerns, participants (un)consciously linked student voice within their equity efforts. Through their experiences and actions, the participating principals revealed perspectives to support and justify why they valued student voice as part of their equitable leadership (Mansfield, 2014).

Our findings resonate with prior research that highlights how seeking out and listening to student voice can help shift schools to more productive learning environments through examining educational policies (Irizarry & Welton, 2014; Lac & Mansfield, 2018), teaching and learning (Cook-Sather, 2020; Phillips, 2013), and student empowerment and leadership (Gonzalez et al., 2017; Green, 2018). In examining how school leaders operationalized student voice, the study revealed procedures and policies they used to transform their schools’ learning environments. In taking facilitator roles, the participants demonstrated their willingness for what Welton et al. (2017) refers to as learning and changing. The school leaders welcomed student voices to shape the school’s direction. For example, Mr. Chambers demonstrated his support for the creation of a student leadership team that led to creating new school practices (e.g., a school-wide recycling program) while at the same time acknowledging that it can also support the development of citizenship behavior (Lizzio et al., 2011).

This research expands the discussion of student voice related to race issues and the deconstruction of oppressive conditions (Jervis, 1996; Lyons & Brasof, 2020; Otoya-Knapp, 2004). By not shying away from the realities of racial micropolitics, the five Black leaders demonstrated a recognition of the need to learn from students and change the established norms of silence on race prevalent in schools through a responsibility to develop the critical consciousness of Black and Brown students (Bañales et al., 2021; Diemer et al., 2016; Fine, 1987; Jervis, 1996; Welton et al., 2017). Freire (1974/2005) argued the act of action toward resistance comes from a critical consciousness of realities. The five Black participants saw their engagement with and advocacy for student voice as the vehicle for students to engage in conversations of race and racism to better act against injustices.

Dr. Grant’s open-mindedness demonstrated compelling evidence to listen to the concern of a third-grade Black girl student about the violence taking place in their community. In seeing the merit of such a critical issue, Dr. Grant restructured the school so students could work on posters, write speeches, and organize a peace march in their local community. Participating principals’ support of social action connects to previous research on school leaders disrupting the disconnect between marginalized communities and schools through incorporating social responsibility into the curriculum (Theoharis, 2010). We also hear Mrs. Stanfield purposely develops a school culture that inspires her students of color to question when they do not see people who look like them in the curriculum lessons. Moreover, it is critical to note that Mr. Green took the role of a facilitator, not a driver, of student voice for school improvement. Instead of exclusively prioritizing adult voices and imposing their position of authority, he facilitated and welcomed student voices to help shape the directions of policy decision-making. Such an approach suggests that empowering students is not automatic but takes a concerted effort from school leaders to help facilitate. As indicated by research on race-conscious school leadership (Flores, 2018; Flores & Gunzenhauser, 2019, 2021; Khalifa et al., 2016), participants recognize the significance of race in students’ lives, which elevates their listening to student voice to create a more just school.

Lastly, the principals sought to include student voice as part of their equity leadership because they acknowledged it provided a critical role in improving their students’ futures. Notably, the findings reveal a distinction between our White male and Black participants’ purpose for developing student voice for future outcomes. For example, all participants desired to help students develop an awareness and capacity to be active participants in democratic citizenship (Cook-Sather, 2010; Lincoln, 1995). However, for the Black participants, there was a profound aspiration to cultivate in Black and Brown students a critical consciousness to stand up, fight, and survive against racial oppression. Related literature identifies how Black school leaders have cared deeply about building the future of the Black race (Lomotey, 1993; Walker & Byas, 2003). Khalifa and colleagues (2013) argue school leadership practices are measured more by test scores than “what impact they [schools] have in their local communities, [and] how well students do after they actually leave the school” (p. 498). The Black leaders coveted students to develop their self-worth in response to the historical, societal, and racialized realities. Freire (1974/2005) argues that the development of critical action requires “an active, dialogical education program concerned with social and political responsibility” (p. 19). The finding from this study underscores the continued struggle for the liberation of students of color by Black principals who focus on both the achievement and future outcomes of students of color.

Implications

Our findings offer significant implications for educational policy, practice, and research on student voice, especially in educational leadership.

Implications for Educational Policy and Leadership Practice

Our interviews with the six principals illustrate how they leveraged student perspectives in crafting and implementing school-level policy and culturally responsive teaching. Thus, we argue that principals should proactively promote organizational routines and school culture to empower student voice to reconstruct the institutional norms of power. Larson (1997) points out how school leaders often position themselves in bureaucratic rationale and action to hide their uneasiness and fear from addressing issues of race. Theoharis (2010) adds, “Instilling the sense of responsibility to create emancipatory education and teaching the skills to take social action are neither a part of traditional administrator preparation nor central to the literature on leadership for social justice” (p. 362). Based on findings from this study, we believe the principal’s effort and commitment to student voice would help leverage student voice to transform the school into an authentic learning place where educators and students engage in real-world issues, such as institutionalized racial inequity.

This study provides further insights into respecting and listening to student voices, serving a greater purpose than academic learning. Phillips (2013) argues, “We continually ignore the voices of those [students] who are most familiar with being in school and experiencing learning” (p. 694). Our study provides evidence of what happens when school leaders recognize and validate student voice to (re)create the school culture and power dynamics. Our findings provide a keen understanding of how the six participants’ perspectives of listening to students are shaped by their firm belief of working power to beyond the micropolitical arena of classroom to institutional spaces by supporting students to develop self-advocacy through student voice to achieve self-transformation and community revolutionizing. In the present contested sociopolitical context, school leaders should pursue leadership practices that help develop student critical consciousness (Davis et al., 2023; Flores & Gunzenhauser, 2021; Mansfield, 2014) for the vision of critical hope (Duncan-Andrade, 2009).

Regarding implications for policy, in 1989, the United Nations ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. This global convention announces that children have “the freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of the child’s choice” (United Nations, 1989, p. 00). The United States is one of the few countries that have not formally acknowledged the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (Lyons & Brasof, 2020). More concerning in K–12 leadership preparation is the inattention to student voice in professional standards such as the National Educational Leadership Preparation (NELP) and the Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP) standards. Therefore, we argue that policy implementation at the state, regional, and individual school levels should be reenvisioned to include student voice. Principal preparation programs should also proactively promote the capacity of aspiring school leaders to value student perspectives as part of their equity framework.

Implications for Research on Student Voice

In terms of implications for research in educational leadership, the participants illustrate the need for research to dive deeper into the nuances of the principal leadership advocating student voice to reconstruct the institutional norms of power (Welton et al., 2017). Results indicate that participants’ critical motivation for implementing student voice arises from their understanding that school contexts are not politically neutral sites based on their past experiences as students where they performed expression of their beliefs and perspectives. For example, as a high school student, Dr. O’Neal had to request to be in Advanced Placement classes as educators held deficit thinking toward him. This finding is significant as leveraging student perspectives has often been overlooked or silenced within schools (Cook-Sather, 2014; Fine, 1987; Mayes, 2020; Rodela & Bertrand, 2021; Salisbury et al., 2023). Therefore, we encourage future research to more closely examine how and in what specific ways leaders invite students to have the power to have a voice (Welton et al., 2017), while addressing school climate, where adult voice is often prioritized (Bertrand et al., 2020; Rodela & Bertrand, 2021).

Leadership for learning has emerged as a comprehensive leadership framework that subsumes the core traits of transformational, instructional, and distributed leadership (Ahn et al., 2021; Hallinger, 2011). Although this new leadership conceptualization provides a comprehensive lens that transcends previous approaches to separate “styles” of leadership (e.g., instructional leadership), it lacks a clear focus on the principal’s role as a social justice advocate who actively promotes student perspectives (Garza, 2020; Khalifa et al., 2013; Theoharis, 2010). Further, literature on how and what to measure both practicing and aspiring principals’ capacity to enact socially just leadership practices is limited (Trujillo & Cooper, 2014). Therefore, further research is warranted to develop a comprehensive leadership theory, incorporating socially just leadership practices that include student voice as its core dimension.

Finally, the past 40 years of research in educational leadership have suggested that leadership’s impact on student outcomes is primarily indirect, focusing mainly on student cognitive learning outcomes, such as test scores (V. Robinson et al., 2008). However, our findings suggest that principals often have direct, impactful relationships with students: conversing with them, learning from them, and influencing their learning. Therefore, more research is needed on the potential impact of principal practices on student learning, especially authentic, real-life learning, such as developing personal character, critical self-awareness, and resilience.