Mandatory voice: Implementation of a district‐led student‐voice program in urban high schools

Abstract

This qualitative case study explores how urban high schools implement a district-initiated student-voice program, referred to as Student Advisory Committees, intended to improve school climate. The study uses an implementation science framework to analyze interview data from principals and advisors in 22 urban high schools. An iterative, top-down thematic analytic procedure was used for analysis and interpretation of the data. The results suggest wide variation in how the program was implemented in terms of fidelity, dosage, quality, program reach, and adaptation, with contextual school factorsnamely, principal and school characteristics-that help to explain this variation. In addition, the findings indicate that these contextual factors had a significant influence on how the school district implemented the student advisory committees. The authors discuss the implications for program implementation in the context of urban school districts and for school psychologists.

What Is Student Voice Anyway? The Intersection of Student Voice Practices and Shared Leadership

“…Degree of Change. Commitment to change ranges from performative to transformative (Biddle, 2019; Biddle & Hufnagel, 2019; Dobson & Dobson, 2021; Giraldo-García et al, 2021; Halliday et al, 2019; Warren & Marciano, 2018). Certainly, some student voice practices may be tokenistic or “just for show,” not actually intended to effectuate change (Biddle & Hufnagel, 2019; Mayes et al, 2021).…”

Reflexive disclosure in qualitative research publications in school psychology (2006–2021)

“…Similarly, Giraldo‐García et al . (2021, p. 66) who studied a district's implementation of a student voice project revealed that the authors were “active advocates for student‐voice and of its benefits, which may influence their perception of the implementation.” Newman and Ingraham (2020) discussed how they began their study by valuing a specific model of consultation.…”

“…Craggs and Kelly (2018, p. 60) disclosed how their research study on students who were moved from regular schools to alternative schools “arose out of experience of direct work with students who have undertaken [such] managed moves.” Giraldo‐García et al . (2021) revealed one of the researchers had been actively involved in the district before the study and thus had preconceived ideas about how programs were implemented there. Vega et al .…”

“…(2019, p. 259) who studied how Arab and Arab‐American students navigate issues of identity and discrimination framed their own experiences of discrimination as Arab‐Americans “a major threat to the validity of qualitative research.” In other cases, self‐impact was framed positively and even embraced. This was evident by the absence of negatively‐loaded terms such as “bias” as well as positive description of reflexivity as a way to “[provide] opportunities for more in‐depth insight into and meaning‐making from the findings” ( Giraldo‐García et al ., 2021, p. 57). These differences were especially visible in how researchers discussed their prior involvement in a site (e.g., the school where data was collected).…”

“…In Giraldo‐García et al . (2021, p. 66), one of the researcher's prior relationship with the district was included in the Limitations section because it gave the researcher “preconceived ideas” about the site which could have negatively impacted their interpretation of the data. On the other hand, Meyer and Cranmore (2020, p. 1062) reported their prior relationship with the site (as employees) as “[giving] the authors valuable context with which to analyze the interview transcripts.”…”