Student Voice in Educational Research and Reform

Sound, Presence, and Power: "Student Voice" in Educational Research and Reform
Author(s): Alison Cook-Sather

Source: Curriculum Inquiry , Winter, 2006, Vol. 36, No. 4 (Winter, 2006), pp. 359-390
Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd.
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/4124743
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
Taylor & Francis, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Curriculum Inquiry
This content downloaded from

130.217.226.148 on Thu, 28 Mar 2024 19:23:27 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Articles
Sound, Presence, and Power: "Student

Voice" in Educational Research
and Reform
ALISON COOK-SATHER
Bryn Mawr College

Bryn Mawr, PA, USA
ABSTRACT
Every way of thinking is both premised on and generative of a way of naming th

reflects particular underlying convictions. Over the last 15 years, a way of think
has reemerged that strives to reposition students in educational research an
reform. Best documented in Australia, Canada, England, and the United States,
way of thinking is premised on the following convictions: that young people h
unique perspectives on learning, teaching, and schooling; that their insights
warrant not only the attention but also the responses of adults; and that they sh
be afforded opportunities to actively shape their education. Although these con
tions mean different things to different people and take different forms in pract
a single term has emerged to capture a range of activities that strive to reposi
students in educational research and reform: "student voice." In this discussion the
author explores the emergence of the term "student voice," identifies underlying
premises signaled by two particular words associated with the term, "rights" and
"respect," and explores the many meanings of a word that surfaces repeatedly across
discussions of student voice efforts but refers to a wide range of practices: "listen-
ing." The author offers this discussion not as an exhaustive or definitive analysis but
rather with the goal of looking across discussions of work that advocates, enacts, and
critically analyzes the term "student voice."
Every way of thinking is both premised on and generative of a way of

naming that reflects particular underlying convictions. Over the last 15
years, a way of thinking has reemerged that strives to reposition school
students in educational research and reform.1 Best documented in
Australia, Canada, England, and the United States, this way of thinking
is premised on the following convictions: that young people have unique
perspectives on learning, teaching, and schooling; that their insights
? 2006 by The Ontario Institute for Studies in Education of the University of Toronto.
Curriculum Inquiry 36:4 (2006)
Published by Blackwell Publishing, 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA, and 9600 Garsington Road,
Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK

130.217.226.148 on Thu, 28 Mar 2024 19:23:27 +00:00
360 ALISON COOK-SATHER
warrant not only the

they should be afforded
will become apparent
analyzing this reemerge
"attention," "response,
ferent people. And yet
that strive to redefine the role of students in educational research and
reform: "student voice."
"Student voice" has accumulated what Hill (2003) describes as "a new
vocabulary-a set of terms that are necessary to encode the meaning of our
collective project." These terms strive to name the values that underlie
"student voice" as well as the approaches signaled by the term. Like any
attempt at such encoding, however, an effort to identify a new vocabulary
that captures the attitudes and practices associated with student voice work
raises questions, especially because it makes use of already common terms,
albeit in new contexts and in new ways. These questions prompt us to
reexamine the terms we think capture our commitments as well as those
commitments themselves. Such a reexamination is critical, particularly in
regard to terms we think we understand. Indeed, the word "term" itself is
defined as a word or phrase referring to a clear and definite conception,
and yet despite its increasing and emphatic use, none such clear and
definite conception exists for "student voice."
In an attempt both to clarify and to complicate current understandings
of "student voice," I organize this discussion as follows: I trace the emer-
gence of the term; I explore positive and negative aspects of the term,
some of which are identified in the research literature and some of which
I offer from my own perspective; I identify two underlying premises of

student voice work signaled by two particular words-"rights" and
"respect"-that surface repeatedly in publications on student voice
efforts; and I focus on a word that also appears regularly in the research
literature but that refers to a wide range of practices: "listening." The first
two subsections are intended to offer an overview of how the term
"student voice" came to enter our discourse and to bring together in

single discussion some of the positive and negative associations with t
term. The subsequent sections, in which I take a close look at three asso
ciated terms, are not intended to provide a complete lexicon associated
with student voice work; rather, my aim is to illuminate some of the pr
mises shared by researchers and practitioners concerned with this work
well as to highlight some of the different perspectives, commitments, a
approaches of those whose work is aggregated under the term. Taken
together, the various parts of this discussion will, I hope, help us map
where we have come from with "student voice" work, where we current
find ourselves, and where we might go next in our efforts to name a
act upon our convictions regarding the repositioning of students in edu
cational research and reform.

130.217.226.148 on Thu, 28 Mar 2024 19:23:27 +00:00
STUDENT VOICE 361
Before I embark
is an exploration o
the educational re
the practices asso
questions about h
work play out, it
questions.3 Furth
"student voice" no
educational resear
who at the same ti
and the term cur
(2004a) assertion
where staff and st
the shared under
309), that and thus
will not of themse
are met that prov
their desired inten
Fielding's caution, I
practices associate
progress, another
teachers and students and for researchers and students from which to effect
cultural shifts that support a repositioning of students.
THE EMERGENCE OF THE TERM "STUDENT VOICE" IN

EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH AND REFORM
In the early 1990s, a number of educators and social critics note

exclusion of student voices from conversations about learning, tea
and schooling, called for a rethinking of this exclusion, and began t
steps toward redressing it. In the United States, Kozol (1991) wrote
"the voices of children ... have been missing from the whole discussi
education and educational reform (p. 5), and Weis and Fine (1993) in
"the voices of children and adolescents who have been expelled fro
centers of their schools and the centers of our culture [to] speak" (p
Canada, Fullan (1991) asked, "What would happen if we treated
student as someone whose opinion mattered?" (p. 170), and Levin (1
argued that the most promising reform strategies involved treating stud
as capable persons, capitalizing on their knowledge and interest
involving them in determining goals and learning methods. Likewi
the United Kingdom, early champions of student voice work, su
Rudduck, Chaplain, and Wallace (1996), who followed in the spi
Stenhouse (1975, 1983), argued for the inclusion of students' perspec
in conversations about school improvement, even if "student voice h

130.217.226.148 on Thu, 28 Mar 2024 19:23:27 +00:00
been seen as a vote wi

Wallace, 1996, p. 276) an
in Australia, Danaher (1
succinctly: "Instead of
wilderness, we would be
what they think and lis
Hall, 2004). The term
"capable," "listen active
the "new vocabulary"
project" (Hill, 2003). Wh
forward definitions, th
passive recipients of w
2001; Cook-Sather, 2003
In the late 1990s and t
educational research and reform efforts that have unfolded in Australia,
Canada, England, and the United States that "encourage reflection, discus-
sion, dialogue and action on matters that primarily concern students, but
also, by implication, school staff and the communities they serve" (Fielding
& McGregor, 2005) have been encompassed by the term "student voice"
(see also Bradley, Deighton, & Selby, 2004, andJohnson, 1991). During this
time, the advent of the term "student voice" and its entry into the discourse
of educational research and reform begins to point the way toward, if not
start to effect, a cultural shift-a retuning of ears and a rearrangement of
players and processes of research and reform (see Cook-Sather, in press).
Attending to the voices of students who drop out of or leave school in
Australia, Smyth (in press) presents us with students' critiques of and
recommendations for schooling, and he argues that any school reform
effort must be undertaken "in ways that honor the voices of the young" (see
also Smyth & Hattam, 2004). Some school reform efforts in the United
States strive to enact such an honoring of the voices of the young not only
by attending to students' words, but also by putting students in the position
of "translating [other] student explanations [of why they struggle in
school] into language that adults would understand" (Mitra, in press). And
writing about one reform effort in Canada, Pekrul and Levin (2005)
contend that "The voices of students may provide the tipping point to shift
the culture and practices of high schools." But what does "voice" here
mean? And what kind of shift in school and research culture and practices
would be necessary not only to accommodate but, further, to reposition
students in educational research and reform in ways such as Mitra describes
as well as in other ways?
As the vocabulary evoked in relation to the term suggests, "voice" signals
having a legitimate perspective and opinion, being present and taking part,
and/or having an active role "in decisions about and implementation of
educational policies and practice" (Holdsworth, 2000, p. 355). How voice is
defined depends in part on the relationship that exists in a particular

130.217.226.148 on Thu, 28 Mar 2024 19:23:27 +00:00
STUDENT VOICE 363
context between
357). An allusion t
educational policy
specifically speak
power of individua
all of these in ter
practices. Thus "s
students speaking
acknowledged pre
analyses of, decisi
Having a voice-h
cratic, or at least
one's mind, be h
influence on outco
make ourselves kn
that affect our
straightforward a
overtly auditory te
McIntyre, Peder,
gets listened to?
Whether acknowl
torically located s
whom turns out t
in fact what is sa
who is listening"
vividly illustrates h
participation: "Th
monologue of th
'choice' renders in
and basic humani
the term "student
sation"; and other
located structures
found and radical
minds not only to
Because voice is f
their point of view
of participation w
communities that
"generate knowle
action" (Atweh &
definition or exp
"student voice" is
teaching and scho
2000, p. 276), but

130.217.226.148 on Thu, 28 Mar 2024 19:23:27 +00:00
done in response or wit

as well as definition. As B
is being adapted and rea
one can no longer thin
terms associated with it
consideration of the po
emerged as its use has e
the different commitm
for my exploration of th
of the practices it enco
POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE ASPECTS OF "STUDENT VOICE"
Those of us who use "student voice" to capture the range of activiti

strive to reposition students in educational research and reform are not
first to use the "voice" part of the term. It surfaces in various realms,
notably English teaching, and Kamler's (2003) critical reflection on t
of the term "voice" in teaching writing throws into relief some o
benefits and drawbacks of the term as applied to practices and re
with students discussed here. As Kamler (2003) points out, voice has
"a persistent and recurrent metaphor in English teaching" (p. 34) sin
1980s, central both to writing process pedagogies and to critical and
cipatory pedagogies. While she sees as laudable the main impetus b
calls for student voice in writing-the desire for student engagem
communication, and personal knowing-Kamler suggests that voice
be the wrong term to use as a guide in pursuing these qualities in t
writing. In support of this contention, she cites Gilbert's (1989) wa
The metaphor of voice obscures "the difference between the writ
who writes) and the text (that which is written); text becomes synonym
with student writer, and writing is regarded as a 'transparent me
through which the "person behind the text" can be seen' (Gilbert, 1
22)" (Kamler, 2003, p. 34). In addition to warning against the conflat
writer and text, Kamler cites Lensmire's distinction between voice a
vidual expression (as advocated by writing process pedagogies) and v
participation (as advocated by critical theorists) as an important wa
neither to conflate nor to entirely separate the personal and the p
And finally, she cites poststructural feminist scholars' arguments that
does not acknowledge the complexities of individuals' subjectivitie
context, and of relations of power and domination.
This critical analysis of "voice" as it applies to the teaching of wr
throws into relief what is both potentially useful and potentially pr
atic about the term for signaling the range of commitment
approaches that have gathered under "student voice" in educa
research and reform. Specifically, Kamler's argument for the reason

130.217.226.148 on Thu, 28 Mar 2024 19:23:27 +00:00
STUDENT VOICE 365
use voice as a met

not to use the term in discussions of educational research and reform and
one of the reasons to use it: the connection between voice and person,
between voice and body. Although Kamler's and others' warnings against
particular understandings and uses of voice are valid-warnings about
constructing voice as equal to an individual, as single and uncomplicated,
as given rather than constructed in relationship-because student voice
work in educational research and reform is still about bodily presence and
participation, as well as, sometimes, about written texts, it is worth consid-
ering retaining as well as critiquing the term.
Kamler's review of critical perspectives on the use of voice in teaching
writing echoes many of the points I raised in my review of various efforts in
the United States to authorize students' perspectives on school (Cook-
Sather, 2002b). At that time, I framed my argument for student voice in
positive terms, suggesting that in our research and teaching we build on the
following: century-old constructivist approaches to education, which argue
that students need to be authors of their own understanding and assessors
of their own learning; the commitment of critical pedagogy to redistribute
power not only within the classroom, between teacher and students, but
also in society at large; postmodern feminist critiques of the workings and
reworkings of power, taking small steps toward changing oppressive prac-
tices but also continually questioning our motives and practices in taking
these steps; educational researchers' efforts to include student voices in
larger conversations about educational policy and practice; social critics'
efforts to illuminate what is happening and what could be happening
within classrooms in ways that the wider public can hear and take seriously;
and finally, the commitment of a small but growing constituency that
advocates including students', as well as adults', frames of reference in
conversations about educational policy and practice. At this point, I use
Kamler's and my own arguments as a starting point to review the positive
and the negative aspects of "student voice" as they are articulated in the
research literature and as I see them. This review highlights from a differ-
ent angle the cultural shift necessary for a repositioning of students in
educational research and reform.
Positive Aspects of "Student Voice"
Like advocates of voice in writing who are looking for student engagement,
advocates of student voice in educational research and reform embrace the
term because speaking does generally signal presence, involvement, and

commitment. Whether expressing support or dissent, affirming existing
ideas, or proposing others, a student voice speaking alone or in dialogue
always signals some kind of engagement (again, what kind is not as easy to
discern). The positive aspects of student voice identified in the research

130.217.226.148 on Thu, 28 Mar 2024 19:23:27 +00:00
literature highlight how

sations and efforts that
potential to effect a cu
One of the most prof
the clearest indicators
tence on altering domi
people. In Oldfather's
... requires major shift
ers in relationships and
of knowledge, languag
those of us currently in
ics inside and outside
impossible" (Ellsworth,
an attempt (that might
(Gore, 1992, p. 59).
Changing the power d
and beyond classrooms
political potential of sp
and, beyond taking their
being afforded the righ
When students speak o
matters-indeed, shap
force in an enquiry proc
ing and enabling partn
than keeping students
administrators' and pol
These shifts in power
roles for students are bo
practices of student v
sections, but I want als
Heilbrun's (1988) point
course that is essential to
right to have one's par
voice work is that it ac
participants-as citizens
explains, it was this co
student voice movemen
that the rights of stud
education, and citing W
in fact already citizens
them are daily violated
(1997), in prefacing the
voice work in Canada,
that "children are citiz
ation as any other indi

130.217.226.148 on Thu, 28 Mar 2024 19:23:27 +00:00
STUDENT VOICE 367
Another positive
terms I explore in
"respected and en
Such respect prom
ships within whic
from one another
and students at his
to cut class, Maur
can't have good co
can't communica
Lawrence-Lightfo
"Respect: To get i
The centrality of
positive aspect of
shift in educational research and reform.
A final positive aspect of "student voice," which is closely connected to

each of the previous aspects I have discussed, is that it insists that if students
speak, adults must listen. Constructivist, critical, multicultural, and antira-
cist pedagogies emphasize the importance of listening, arguing that teach-
ers can improve their practice by listening closely to what students have to
say about their learning (Commeyras, 1995; Dahl; 1995; Duckworth, 1987;
Heshusius; 1995;Johnston & Nicholls, 1995; Lincoln, 1995; Rodgers, 2006;
Schultz, 2003), that listening to students and building teaching around
themes that are relevant to and that emerge from students' own lives can be
transformative both personally and politically (Freire, 1990; McLaren,
1989; Shor, 1987, 1992), and that listening to students can counter dis-
criminatory and exclusionary tendencies in education (Banks, 1996; hooks,
1994; Ladson-Billings, 1994; Nieto, 2000). Such arguments suggest that
school reform efforts focus on creating a listening culture and that educa-
tional research strive to redefine listening (Cook-Sather, in press; Mitra, in
press; Thorkildsen, in press).
Negative Aspects of "Student Voice"

The negative aspects of student voice identified in the research literature
highlight how student presence and involvement within conversations and
efforts that have traditionally been the purview of adults can work against
the cultural shift in educational research and reform for which advocates
argue.
One such negative aspect of the term is its seeming monolithic quality--
that there is a single student voice (Lodge, personal communication,
March 8, 2005). Like feminists who warn against "claims to universal truths
and.. . assumptions of a collective experience of oppression" (Weiler,
1991, p. 450), those who assert the importance of student voice as a

130.217.226.148 on Thu, 28 Mar 2024 19:23:27 +00:00
uniform and united entit

among students, their p
reduce students' commen
able experience" (Silva &
making the mistake of
by assuming that they ar
(Spivak, 1988)" (Crudda
A concern among som
possibility that the ove
school culture to make it
manipulation, and pract
Fielding, 2004a, 2004b;
Gunter, 2005). There is th
are "benign but condes
2004b, p. 200), that ke
through the products o
There is also the danger
a result of a romantic view of children. As Pollard, Thiessen, and Filer
(1997) put it, the "aren't they sweet" attitude "reflects the patronage of
adults, but it does not contribute to understanding or analysis of the issues
and concerns which are of importance to pupils" (p. 2). An equally
demeaning form of attention to student voices is seeing them as decora-
tions. As Fine, Torre, Burns, and Payne (in press) explain, their e-mail
inboxes are "a virtual catalogue of invitations [from researchers, publishers,
and policymakers] to 'gather student voices' as if they were Christmas tree
decorations on an already pre-determined reform 'for their own good.' "
Furthermore, there is the danger of even well-intentioned student voice
initiatives: Some efforts to "increase student voice and participation can
actually reinforce a hierarchy of power and privilege among students and
undermine attempted reforms" (Silva, 2001, p. 98). Orner (1992) cautions
against this tendency in general, warning that calls for student voice as a
central component of student empowerment perpetuate "relations of
domination in the name of liberation" (p. 75) because they do not suffi-
ciently consider the intersection of identity, language, context, and power
that inform all pedagogical relations.
Another potentially negative aspect of student voice work is that it
presents challenges that some may not be willing to face, particularly
listening to things we don't want to hear. It is very difficult to learn from
voices we don't want to hear (Bragg, 2001;Johnston & Nicholls, 1995) and
to learn to hear the voices we don't know how to hear: "'Traditional
epistemologies and methods grounded in white androcentric concerns,
and rooted in values which are understood to be inimical to the interest of
the silenced, will fail to capture the voices needed'" (Lincoln quoted in
Fielding, 2004a, p. 299). On the other hand, it is a challenge to create a
climate that is "sufficiently politically conscious and critical" and that allows

130.217.226.148 on Thu, 28 Mar 2024 19:23:27 +00:00
STUDENT VOICE 369
us to "resist the t
likely to be dee
O'Loughlin, 1995
Yet another set o
against teachers a
arguably, most w
government, the
tion (OfSTED) tak
this evidence to
been known to ex
side teachers, to
voices against the
formulating scho
faced with a kind
grounds that thei
to invoke student voice to control both teachers and students rather than
respect and honor the community of the school (Lodge, personal commu-
nication, February 10, 2006).
Using the term "voice" to represent a repositioning of students in edu-
cational research and reform also runs the risk of denying the potential
power of silence and resistance. Silence can be powerful-a withholding of
assent, a political act. Silence can mean that a voice is not speaking because
it is not worthwhile or safe to speak-out of knowledge of one's inability in
a particular situation to transform silence into action (Lorde, 1984). It can
also be an informed choice after attempting to speak and not being heard.
An African-American male describes his perception of his own "voice" and
voices like his, as well as voices unlike his: "We got squeaky wheels and flat
tires. ... Some smooth white walls rollin' their way right to college, gettin'
oil all the way. And then the rest of us ... flat tires! Bumpin' on down the
road, making all sorts of crude noises. Probably fall off real soon anyway.
Ain't worth the grease" (quoted in Silva, 2001, p. 95). While the kind of
silence that can result from fear, resistance, or resignation should be of
concern, silence can also be full and resonant-the silence that falls "at the
end/of a night through which two people/have talked till dawn" (Rich,
1984, p. 234). Regardless of how silence is interpreted and addressed, it is
an essential consideration in discussions of voice (Hadfield & Haw, 2001;
Stevenson & Ellsworth, 1993).
As is clear in my discussion of the potential positive and negative aspects
of the term "student voice," issues of power, communication, and partici-
pation are central. With both the potential positive and the potential
negative aspects of the term in mind, I turn now to an exploration of two
premises and one set of practices reported in the research literature--an
exploration that further illuminates what a cultural shift that supports a
repositioning of students might look like. Where possible, I use brief quo-
tations from students to open my discussion of each section to illustrate

130.217.226.148 on Thu, 28 Mar 2024 19:23:27 +00:00
that these issues are ones

that advocates of student voice work embrace.
PREMISES UNDERLYING STUDENT VOICE WORK
The shifts in power relations, dynamics of participation, and models

action that student voice work calls for suggest that the term evokes
strives to change very basic yet contested social principles: rules and re
tionships and the role of the individual within the parameters of those. Tw
words--"rights" and "respect"-that appear repeatedly across publicati
focused on student voice efforts point to underlying premises upon wh
those efforts rest. The first of these words is foundational to the convictions
of any nation that considers itself participatory. In both its more institu-
tionalized and its more idiosyncratic iterations, the assertion of students'
rights is a call for a cultural shift away from an adult-centric, infantilizing,
and disempowering set of attitudes and practices and toward a culture that
supports students as among those with the right to take their place "in
whatever discourse is essential to action" and the right to have their part
matter (Heilbrun, 1988, p. 18).
Rights
Although widely evoked in publications focused on student voice work,

"rights" is a word not clearly defined, like many words that come to stand
for guiding premises. It is also, tellingly, not a word that students use with
any frequency about their experiences. It appeals to higher ethical and
moral principles such as justice and equity and, ostensibly, suggests a
certain inalienable quality. There is an inherent contradiction in such
appeals, however, in that particular groups of people designate and remove
their own and others' rights repeatedly over time, and it is in part this
contradiction that raises questions for those who wonder about the poten-
tial dangers and drawbacks of the term "student voice."
In the United Kingdom, several discussions of rights point to interna-
tional resolutions and national mandates that have been taken up and
embodied in particular ways by researchers and reformers. Focusing on an
international resolution passed in 1989, Lodge (2005) explains: "Among
other things [the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child]
gives young people the right to express views freely on all matters affecting
them, to be heard directly or through a representative during proceedings
that affect them, and that their views are given due weight, according to
their age and ability" (p. 127).John (1996a) also took the United Nations'
Convention of the Rights of the Child as a benchmark. She entitled the first

130.217.226.148 on Thu, 28 Mar 2024 19:23:27 +00:00
STUDENT VOICE 371
section of her boo

opens the chapte
'Silenced' " by claim
how we access the
and the thinker in
dren" (p. 3).
National frameworks also serve as reference points for students' right to
have their voices heard. Examples of such frameworks include England's
Department of Education and Skills [DfES] consultation paper Working
Together: Giving Children and Young People a Say (2004) or the OfSTED
framework Evaluating Educational Inclusion [2000]), which are meant to
guide educational practices that are responses to international resolutions
and which explicitly assert the "rights of children and young people to have
a voice and an active role in decision making and planning in education"
(Cruddas & Haddock, 2003, p. 5; see also Alderson, 1999; Lodge, 2005;
John, 1996b; Rudduck, in press). As Thomson and Gunter (2005) point
out, however, "Legislative framework about children's rights [in England]
is more elaborated, and professional understanding and commitments
better developed, in the health and welfare systems than in education.
Children and young people have more mandated rights in courts and
clinics than they do in school disciplinary proceedings." I found the same
to be true in my review of patients' and clients' rights in the U.S. medical
and legal realms (Cook-Sather, 2002b). Pollard and Triggs (2000) substan-
tiate this claim further, suggesting that in the wake of the Education
Reform Act of 1988, the National Curriculum and assessment were intro-
duced into schools in England without including young people in the
deliberation process. They point out that "there was no apparent awareness
in government circles of children's rights (Alderson, 1999)," even though
it is "appropriate and necessary to ask hard questions about the conse-
quences of the introduction of the National Curriculum from the perspec-
tive of children" if one accepts that children have "legitimate fundamental
rights" (pp. 13-14).
Although framed and followed through on in different ways, there is a
long history of claims to rights in the United States. The right of all students
to free public education was among Thomas Jefferson's founding ideals,
and the most enduring pursuit of this ideal is credited to Horace Mann and
the advent of the common school in the early to mid-1800s (see Cremin,
1961; Meier & Wood, 2004; Spring, 1994; Wood, 2004). As the population
of the country increased and control over educational policymaking and
practice monitoring shifted from local to national forums, the 20th century
saw the passage of federal legislation framed in terms of student rights,
particularly regarding equal access to education regardless of race (Brown
v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas in 1954), gender (Title IX), class
(Elementary and Secondary Education Act in 1965, including Title I), and
ability (The Education for All Handicapped Children Act in 1975). The

130.217.226.148 on Thu, 28 Mar 2024 19:23:27 +00:00
most recent federal leg

(NCLB), is a bipartisan la
Elementary and Secondar
culture of America's school
flexibility, giving parent
what works" (http://www
While the spirit behind
insurance of students' rig
actual results. Jefferson
slaves. Mann's common sc
as protecting privileged e
than benefiting all of its m
Board of Education, gros
(Fine, Roberts, & Torre,
other major pieces of le
clearer than in the reactio
educational scholars (Darl
to unanimous votes not to
Jefferson's own Virginia to
and parent groups (Wood,
of America's schools" clai
the same culture shift that
of student voice call for.
Indeed, what is striking about all of this legislation is that student

voices-students' own words, presence, and power-are missing. This
elision is consistent with the tendency for educational research to be con-
ducted on not with students (Cook-Sather, in press; Fine et al., in press;
Thiessen, in press). It is also consistent with the tendency of both the
educational system in the United States and that system's every reform to
focus exclusively on adults' notions of how education should be conceptu-
alized and practiced (Cook-Sather, 2002b). Even strong and important
arguments made that students have the right to learn (e.g., Brown, 2002;
Darling-Hammond, 1997) focus on teachers' or other adults' perspectives
on what students need. Thus, educational research that does not elicit or
respond to students' ideas violates students' rights, and educational reform
that does not include students in active roles reinforces the U.S. school as
a locus of social control that keeps students captive either to dominant
interests, notions, and practices (see Berman, 1984; Burbules, 1986; Cook-
Sather, 2003; Franklin, 2000; Giroux, 1985; Greene, 1983; Popkewitz, 1988;
Schlechty & Burke, 1980; Schutz, 2003; Thomas, 1985) or to adults' notions
of how to empower students.
The driving force behind research and reform is, it is claimed, the
improvement of schools, achievement, and (sometimes) learning. The
disconnect, then, between what we know and what we do, between federal
law that is not accountable and local conditions that render success virtually

130.217.226.148 on Thu, 28 Mar 2024 19:23:27 +00:00
STUDENT VOICE 373
impossible, betwe
the reality of igno
tially very danger
lation and the pol
Perhaps because n
emerged in respon
that student voice
empowerment" as
notion that studen
successful if stud
652). Some researc
"there is a marked
'pupil voice' into
improvement and
of the UN conven
A focus on outcom
the implementation
lar scores on stand
some critics in th
ideology overall i
complicity with a
ing" students-ren
action (Kincheloe,
While larger polic
evoke them and b
people's rights. W
Myers (2003) asser
Writing in Chile
underlying her re
students speaking
ing across a varie
that acting on be
"defenders of [stu
have their voices
engaged, and thei
in the United Stat
voices heard and
Pope, & Osberg, in
Although "rights"
clear that the ter
voice work. Levi
opportunity to us
build stronger an
with us again" (p.
a resurgence of in

130.217.226.148 on Thu, 28 Mar 2024 19:23:27 +00:00
Respect
Reach me with more than words from textbooks-but words from the soul and the
mind connected to the heart. What got you to teach me? Wasn't it to reach
me? ... Relate to me, debate with me, respect me. Stop neglecting me.
-Strucker, Moise, Magee & Kreider, 2001, p. 162
Although the term "respect" has come to mean many different things to
different people, and it has been adopted into the popular culture to mean
something quite superficial that has little to do with empathy, understand-
ing, and genuine moral connection with others, it is, nevertheless, ubiqui-
tous in discussions of student voice work and thus warrants exploration.
While it is important to keep in mind the disparity among meanings and
the potential for misunderstandings among us as we explore the term,
there is no denying the power of expressions such as that of the student
quoted above. The call for respect from students is loud and clear.
As with the term "rights," the term "respect" is also sometimes linked to
larger resolutions in discussions of student voice efforts: "The UN Conven-
tion on the Rights of the Child (ratified by the UK in 1991) and Children
Act of 1989 both signaled an increased concern for children's welfare and
respect for listening to children's views" (Kirby, 2001, p. 76). Other times,
the word appears in more local, although far-reaching, calls for profound
shifts in ways of thinking without the impetus of higher resolutions: "[We
need] a fundamental shift in the dominant epistemology in our society and
our schools to one based on trusting, listening to, and respecting the minds
of all participants in schooling" (Oldfather et al., 1999, p. 313). Similarly,
Levin (1994) has argued that "If we take seriously the idea that students are
people, we must respect their ideas, opinions, and desires" (p. 97).
Rudduck (2002) also suggests that "Among the 'conditions of learning' in
school that students identify [i.e., conditions they need in order to learn]
are respect, responsibility, challenge, and support" (p. 123). And Rudduck
and Demetriou (2003) found that out of 15,000 students who responded to
a survey in a national newspaper in England that asked them to describe
the kind of school they would like, the seventh most popular response was
"a respectful school" (p. 277).
Some researchers not only evoke but also define respect as a basic
premise underlying efforts to reposition students in processes of education
and in research on schools. Goldman and Newman (1998) suggest that
"Respect listens to divergent opinions and looks for the merits they possess"
(p. 9). Rudduck and Flutter (2004) contend that evidence they gathered,
"from diverse school settings, suggests that pupils who are involved in
school and who feel they are respected as individuals and as an institutional
and social group are likely to feel a greater sense of respect and belonging,
and are less likely to disengage from a school's purposes" (p. 107; see also
Flutter & Rudduck, 2004; Mitra, 2004, p. 662; Rudduck, 2002, p. 123).

130.217.226.148 on Thu, 28 Mar 2024 19:23:27 +00:00
STUDENT VOICE 375
Discussing the w
colleagues (2003)
with pupils that i
(2001) contends th
opportunity to ex
taken seriously ...
Writing about a s
of active citizensh
Thomson (in press
to and treated wi
teacher involved i
between teacher
respect." Echoing
participation, and
and his colleagues
that they are resp
1).
Levin (1994) cites both psychologists and educators to support his argu-
ment that students want and need respect. He suggests that we must "make
it normal, even expected, that students would have a reasoned, informed
and respected voice in school decisions" (p. 96). Fine et al. (in press) have
"spoken with, surveyed, collaborated with and witnessed the performances
of thousands of youth from across the U.S." What they have found is that
youth from urban and suburban schools, across racial and ethnic lines, and
from diverse social classes and academic biographies, want, among other
things, "respect, for their varied identities, and not to be judged by the
color of their skin, the fashion they don, the language they speak, zip code
in which they live." Similarly, in their research in England, Cruddas and
Haddock (2003) found that "[Pupils'] views were not respected by
adults. . ." (p. 6) and that if that lack of respect didn't change, then
schooling experiences for students couldn't improve. Corroborating all
these claims, a high school student in the northeastern United States,
clearly drawing on her own experience of being disrespected, explains in
very direct and clear terms: "I hate it when teachers think you're so below
them, they act like they're power, they're almighty. I just can't stand it.
That's the worst quality, to disrespect students. I think if you respect stu-
dents then they'll respect you."
This last student comment throws into relief what virtually all research-
ers of student voice have found: that respect is a reciprocal dynamic, and if
you give respect, you are more likely to get it. In its reciprocal and relational
nature, respect is quite a different premise from rights. It is not decreed
from on high, set as a rule or principle that applies regardless of circum-
stances. Rather, it is a dynamic built between and among people, and it
must be supported and sustained in relationship and context: It cannot be
established once and for all.

130.217.226.148 on Thu, 28 Mar 2024 19:23:27 +00:00
Taken together, then,

work appeal to both reg
to concrete, lived, hum
more about givens, att
negotiated, relational, m
dignity and the distinc
within a confining, pr
curriculum or system, i
and if there is respect,
life-affirming growth.
It turns out, however, n
principles and dynamic
greatly across contexts
across discussions of stu
when the same principl
different practices can r
Listening
Sometimes I wish I could sit down with one of my teachers and just tell them what
I exactly think about their class. It might be good, it might be bad, it's just that you
don't have the opportunity to do it.
-Shultz & Cook-Sather, 2001, p. xii
Arnot et al. (2004) argue that schools have evolved "over the course of
two centuries without listening to student voices" (p. 3), and the high
school student quoted above offers evidence that this evolution continues.
Not only historically but within each of their individual experiences,
Giroux (1992) argues, most students "have been silenced all their lives" (p.
158). The dominant culture of schooling "prevents practitioners from
listening to students' own creative ideas about how systems can change and
meet their needs" (Cruddas & Haddock, 2003, p. 6). And yet, as Smyth (in
press) suggests in his discussion of his work with youth in Australia, "If we
listen carefully to these young informants we can get a clear picture of what
it is that is dysfunctional about much of what transpires in schooling, why
it is so many young people decide to exit, and how schooling might be
different for them." Young people themselves identify the importance of
listening: out of 15,000 students in England who responded to the survey
that asked them to describe the kind of school they would like, Rudduck
and Demetriou (2003) found that the fourth most popular response was "a
listening school" (p. 277).
Because a detailing of all the individual or even kinds of student voice
projects built around listening is not possible within the scope of this

130.217.226.148 on Thu, 28 Mar 2024 19:23:27 +00:00
STUDENT VOICE 377
discussion, I draw
an effort to map th
student voice work
the typologies, se
worth, 2000; Lee
Thiessen, 1997; Tho
faces in various wa
participation, owne
"student participat
out" to "being hear
and with respect"
taken by others" to
and reflection on a
ing is in the midd
being heard but no
Mitra's (in press)
reform uses "listen
to student perspec
or reform"; she u
within which "stud
and/or to develop
on change" within
most of the decisio
the most basic form of attention to student voice with "collaboration"
and "leadership" signaling increasingly greater roles and agency for
students.
Lodge (2005) makes explicit some underlying principles that inform

both typologies mentioned above, suggesting that approaches to student
voice can be analyzed along two dimensions: the role of the student and the
purposes for which participation is being sought. Four types she identifies
are (1) quality control, (2) students as a source of information, (3) com-
pliance and control, and (4) dialogue. When the purpose is quality control,
students are listened to merely as sources of feedback on externally
imposed approaches to school improvement. When students are sources of
information, their perspectives are listened to and then improvement is
either done to them or the students provide important information for
teachers to act upon. The "compliance and control" type "takes some
account of ideas about the rights of young people to be involved in deci-
sions about school but the students' voice is used to serve institutional
ends" (p. 133). In the fourth type, dialogue, students "are viewed as active
participants" and their voices included as part of an ongoing discussion. In
this last type, listening and speaking are the twin responsibilities of all
parties.
Fielding's (2004b) four-part typology includes (1) students as data
source, (2) students as active respondents, (3) students as co-researchers,

130.217.226.148 on Thu, 28 Mar 2024 19:23:27 +00:00
and (4) students as res

work to be done guid
there is "a real teacher
speaking through the p
(p. 201). With "student
ingness to move beyon
hear what students hav
in school" (p. 201). Wit
partnership than the tw
roles are not equal, they
tion" (p. 202). Within
the dominant working
comes to the fore and
role" (p. 202). In Fieldin
ent things, based on fo
purposes for listening.
While each of these ty
of "listening" and assum
students as premises,
Gunther (2005) call a "d
explicit dimension of an
1. Standards and 2. Rights discourse

improvement discourse
a. Consulting la. Students can, if teachers 2a. Students have a right to

pupils choose, provide be involved in locally
information for local determined activities
interpretation of national with/against policy. T
policy. This is desirable can expect suggestions
because it is likely to lead they make to be heard
to more effective change. and acted on.
b. Pupils and lb. Students can, if teachers 2b. Students have a right to
school self- choose, be involved in be involved in locally
evaluation local interpretation determined activities
with/against national with/against policy. They
policy. This is desirable can expect suggestions
because it is likely to lead they make to be heard
to more effective change. and acted on.
c. Pupils as ic. Students can, if teachers 2c. Students have a right to
researchers choose, be involved in determine the nature,
local activity for local scope, and conduct of
interpretation with/ research they do, and to
against national policy. be involved in making
This is desirable because recommendations and be
it is likely to lead to more involved in their
effective change. implementation.

130.217.226.148 on Thu, 28 Mar 2024 19:23:27 +00:00
STUDENT VOICE 379
These different typ

a gesture, listenin
by students' ideas
researchers', teach
the multiple mean
Focusing at the cl
contend that child
many teachers sti
Teachers who choose to listen to students within the classroom are con-
cerned with "pupils' own perspectives on classroom teaching and learning"

(Arnot et al., 2004, p. 3; see also Fielding, 2004b; MacBeath et al., 2003;
Postlethwaite & Haggerty, 2002; Shultz & Cook-Sather, 2001). As Lincoln
(1995) put it, among the skills of a good teacher are "the ability to 'hear'
well and deeply, or simply to listen" (p. 95). Ballenger (in press) provides
an example of such listening when she looks closely at the "puzzling" of two
immigrant fourth-grade students within a classroom built on principles of
exploration and critical inquiry; she writes, "This was a curriculum and a
classroom and a way of listening that valued diversity in 'ways with words'
and expected that puzzling children were making sense."
Bragg (in press) points to a complicated aspect of this kind of listening,
however. Discussing the claim of a teacher who questioned a particular
student voice effort in her school because "she already listens to children,"
Bragg suggests that "Many primary school teachers' identity is founded on
concepts from child-centred or progressive pedagogies in which they see
themselves as deeply engaged in children's worlds. This is very different,
however, from the kind of listening.., .where in effect, the kinds of
questions to be asked, and the range of 'voices' children can use, shifts
significantly."
The importance of listening is also asserted in realms that include but
reach beyond the classroom-in schools at large, in publications, in plan-
ning for the future, and in developing thinking about education. McPhail,
Kirk, and Eley (2003) argue for the need to listen to the voices of young
people in regard to what motivates them to participate or deters them from
participating in sports. At the wider school level, Bragg (in press) argues,
with a chapter title, that "'It's Not About Systems, It's About Relationships':
Building a Listening Culture in a Primary School." In this case, listening to
students guided action and change in a primary school in England. Like-
wise, Flutter and Rudduck (2004) assert that "The most important argu-
ment for listening to the pupil voice lies in its potential for providing
schools with directions for constructing a better future" (pp. 131-132).
Cook-Sather and Shultz (2001) argue for and enact a different kind of
listening to students through inviting them to be the primary authors of
chapters included in an edited volume focused on how schools need to
change. This kind of listening-in the initial invitations, in the creation of
space for composition of their voices, and in publication of those voices-

130.217.226.148 on Thu, 28 Mar 2024 19:23:27 +00:00
presented student voic

"Listening to pupil voi
option, but as a seriou
ment" (p. 5). Finally, dis
ratified the Conventio
that not only have suc
for children, but they h
dren" (p. 3, emphasis i
longer make assumpt
instead "children's own views and voices have to be heard and taken into
account" (p. 4, emphasis in original).

Students around the world verify these assertions and articulate the power
of being listened to, whatever that means to them. Oliver, a student at
Wheatcroft Primary School in Hertford, England, says," 'Pupils feel better by
knowing that teachers will listen to them' " (Pupils at Wheatcroft Elemen-
tary, 2001, p. 51). Another student at the same school, Charlotte, says, "'I
think that listening to children is vital so that children are happier and
teachers know what they like and what they can do' " (p. 52). A student in a
suburban, secondary school in the northeastern United States said, "'The
best way to master the art of teaching is to really listen to student feedback
and to change based on what students say' " (Cook-Sather, 2006, p. 345). And
a student in Mitra's (2001) study in the western United States said, "'If you
talk and people don't listen, you don't want to talk anymore' " (p. 92).
The typologies I discuss above as well as individual assertions of the
importance of listening have a corollary in some discussions in educational
research. As a central component of qualitative research, listening takes on
a new meaning and form when researchers listen to students as informants
(Cook-Sather, in press). Researchers committed to listening to student
voices must "change our understanding of what it means to listen"
(Thorkildsen, in press; see also Dahl, 1995). Using established qualitative
research methods, such as interviewing, in new ways "allows researchers to
consider carefully what 'listening to' might mean" (Gallagher & Lortie, in
press).
To get student views heard and understood, forums for listening have to
be appropriated and created anew (Cook-Sather, 2002b; Levin, 1994).
Lewis (1996) describes how he and a group of 9- and 10-year-old students
designed and facilitated a workshop to teach adults how to listen to young
people at the UN Convention held at the University of Exeter in 1992.
Discussing work currently under way in the United Kingdom, Fielding
(2004b) writes, "[Within the students-as-researchers model] teachers are
notjust committed to appreciative listening in order to learn from students
in joint enquiry but active listening in order to contribute to and support
student-led research" (p. 202). These descriptions point to the kind of
listening that, as Delpit (1988) argues, "requires not only open eyes and
ears but also open hearts and minds" (p. 298). It is the opposite of speaking

130.217.226.148 on Thu, 28 Mar 2024 19:23:27 +00:00
STUDENT VOICE 381
for others, the eff

always ... a reinscr
re-inscription, ed
speak by listening
sions of issues an
texts (Cruddas &
IMPLICATIONS
This exploration of the way of naming associated with "student v

preliminary, not meant to be exhaustive or definitive. Instead, it f
in the spirit Hill (2003) describes: "Rather than seeking to provid
official set of meanings/words, we seek to open up for debate these
iar signifiers, and thereby their different contexts and signifying real
The terms "rights," "respect," and "listening" are all central to man
lications on student voice work, but they raise questions and conc
well as signal possible productive shifts in power dynamics and p
that might, in turn, lead to a significant cultural shift. It is one t
say these words and evoke their (multiple) meanings, but enactin
most radical, transformative versions of them takes more than awareness
and commitment; it takes understanding and hard work, consideration
and reconsideration, calling into question, and, most important, chang-
ing. It requires letting go of what we think we know and entertaining the
possibility of profoundly repositioning students in educational research
and reform.
This challenge is part of the greater challenge of democracy; it is an ideal

that we will never reach, but we need to keep striving. A democracy should
be premised on change, notjust reproduction, but there is more and more
that is interfering with that commitment within school frames. Because
schools are set up on premises of prediction, control, and management,
anything that challenges those premises is hard to accomplish within
formal educational contexts. Until teachers, administrators, policymakers,
and the wider public see that there is value in this particular kind of change
prompted by attending to, responding to, and following the lead of stu-
dents, and indeed embracing the threat these actions carry, efforts that
aggregate under the term "student voice" will not get very far. Even though
this work of listening to, responding to, and being guided by student voices
is not about succeeding-not about "getting there"-but rather about
always changing in response to what we hear, it is a challenge to convince
people of the value of the paradox that to listen to students, to build
relationships, is to better understand, to be more engaged, to be more
successful.
The disconnect, then, between what we know and what we do, between
the espoused goal of supporting student learning and the reality of ignor-

130.217.226.148 on Thu, 28 Mar 2024 19:23:27 +00:00
ing students, will not be

student voice work in the realms of educational research and reform will
not release us from the problems and constraints under which we currently
labor, but it can help us deal with them more maturely, thoughtfully, life
affirmingly. The present exploration was undertaken in that spirit-to look
across discussions carried on by people who advocate the rights of students,
who respect what students experience and say, and who are committed to
life-affirming forms of listening. The goal was to strengthen the connec-
tions within a community across nations-to show that this work is happen-
ing in different places, to tell a different kind of story of what schooling and
research can be, to create some solidarity across continents with the com-
mitments and the willingness to continually rethink those commitments
through our words and actions.
As part of the life-affirming work signaled by the positive aspects of
"student voice" and in guarding against the negative aspects, we must listen
to and act on students' words not once but again and again (Cook-Sather,
2002b; Wilson & Corbett, 2001) in part because "the engaged voice must
never be fixed and absolute but always changing, always evolving in dia-
logue with a world beyond itself" (hooks, 1994, p. 11). We must recognize
that students, like adults, are always speaking from complex positions-
"not single but multiple.., .always located" (Kamler, 2001, p. 36) and
always evolving. At the same time, though, as Fine et al. (in press) and
others caution, we must guard against voice being "co-opted into a neolib-
eral frame of the personal individualized story, as if about choice,
autonomy, freedom from structures or a self disconnected from history and
politics. An intellectual and political commitment to 'student voice' must
interrogate the deep corduroy threads that connect and resist patterns of
domination and privilege in ... schools." But even short of cooptation, it is
not possible just to "do" student voice without thinking and rethinking-
and most likely changing-one's larger political framework.
Fielding (2004a) cautions that "to include hitherto silenced voices in
research is not of itself empowering or liberating, not only ... because such
inclusion may be manipulative, but also because unless we are clear who is
listening, whether such attentiveness is customary or spasmodic, an entitle-
ment or a dispensation, then the power of those who speak and those who
hear cannot be understood" (p. 301). Long-standing assumptions and
structures must be dismantled to shift the culture and practices of schools
(Cook-Sather, 2002b; Fullan, 1991; Oldfather, 1995; Rudduck, 2002, in
press). Differently positioned people making different arguments, like
those premised on multiculturalism, feminism, and constructivism, have
core commitments in common-to listening and responding to a diverse
set of perspectives and not just tolerating or tokenizing them but always
destabilizing the center; to acknowledging that what you don't know is
much bigger than what you know; to the notion that the project of school
is an ongoing negotiation rather than transmission; to the idea that edu-

130.217.226.148 on Thu, 28 Mar 2024 19:23:27 +00:00
STUDENT VOICE 383
cation is a proces
premise that educ
Change is a big id
also their entire b
Also, what student
are one-time thin
the term "student
tives on learning,
only the attention
afforded opportun
better way to ta
research and refo
education-"studen
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I am grateful to Jane McGregor, Pat Thomson, and others associated

the Economic and Social Research Council, the Universities of Nottin
and Sussex, Manchester Metropolitan University, the Networked Lea
Group, and the National College for School Leadership for inviting m
give the keynote address at their jointly sponsored conference, "Crit
Interrogating Pupil Voice," which inspired me to write this article
grateful as well to Elizabeth Campbell, Jody Cohen, Caroline Lodge,
McGregor, Alice Lesnick, Carol Rodgers, and anonymous reviewers
their careful readings of this manuscript and their excellent suggestions
improving it.
NOTES
1. In the 1960s and 1970s there was a wave of similar thinking, but it did not t
catalyze long-term revision or change. For discussions of these earlier efforts,
Levin (2000) and Rudduck (2002, in press).
2. In this discussion, "young people" and "students" refer to school students

students at the elementary and secondary, not college, levels.
3. For a very thorough and thought-provoking discussion of the history, basis, a

trends in research on students' experiences of school, see Thiessen (in press
REFERENCES
Alcoff, L. M. (1995). The problem of speaking for others. In L. A. Bell &

Blumfeld (Eds.), Overcoming racism and sexism (pp. 229-254). Lanham, MD
Rowman & Littlefield.

130.217.226.148 on Thu, 28 Mar 2024 19:23:27 +00:00
Alderson, P. (1999). Hum

than "picking up litter an
Rights, 7, 185-205.
Arnot, M., McIntyre, D.,
Developing dialogue about
Atweh, B., & Burton, L.
British Educational Resea
Ballenger, C. (in press).
graders. In D. Thiessen &
experience in elementar
Springer.
Banks, J. (Ed.). (1996). Multicultural education, transformative knowledge, and action:
Historical and contemporary perspectives. New York: Teachers College Press.
Berman, E. H. (1984). State hegemony and the schooling process. Journal of Edu-
cation, 166(3), 239-253.
Bradley, B. S., Deighton, J., & Selby, J. (2004). The "voices" project: Capacity
building in community development for youth at risk. Journal of Health Psychology,
9(2), 197-212.
Bragg, S. (2001). Taking a joke: Learning from the voices we don't want to hear.
Forum, 43(2), 70-73.
Bragg, S. (in press). "It's not about systems, it's about relationships": Building a
listening culture in a primary school. In D. Thiessen & A. Cook-Sather (Eds.),
International handbook of student experience in elementary and secondary school. Dor-
drecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
Brown, K. (2002). The right to learn: Alternatives for a learning society. London and New
York: Routledge/Falmer.
Bullough, R. V. Jr., & Gitlin, A. (2001). Becoming a student of teaching: Methodologies for
exploring self and school context. New York: Garland.
Burbules, N. C. (1986). A theory of power in education. Educational Theory, 36(2),
95-114.
Commeyras, M. (1995). What can we learn from students' questions? Theory Into
Practice, 43(2), 101-106.
Cook-Sather, A. (2002a). Find out what it means to me: RESPECT. Academic
Exchange Quarterly, 6(1), 168-173.
Cook-Sather, A. (2002b). Authorizing student perspectives: Toward trust, dialogue,
and change in education. Educational Researcher, 31(4), 3-14.
Cook-Sather, A. (2003). Movements of mind: The matrix, metaphors, and
re-imagining education. Teachers College Record, 105(6), 946-977.
Cook-Sather, A. (2006). "Change based on what students say": Preparing teachers
for a more paradoxical model of leadership. International Journal of Leadership in
Education, 9(4), 345-358.
Cook-Sather, A. (in press). Translating researchers: Re-imagining the work of inves-
tigating students' experiences in school. In D. Thiessen & A. Cook-Sather (Eds.),
Cook-Sather, A., & Shultz, J. (2001). Starting where the learner is: Listening to
students. In J. Shultz & A. Cook-Sather (Eds.), In our own words: Students'perspec-
tives on school (pp. 1-17). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Crane, B. (2001). Revolutionising school-based research. Forum, 43(2), 54-55.
Cremin, L. (1961). The transformation of the school: Progressivism in American education,
1876-1957. New York: Knopf.
Cruddas, L. (2001). Rehearsing for reality: Young women's voices and agendas for
change. Forum, 43(2), 62-65.

130.217.226.148 on Thu, 28 Mar 2024 19:23:27 +00:00
STUDENT VOICE 385
Cruddas, L., & Haddoc

tional development. S
Dahl, K. (1995). Challe
Practice, 43(2), 124-1
Danaher, P. A. (1994)
results of two surve
school. Journal of Edu
Darling-Hammond, L.
work. San Francisco: J
Darling-Hammond, L.
The collision of new
(Eds.), Many children
Delpit, L. (1988). The
people's children. Ha
Department of Educat
and young people a sa
Duckworth, E. (1987). T
and other essays on t
Press.
Ellsworth, E. (1992). Why doesn't this feel empowering? Working through the
repressive myths of critical pedagogy. In C. Luke &J. Gore (Eds.), Feminisms and
critical pedagogy (pp. 90-119). New York: Routledge.
Fielding, M. (2001a). Students as radical agents of change. Journal of Educational
Change, 2(3), 123-141.
Fielding, M. (2001b). Beyond the rhetoric of student voice: New departures or new
constraints in the transformation of 21st century schooling? Forum, 43(2), 100-
110.
Fielding, M. (2004a). Transformative approaches to student voice: Theoretical
underpinnings, recalcitrant realities. British Educational Research Journal, 30(2),
295-311.
Fielding, M. (2004b). "New wave" student voice and the renewal of civic society.
London Review of Education, 2(3), 197-217.
Fielding, M., & McGregor, J. (2005). Deconstructing student voice: New spaces for
dialogue or new opportunities for surveillance? Paper presented at the Annual
Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Quebec.
Fine, M., Torre, M. E., Burns, A., & Payne, Y. (in press). Youth research/
participatory methods for reform. In D. Thiessen & A. Cook-Sather (Eds.),
Fine, M., Roberts, R. A., & Torre, M. E. (with Bloom, J., Burns, A., Chajet, L.,
Guishard, M., & Payne, Y. A.). (2004). Echoes of Brown: Youth documenting and
performing the legacy of Brown v. Board of Education. New York: Teachers College
Press.
Flutter, J., & Rudduck, J. (2004). Consulting pupils: What's in it for schools? London:
Routledge/Falmer.
Franklin. B. M. (2000). Curriculum & consequence: Herbert M. Kliebard and the promise
of schooling. New York: Teachers College Press.
Freire, P. (1990). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum.
Freire, P. (1998). Pedagogy offreedom. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Fullan, M. (1991). The new meaning of educational change. NewYork: Teachers College
Press.
Gallagher, K., & Lortie, P. (in press). Building theories of their lives: Youth engaged
in drama research. In D. Thiessen & A. Cook-Sather (Eds.), International hand-

130.217.226.148 on Thu, 28 Mar 2024 19:23:27 +00:00
book of student experience in

erlands: Springer.
Galloway, M., Pope, D., & Os
perspectives on changing s
(Eds.), International handbook o
Dordrecht, The Netherland
Gersch, I. (1996). Listening
Upton, & V. Varma (Eds.), Th
27-48). London: Falmer.
Gilbert, P. (1989). Writing, sc
Giroux, H. A. (1985). Critica
experience. Journal of Educ
Giroux, H. A. (1992). Border cro
York: Routledge.
Goldman, G., & Newman, J.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Gore, J. (1992). What can we do for you? What can "we" do for "you"?: Struggling
over empowerment in critical and feminist pedagogy. In C. Luke & J. Gore
(Eds.), Feminisms and critical pedagogy (pp. 54-73). New York: Routledge.
Greene, M. (1983). On the American dream: Equality, ambiguity, and the persis-
tence of rage. Curriculum Inquiry, 13(2), 179-193.
Hadfield, M., & Haw, K. (2001). "Voice," young people and action research. Edu-
cational Action Research, 9(3), 485-499.
Hart, R. (1997). Children's participation: The theory and practice of involving young
citizens in community development and environmental care. London: Earthscan.
Heilbrun, C. (1988). Writing a woman's life. New York: Ballantine Books.
Heshusius, L. (1995). Listening to children: "What could we possibly have in
common?" From concerns with self to participatory consciousness. Theory Into
Practice, 43(2), 117-123.
Hill, K. (2003). New narratives, new identities: Reflections on networked learning 1
and 2. Unpublished reflections.
Holdsworth, R. (2000). Schools that create real roles of value for young people.
UNESCO International Prospect, 3, 349-362.
Holdsworth, R. (Ed.). (1986). Student participation and equity program (PEP Discus-
sion Paper 2). Canberra, Australia: Commonwealth School Commission.
hooks, b. (1994). Teaching to transgress: Education as the practice offreedom. New York:
Routledge.
John, M. (1996a). Voicing: Research and practice with the silenced. In M. John
(Ed.), Children in charge: The child's right to a fair hearing (pp. 3-24). London:
Jessica Kingsley.
John, M. (Ed.). (1996b). Children in charge: The child's right to afair hearing. London:
Jessica Kingsley.
Johnson, J. H. (1991, October 2). Student voice: Motivating students through
empowerment. Oregon School Study Council Bulletin, 35.
Johnston, P., & Nicholls, J. (1995). Voices we want to hear and voices we don't.
Theory Into Practice, 43(2), 94-100.
Kamler, B. (2001). Relocating the personal: A critical writing pedagogy. New York: State
University of New York Press.
Kamler, B. (2003). Relocating the writer's voice: From voice to story and beyond.
English in Australia, 138(Spring), 34-40.
Kincheloe,J. (in press). Clarifying the purpose of engaging students as researchers.
In D. Thiessen & A. Cook-Sather (Eds.), International handbook of student experience
in elementary and secondary school Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.

130.217.226.148 on Thu, 28 Mar 2024 19:23:27 +00:00
STUDENT VOICE 387
Kirby, P. (2001). Partic

Kohn, A. (2004). NCLB
G. Wood (Eds.), Many
Kozol, J. (1991). Savage
Perennial.
Ladson-Billings, G. (1994). The dreamkeepers: Successful teachers of African American
children. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Lawrence-Lightfoot, S. (2000, March). Respect: To get it, you must give it. Swarth-
more College Bulletin.
Lee, L. E., & Zimmerman, M. (2001). Passion, action, and a new vision for student
voice: Learnings from the Manitoba School Improvement Program Inc. Educa-
tion Canada, 34-35.
Levin, B. (1994). Educational reform and the treatment of students in schools.
Journal of Educational Thought, 28(1), 88-101.
Levin, B. (2000). Putting students at the centre of education reform. Journal of
Educational Change, 1(2), 155-172.
Lewis, J. (1996). Children teaching adults to listen to them. In M. John (Ed.),
Children in charge: The child's right to a fair hearing (pp. 209-215). London: Jessica
Kingsley.
Lewis, M. (1993). Without a word: Teaching beyond women's silence. New York:
Routledge.
Lincoln, Y. (1995). In search of students' voices. Theory Into Practice, 43(2), 88-93.
Lodge, C. (2005). From hearing voices to engaging in dialogue: Problematising
student participation in school improvement. Journal of Educational Change, 6(2),
125-146.
Lorde, A. (1984). The transformation of silence into action. Sister outsider: Essays and
speeches. Trumansburg, NY: Crossing Press.
MacBeath, J., Demetriou, H., Rudduck, J., & Myers, K. (2003). Consulting pupils: A
toolkit for teachers. Cambridge, UK: Pearson.
McCallum, B., Hargreaves, E., & Gipps, C. (2000). Learning: The pupil's voice.
Cambridge Journal of Education, 30(2), 275-289.
McLaren, P. (1989). Life in schools: An introduction to critical pedagogy in the foundations
of education. New York: Longman.
McLaughlin, C., Carnell, M., & Blount, L. (1999). Children as teachers: Listening to
children in education. In P. Milner & B. Carolin (Eds.), Time to listen to children
(pp. 97-111). London: Routledge.
McPhail, A., Kirk, D., & Eley, D. (2003). Listening to young people's voices: Youth
sports leaders' advice on facilitating participation in sport. European Physical
Education Review, 9(1), 57-73.
Meier, D., & Wood, G. (Eds.). (2004). Many children left behind. Boston: Beacon Press
Mitra, D. (2001). Opening the floodgates: Giving students a voice in school reform.
Forum, 43(2), 91-94.
Mitra, D. (2004). The significance of students: Can increasing "student voice" in
schools lead to gains in youth development? Teachers College Record, 106(4),
651-688.
Mitra, D. (in press). Student voice in school reform: From listening to leadership.
In D. Thiessen & A. Cook-Sather (Eds.), International handbook of student
experience in elementary and secondary school. Dordrecht, The Netherlands:
Springer.
Nagle, J. P. (2001). Voices from the margins: The stories of vocational high school students.
New York: Peter Lang.
Nieto, S. (2000). Affirming diversity: The sociopolitical context of multicultural education
(3rd ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Longman.

130.217.226.148 on Thu, 28 Mar 2024 19:23:27 +00:00
Office for Standards in

sion: Guidance for inspec
Oldfather, P. (1995). Int
Practice, 43, 84-87.
Oldfather, P., Thomas,
(1999). The nature an
literacy motivations and
320.
O'Loughlin, M. (1995). D
possibility in teaching. T
Orner, M. (1992). Interru
A feminist poststructur
and critical pedagogy (p
Pekrul, S., & Levin, B. (20
Paper presented at the
Association, Montreal,
Pollard, A., & Triggs, P. (20
education. London: Continuum.
Pollard, A., Thiessen, D., & Filer, A. (Eds.). (1997). Children and their curriculum.
London: Falmer Press.
Popkewitz, T. S. (1988). Educational reform: Rhetoric, ritual, and social interest.
Educational Theory, 38(1), 77-93.
Postlethwaite, K., & Haggerty, L. (2002) Towards the improvement of learning in
secondary school: Students' views, their links to theories of motivation and to
issues of under- and over-achievement. Research Papers in Education, 17(2), 185-
209.
Prieto, M. (2001). Students as agents of democratic renewal in Chile. Forum, 43(2),
87-90.
Pupils at Wheatcroft Elementary. (2001). Working as a team: Children and teachers
at Wheatcroft Primary School learning from each other. Forum, 43(2), 51-53.
Raider-Roth, M. (2005). Trusting what you know: The high stakes of classroom relation-
ships. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Rich, A. (1984). Cartographies of silence. In The fact of a doorframe (p. 234). New
York: W. W. Norton.
Rodgers, C. (2006). Attending to student voice: The role of descriptive feedback in
learning and teaching. Curriculum Inquiry, 36(2), 209-237.
Rubin, B., & Silva, E. (Eds.). (2003). Critical voices in school reform: Students living
through change. London: RoutledgeFalmer.
Rudduck, J. (2002). The 2002 SERA lecture: The transformative potential of con-
sulting young people about teaching, learning and schooling. Scottish Educational
Review, 34(2), 133-137.
Rudduck, J. (in press). Student voice, student engagement, and school reform. In
D. Thiessen & A. Cook-Sather (Eds.), International handbook of student experience in
elementary and secondary school. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
Rudduck, J., Chaplain, R., & Wallace, G. (1996). School improvement: What can pupils
tell us ? London: David Fulton.
Rudduck, J., & Demetriou, H. (2003). Student perspectives and teacher practices:
The transformative potential. McGillJournal of Education, 38(2), 274-288.
Rudduck, J., & Flutter, J. (2004). How to improve your school: Giving pupils a voice.
London: Continuum.
Russell, P. (1996). Listening to children with disabilities and special educational
needs. In R. Davie, G. Upton, & V. Varma (Eds.), The voice of the child: A handbook
for professionals (pp. 107-119). London: Falmer.

130.217.226.148 on Thu, 28 Mar 2024 19:23:27 +00:00
STUDENT VOICE 389
Sanon, F., Baxter, M

urban high school
Students 'perspecti
Schlechty, P. C.,
speculative essay. H
Schultz, K. (2003). L
Teachers College P
Schutz, D. (2003). R
precollege instruct
http://www.tcreco
Shor, I. (1987). Freire
NH: Heinemann.
Shor, I. (1992). Empowering education: Critical teaching for social change. Chicag
University of Chicago Press.
Shultz, J., & Cook-Sather, A. (Eds.). (2001). In our own words: Students'perspectives o
school. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Silva, E. (2001). Squeaky wheels and flat tires: A case study of students as reform
participants. Forum, 43(2), 95-99.
Silva, E., & Rubin, B. (2003). Missing voices: Listening to students' experiences wit
school reform. In B. Rubin & E. Silva (Eds.), Critical voices in school reform: Students
living through change (pp. 1-7). London: RoutledgeFalmer.
Sizer, T. (2004). Preamble: A reminder for Americans. In D. Meier & G. Wood
(Eds.), Many children left behind (pp. xvii-xxii). Boston: Beacon Press.
Smyth,J. (in press). Toward the pedagogically engaged school: Listening to student
voice as a positive response to disengagement and "dropping out"? In D. Thies-
sen & A. Cook-Sather (Eds.), International handbook of student experience in elemen-
tary and secondary school. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
Smyth, J., & Hattam, R. (with Cannon, J., Edwards, J., Wilson, N., & Wurst, S.).
(2004). "Dropping out, " drifting off, being excluded: Becoming somebody without school.
New York: Peter Lang.
Spring, J. (1994). The American school, 1642-1993. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Stenhouse, L. A. (1975). An introduction to curriculum development. London: Heine-
mann Educational Books.
Stenhouse, L. A. (1983). The aims of the secondary school. In Authority, education
and emancipation (pp. 153-154). London: Heinemann Educational Books.
Stevenson, R. B., & Ellsworth, J. (1993). Dropouts and the silencing of critical
voices. In L. Weis & M. Fine (Eds.), Beyond silenced voices: Class, race and gender in
United States schools (pp. 259-272). Albany: State University of New York Press.
Strucker, M., Moise, L. N., Magee, V. L., & Kreider, H. (2001). Writing the wrong:
Making schools better for girls. In J. Shultz & A. Cook-Sather (Eds.), In our own
words: Students' perspectives on school (pp. 149-164). Lanham, MD: Rowman &
Littlefield.
Thiessen, D. (1997). Knowing about, acting on behalf of, and working with primary
pupils' perspectives: Three levels of engagement with research. In A. Pollard, D.
Thiessen, & A. Filer (Eds.), Children and their curriculum (pp. 184-196). London:
Falmer Press.
Thiessen, D. (in press). Researching student experiences in elementary and sec-
ondary school: An evolving field of study. In D. Thiessen & A. Cook-Sather
(Eds.), International handbook of student experience in elementary and secondary school.
Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
Thomas, W. B. (1985). Schooling as a political instrument of social control: School
response to black migrant youth in Buffalo, New York, 1917-1940. Teachers
College Record, 86(4), 579-592.

130.217.226.148 on Thu, 28 Mar 2024 19:23:27 +00:00
Thomson, P. (in press). Mak

students' learning. In D. T
book of student experience
erlands: Springer.
Thomson, P., & Gunter, H. (
a school evaluation. Paper
Educational Research Ass
Thomson, P., & Holdswort
participation": An emergin
dieu. International Journal
Thorkildsen, T. (in press).
and academic engagement
handbook of student experie
Netherlands: Springer.
Weiler, K. (1991). Freire and
Review, 61(4), 449-474.
Weis, L., & Fine, M. (Eds.).
United States schools. Alban
What Kids Can Do. (2003). F
Wilson, B. L., & Corbett, H.
teachers they want. New Yo
Wood, G. (2004). Introduc
behind (pp. vii-xv). Boston
Wyn,J. (1995). 'Youth" and
Yonezawa, S., & Jones, M.
secondary school reform.
handbook of student experie
Netherlands: Springer.
Youens, B., & Hall, C. (2004).
education: Lessons from th
Meeting of the American

130.217.226.148 on Thu, 28 Mar 2024 19:23:27 +00:00

Student Voice in Educational Research and Reform

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Student Voice in Educational Research and Reform

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Student Voice in Educational Research and Reform

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sound, Presence, and Power: "Student Voice" in Educational Research and Reform

Author(s): Alison Cook-Sather

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/4124743

This content downloaded from

Sound, Presence, and Power: "Student

Bryn Mawr College

Every way of thinking is both premised on and generative of a way of naming th

Every way of thinking is both premised on and generative of a way of

This content downloaded from

warrant not only the

I offer from my own perspective; I identify two underlying premises of

"student voice" came to enter our discourse and to bring together in

This content downloaded from

THE EMERGENCE OF THE TERM "STUDENT VOICE" IN

In the early 1990s, a number of educators and social critics note

This content downloaded from

been seen as a vote wi

This content downloaded from

This content downloaded from

done in response or wit

POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE ASPECTS OF "STUDENT VOICE"

Those of us who use "student voice" to capture the range of activiti

This content downloaded from

use voice as a met

Positive Aspects of "Student Voice"

term because speaking does generally signal presence, involvement, and

This content downloaded from

literature highlight how

This content downloaded from

A final positive aspect of "student voice," which is closely connected to

Negative Aspects of "Student Voice"

This content downloaded from

uniform and united entit

This content downloaded from

This content downloaded from

that these issues are ones

PREMISES UNDERLYING STUDENT VOICE WORK

The shifts in power relations, dynamics of participation, and models

Although widely evoked in publications focused on student voice work,

This content downloaded from

section of her boo

This content downloaded from

most recent federal leg

Indeed, what is striking about all of this legislation is that student

This content downloaded from

This content downloaded from

This content downloaded from

This content downloaded from

Taken together, then,

This content downloaded from

Lodge (2005) makes explicit some underlying principles that inform

This content downloaded from

and (4) students as res

1. Standards and 2. Rights discourse

a. Consulting la. Students can, if teachers 2a. Students have a right to

This content downloaded from

These different typ

cerned with "pupils' own perspectives on classroom teaching and learning"

This content downloaded from