The following is an annotated list of historical publications related to Meaningful Student Involvement, student voice and student engagement.
Abrell, R.L. and Hanna, C.C. (March 1971) “High School Unrest Reconsidered,” High School Journal, 54(6), pp. 396-404. An “analysis and.prescription” article included mainly as an example. Among the causes of student unrest considered are the bureaucratic nature of schools, adult hypocrisy, the media, a milieu of criticism of schools, increased numbers of students, and the schools’ reliance on competition as the main motivational technique. Among the cures suggested ark) increased communication; involvement of students, community and minorities; re-education of staff; and sensitivity to changes in student and community aspirations’.
Ackerly, R.L. (February 1971) “Reactions to ‘The Reasonable Exercise of Authority, “‘ Bulletin of NASSP, 352, pp. 1-12. The author of the NASSP pamphlet to help principals administer schools in compliance with court rulings on student rights concludes that the pamphlet was thoroughly ineffective and that schools did not move toward democracy and due process. In the next article, “An Activist Student Comments” (pp. 13-19), Ackerly’s 14-year-old son describes the pamphlet as an “interesting though somewhat elementary presentation of the student-administrator relationship in the school.” lie describes the oppressive administration and atmosphere of his own school in terms of the issues discussed in his father’s article. (Special issue oil “The Authority Crisis in Our Schools.”)
American Association of School Administrators and National Education Association. (1970) The Evaluated Evaluates the Evaluator. (Educational Research). (1 Circular No. 5) Washington, D.C.: AASA-NEA, 1970. 52 pp. A survey of 29 school systems in which students formally evaluate teachers and evaluate administrators; in only one school is student evaluation of teachers mandatory. Includes five instruments for student evaluation of teachers, and a 45 -item bibliography, unannotated, and student ratings of teachers.
AASA-NEA. (October 1970) Experiment in Free-Form Educations Mini-Courses. (Educational Research Service Information Aid No. 6) Washington, D.C.: AASA-NEA. 25 pp. Describes 17 recent attempts to supplement the regular curriculum with short-term courses based on student and teacher interest; most have heavy student involvement in creation, planning, and teaching.
AASA-NEA. (November 1970) Framework for Student Involvement. (Educational Research Service Circular No. 6) Washington, D.C.: AASA-NEA. A survey of 74 school systems reporting student involvement in decision-making; hearly all efforts to involve students were begun in the 1969-70 school Sear. Advisory committee at the local school -.:as the most frequently relAate.d method, while 5 districts included students as non-voting board members, and 15 said students served un 1 district advisory committees composed entirely of students or of students and adults. Eleven systems said that students served on curricular committees as advisory or voting (and in some cases paid) members. Other methods included participation of textbook selection, staff selection, human relations, accreditation, and disciplinary bodies. Tables briefly describe the systems, committees, membership, methods of operation, and areas of concern of groups on which students participate. Resolutions on student participation by NEArelated organizations are included.
Bailey, S.K. (1970) Disruption in Urban Public Secondary Schools: Final Report. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Research Corporation. A survey of students and others in 27 secondary schools in 19 urban areas on causes of unrest and disruption, “successful strategies for mitigating” such unrest, and policy recommendations. Generally agrees with earlier findings (items 18, 93) and finds that major issues are discipline, dress codes, school services and facilities, curriculum, and racial issues. It concludes that disruption is more likely in large schools and racially-integrated schools (though not if a high percentage of black students is matched by a high percentage of black staff). While 50% of the schools reported that students voted on the student conduct policy committee, 18X said students voted on the disciplinary body, and 20% said students voted on the curriculum development body, these claims were not supported by site visits to schools. This disparity of staff claims and actual student participation is common.
Benson, G.L. (1970) Student Activism and Organizational Imperatives: A Case Study. Unpublished Ed.D. thesis, University of Oregon. Describes one school in which student activism forced alterations in lines of authority, more effective communication by the administration, and administrative review of challenged policies.
Birmingham, J. (Ed.) (1970) Our Time is Now: Notes from the High School Underground. New York: Praeger. Selections from high school underground newspapers are tied together by the 17-year-old editor’s narrative of his own experiences and comments on the issues raised, so this collection is more coherent and useful than other similar collections. It includes sections on the underground press vs. administrators, student power aad powerlessness, student unions and similar organizations, and student-initiated educational reforms. Descriptions of the current situation provide a background for the proposals and programs included.
(May 1970) “Boardmen Reason: Share the Power with Students,” American School Board Journal, 157(11), pp. 27-28. A forum of seven school board members concludes (with some dissent) that students should be involved in all phases of school board decision-making except actual voting.
Bridges, E.M. (December 1969) “Student Unrest and Crisis Decision-Making,” Administrator’s Notebook, 18. Argues that schools’ abuse of authority and the lack of alternatives (among other reasons) make students choose a change strategy based on confrontation and induction of crisis, and discusses possible administrative responses: reformed classroom practices, channels to handle student grievances, and measures to take when the crisis erupts.
Chesler, M.A. (May 1969) “Dissent and Disruption in Secondary Schools,” paper presented at the annual meeting of the Metropolitan Detroit Bureau of School Studies, Inc. One of several reports by the Educational Change Team (ECT) at the University of Michigan. Interviews with students in secondary schools that experienced crisis show that many complaints focus on curriculum inadequacies and racism. Among the recommendations are the establishment of a faculty-student government to establish grievance procedures and stimulate dialogue. Role-playing exercises that highlight student school conflict are included.
(August 1969) Participants’ Views of Disrupted Secondary Schools: A Preliminary Report. Appendix D of Task Force Report on Easing School Tensions. Washington, D.C.: Office of the Secretary, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Data collected from students, principals, and teachers in seven schools experiencing disruption include perceptions of causes and underlying conditions, each group’s perception of its ability to influence school policy, and the amount of influence desired by each group.
(October 1970) “Shared Power and Decision-Making,” Educational Leadership, 28, pp. 9-14. Discusses rationales for, meaning of, and risks involved in sharing real power with students, and suggests several strategies for achieving shared power. One of the few entries that views students as a legitimate interest group that ought to have power.
(October 1969) “Student and Administration Crises,” Educational Leadership, 27, pp. 34-42. Discusses student concerns with schools and administrators that can lead to violent protests, and suggests methods by which students and staff can turn disruption into an opportunity for change. Short-range methods include negotiation and establishing grievance procedures, while long-range methods focus on decentralized decision-making and restructuring schools.
Chesier, M.A. and Lohman, J.E. (1971) “Changing Schools Through Student Advocacy,” in Schmuck, R.A. and Miles, M.B. (Eds.) Organization Development in Schools. Palo Alto: National Press Books. Proposes a restructuring of schools based on a redistribution of power to include students and other legitimate interest groups. The organizational variables of conflict, power, trust, communication and structure are discussed in the context of a “power-conflict” model of change. Several examples of strategies used by the authors to bring about changing students through training students are included. Recommended article.
Combs, S.L. (October 1970) “A Summary of a Survey of Student Involvement in Curriculum,” Journal of Secondary Edtcation, 45(6), pp. 243-249. A survey of 352 California high schools found that 56% had no student involvement in curriculum development, but that most schools intended to initiate such involvement. Specific examples of student participation and problems encountered are discussed.
Davis, J.R. (1971) Student Participation in Decision-Making as Seen by School Board Presidents, Superintendents, and High School Principals of Selected Public Schools in Texas. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Texas A & M. Finds that most respondents felt that students should be involved in decision-making, but only in advisory capacities, and not in staffing, directing, budgeting, or grading decisions.
DeCecco, J., Richards, A., Summers, F., et al. (1970) Civic Education for the Seventies: An Alternative to Repression and Revolution. New York: Center for Research and Education in American Liberties, Columbia University. A survey of nearly 7000 secondary school students finds that they felt they were regularly subjected to undemocratic decisions. Ten objectives for future civic education are included. A massive study with several breakdowns of data but poorly-written.
DeFlaminis, J. (1970) The Student Council and Its Role in the Administration of the Secondary School. Unpublished master’s thesis, State College at Bridgewater (Mass.). Describes current changes in society, schools, students, administrators, and student councils, and presents recommendations for integrating the student council into significant school decisions.
Denning, B.N. (1970) Evolving a Plan for Significant Student Participation in Decision-Making in Urban High Schools. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Wayne State University. Survey of 370 students finds that they felt uninvolved in school, had little hope of exerting influence, and wanted more influence. The major concerns, in order, were: dress codes, censorship, hall conduct, discipline, extracurricular activities, counselor duties, and curriculum. No variation in response was found by race, social-economic class, or urban/suburban location of school.
Divoky, D. (Ed.) (1969) How Old Will You Be in 1984? Expressions of Students from the High School Free Press. New York: Discus Avon. A collection of 250 excerpts from the underground press, arranged by topic: schools, society, students. Not as good as Birmingham (item 8), but another perspective on conditions and changes.
Dodson, D. W. (1969) High School Racial Confrontation: A Study of the White Plains, New York, Student Boycott. White Plains, N.Y.: White Plains Board of Education. A case study of the boycott, including school and community conditions, hypotheses of causes, events, and changes that resulted, including a greater voice in discipline by students.
(November-December 1970) “Student Power as a Means to Educational Change,” Integrated Education. pp. 32-39. Argues that students lack the opportunity of redistributing power through political processes, and so have chosen disruption as an alternative strategy. He argues that the whole institutional structure of education has to be restructured through some kind of disrU-tion.
Erickson K., et al. (March 1969) Activism in the Secondary Schools: Recommendations. Eugene: Bureau of Educational Research, University of Oregon. A widely-cited analysis of student activism, including examination of the roles of students and adults, types of activism, and ways in which activism can benefit education. Includes recommendations.
Erlich, J. and Erlich, S. (1971) Student power, participation and revolution. Association Press. A number of stories focused on high school and college student involvement, activism and engagement.
Eurich, A.C. and the staff of the Academy for Educational Development (Eds.) (1970) High School 1980: The Shape, of the Future in American Secondary Education. New York: Pitman Publishing Corp. A collection of 23 articles on conditions and challenges of change, the future curriculum, and special problems and opportunities. 15 Except for articles by Weingartner and Friedenberg (which are recommended) it is a conventional view-from-the-top batch of predictions, with little attention to political processes of change or student power.
Fahey, J.J. (1971) Shared Power in Decision-Making in Schools: Conceptualization and Implementation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan, 1971. A student of the Educational Change Team describes attempts to share power among staff, students, and parents in seven case studies. His conclusions include several procedural suggestions for starting to share power; most of the suggestions reflect strategies similar to those of Program 1503 of CASEA.
27. Fearson, C. (September 1969) “Campus Protest and the Administrator,” Bulletin of NASSP, 338, pp. 28-35. Case study of the White Plains, N.Y. student boycott. (Special issue on “The Activated Student.”)
Ferguson, D.G. (February 1971) Student Involvement. working paper for discussion at the annual convention of the American Association of School Administrators. Discusses ways to involve students in solving educational problems by (1) creating a district agency that has student life as its main concern, (2) adding students to decision-making bodies, such as school board, faculty selection, policy formation committees, and (3) engaging students as producers of educational products and services for other students, for example, as tutors of younger students.
(February 1970) The New Morality of Teenagers: The New Student Voice. Paper presented at the annual convention of the American Association of School Administrators. Presents recommendations for responding to legitimate student demands by creating mechanisms for incorporating student input into school decisions, and discusses the need to emphasize student development and curriculum change.
Fielder, M. (October 1969) “A Diversified Team Approach to Conflict Intervention,” Educational Leadership, 27, pp. 15-18. Arguing that schools will be changed by conflict or attempts to avoid it, she describes a strategy of using a team of students, teachers, and the principal to intervene in crises and exploit their potential for constructive change.
(November 1968) “Finding New Ways to Meet Youth’s Needs,” School Management, 12(11). pp. 77-98. A special report on unresi in high schools describes: the ombudsman in the New Trier, Ill., schools who works with students; students in Dade County, Fla., who work as aides to school board members; and the Friday afternoon seminars on student-chosen topics in Teaneck, N.J.
Fink, N.W. and Cullers, B. (March 1970) “Student Unrest: Structure of the Public Schools a Major Factor?” The Clearinghouse, pp. 415-419. Applies Coffman’s concept of “total institutions” to analysis of unrest, and argues that organizational. imperatives — including power and control — of the institution.virtu%lly guarantee student rebellion.
Fish, K. (1970) Conflict and Dissent in the High Schools: An on the Scene Analysis. New York: Bruce Publishing Co. Report of a six-month study of high schools funded by NASSP. He discusses issues, presents case studies, describes alternative responses to dissent, and reports cases in which student organizations have exercised influence and/or developed experimental curricula. The emphasis throughout is on the principal’s role.
Flynn, W. (1971) The Principal as an Organizational Consultant to His Own School. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Oregon. Describes the attempt of CASEA’s Program 03 to involve students and staff in joint decision-making. The attempt, based on organizational development training, was never carried through, but Flynn describes his own later efforts to engage students in joint action with staff.
Friedenbcrg, E.Z. (May 1971) “The High School as a Focus of Student Unrest,” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 395. pp. 117-126. A useful analysis focusing on differences in protest at high school and college levels. Among the important differences are: adolescents are denied legal protections accorded to adult-aged college students, institutional traditions and organizational norms in high schools emphasize bureaucratic control of clients, high school protestors cannot link local issues to national concerns, and high school administrators have less room to maneuver and less inclination to negotiate with their captive clients than do college administrators. Recommended.
Goodman, M. (Ed.) (1970) The Movement Toward a New America. Philadelphia: Pilgrim Press, 1970. A collection of Movement writings includes a section on education, with several student reports on schools and efforts to change them. An organization titled RESIST (763 Massachusetts Ave., No. 4, Cambridge, Mass. 02139) has been set up as a clearinghouse for individuals and organizations doing high school organizing.
Gross, R. and Gross, B. (Eds.) (1969) Radical School Reform. New York: Clarion, 1969. A must collection of 23 articles by radical thinkers on the school crisis, including descriptions of schools, radical theory (especially on student participation, ghetto schools, and the curriculum), and descriptions of schools that offer freedom and student power. See especially Friedenberg’s widely-referenced article on “Autonomy and Learning,” and the superbly-done critique and proposal by the Montgomery County Student Alliance (Maryland); the latter is probably the best example of organized student research and thought in the literature, and is widely-cited.
Gross, R. and Osterman, P. (Eds.) (1971) High School. New York: Simon and Schuster. Another collection of radical critiques on “the most absurd part of an educational system pervaded by absurdity.” Includes essays on adolescent-adult conflict and the schools’ role; descriptions of schools by students and hip teachers; and descriptions of seven good high schools that stress the individual and collective participation of students in shaping the school, in varying degrees.
Gudridge, B.M. (1969) High School Student Unrest. Education. USA Special Report: No to Anticipate Protest, Channel Activism, and Protect Student Rights. Washington, D.C.: National School Public Relations Association. Perhaps the most clear and widely-known document of the liberal wing of the NEA complex. Aimed at administrators, it describes reasons for student grievances and disruptions, urges establishing formal channels for student communication and grievance procedures, and cites several examples of student involvement in curriculum and policy development. While calling for alleviation of student grievances and opening up school districts to more communication with students, the main emphasis is on what to do when the dam breaks, and fundamental inequities are never seriously discussed.
Halleck, S. L. “Hypotheses of Student Unrest,” Phi Delta Kappan, 40(1), September 1968, pp. 2-9. 8 A widely-cited article in which a psychiatrist catalogues and comments on several hypotheses to explain alienation and activism. “Critical” hypotheses include permissiveness in child-rearing, unwillingness of youth to assume responsibility, effects of unearned affluence, or family-pathology explanations. “Sympathetic” hypotheses include explanations citing spinoff from the civil-rights movement, effects of the war, reaction to international competition, and the deteriorating quality of life. “Neutral” hypotheses focus on impersonal, structuz21 causes such as media influence and students’ adoption of the prevailing world-view stressing scientific progress, the solvability of societal problems, and the possibility of human perfection.
Hansen, S. and Jensen, J. with Roberts, W. (1971) The Little Red Schoolbook. New York: Pocket Books. The U.S. edition of a handbook for students originally published in Denmark; this book caused something of a flap in educational circles when it first appeared: many educators regard it as scurrilous and/or seditious. Describes basic information for understanding and coping with the school system, and how to use schools for students’ purposes. Includes sections on decision-making and how to have influence. Interesting, but not that seditious.
Harrington, J.H. (October 1968) “Los Angeles’ Student Blowout,” Phi Delta Kappan, 50(2), pp. 74-79. Describes a student boycott of five predominantly Chicano schools to back demands for reform. Eventually involving 5,000 students, with community and AFT support; the boycott came after years of inaction by the school board. Describes the events, students’ demands, and later attempts of the school board to Meet the demands. Good example of a student-community coalition.
Harrison, H.M. and Patterson, W.N. (November 1970) “A Student Social Action Seminar with Influence,” Bulletin of NASSP, 349, pp. 79-89. Describes the seminar in Grants Pass, Oregon, its efforts and accomplishments, as well as reactions of the generally conservative town.
Hart, R.L. and Saylor, J.G. (1970) Student Unrest: Threat or Promise? Washington, D.C.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. A collection of eight papers by leaders in the educational establishment, based on two conferences held by ASCD. The main themes are unmet needs of youth, causes of unrest, characteristics of alienation, promising programs and strategies for making education relevant, and conflict intervention strategies.
Herr, E.L. (February 1972) “Student Activism: Perspectives and Responses,” High School Journal, 55(5), pp. 219-233. A review of literature and theory on student protest, characteristics of student protesters, powerlessness of students, and organizational characteristics of schools. Includes descriptions of alternative responses to protest.
Heussenstamm, F. K. (Fall 1971) “Activism in Adolescence: An Analysis of the High School Underground Press,” Adolescence, 6(23), pp. 317-336. Included here as an example of the literature on the underground press, a focal point of student activity and administrative resistance, the article discusses several explanations of the phenomenon of unrest, reviews some studies of the underground press, and presents a content analysis of several issues of one publication.
(March 1972) “Student Strikes in East Los Angeles,” School and Society (now Intellect), 100 (2340), pp. 182-185. Exactly two years after the “blowout” item, students and their allies demonstrated again. The article describes the original demands of the Educational Issues Committee, the inaction of the school board, and the lack of progress from 1968 to 1970.
(December 1968) “High School Activists Tell What They Want,” Nation’s Schools, 82, pp. 29-31. Statements by leaders of the Cleveland Movement for a Democratic Society, the New York High School Student Union, the United Student Movement in Palo Alto, and the Chicago Black Students.
(November 1968) “High Schools Face New Challenges from Growing Student Unrest,” Nation’s Schools, 82, p. 28f. Describes the N.Y. High School Student Union and other examples of student activism in Fall, 1968.
(March 1970) “How Student Involvement Pays Off,” School Management, 14(3), pp. 29-32. Description of Niles Township, Ill., schools, where three students are advisory members of the school board, and students serve on the citizens’ advisory council.
(July 1969) “How to Involve Students in Decision-Making,” School Management, 13(7), p. 12f. Description of the participation of 20 students on the Buffalo, N.Y., schools’ curriculum committees; they are paid for summer work.
Jacobs, S. (April 1, 1972) “What Happened When a High School Tried Self-Government,” Saturday Review, 55(14), 1, .12. Case study of Staples High School in Westport, Conn. The old student council dissolved itself, and a faculty-student committee created the new school government. Composed of ten students, seven teachers, and three administrators elected by their constituencies, the Staples Governance Board had real power in curriculum, behavior codes, school relations, and extracurricular activities (but apparently not in hiring, staffing, or grading). The principal’s vote may be vetoed by a 75% vote. Jacobs emphasizes that SGB members have not staff-student lines, but that liberal-conservative factions cut across formal roles.
Johnson, D. (1971) “Students Against the School Establishment: Crisis Intervention in School Conflicts and Organizational Change,” Journal of School Psychology, 9(1), pp. 84-92. Focuses on organizational student-adult conflicts having roots in the school’s control orientation, student powerlessness, and alienation. Discusses uses of third-party consultants in constructive resolution of conflicts to promote organizational development.
Kay, M.S. (February 1970) “Student Freedom and Power as Instruments,” Educational Leadership, 27(5), pp. 462-464. Describes student participation in governance of Pacific High School in Palo Alto, California. (Special issue on “Student Participation: Toward Maturity?”)
Kean, M.H. (1972) Student Unrest and Crisis: The Response of an Urban Educational System. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Ohio State University. Historical study of the Philadelphia schools’ response to unrest is highlighted with this critical study of one incident. He finds support for the hypothesis that under certain management conditions, unrest can lead to productive change. Six areas in which change resulted from unrest are discussed.
Kukla, D. (January 1970) “Protest in black and white: Student radicals in the high schools,” Bulletin of the NASSP, 342, pp 72-86. Presents literature and research on black and white sutent activism, participants’ demands and attitudes, and the effects of student activism on principals.
Libarle, M. and Seligson, T. (Eds.) (1970). The High School Revolutionaries. New York: Vintage Books. A collection of 21 articles by students on suburban radicals, black students, youth culture, junior high and high schools, private schools and women’s liberation. With the exception of three articles on the politics of the high school movement, this collection is not as valuable as Birmingham’s (item 8).
Lowenhagen, C. (December 1969) “Anatomy of a Student Demonstration,” Bulletin of NASSP, 341, pp. 81-86. Case study of a student walkout in Amsterdam, N.Y., partly in reaction to the board’s proposed budget cuts. The boycott led to board action and involvement of students in school board election campaigns.
Mann, J.S. (October 1970) “Political Power and the High School Curriculum,” Educational Leadership, 28(1), pp. 23-26. Calls for a coalition of curriculum workers and students to create a politically-aware curriculum to cope with repressive and dehumanizing educational institutions and practices.
March, W.L. (1971) A Study of Accommodation of Selected Indiana Secondary Schools to Student Unrest. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University, 1971. A survey of 33 principals finds little accommodation, consisting of some changes in administrative practices and policies, and some fairly insignificant student involvement in decision-making, with the least accommodation coming in curriculum.
Martin, D.L. (March 1972) “Assault of the Teenage Boardmen,” American School Board Journal, 159(3), March 1972, pp. 35-39. Analysis of the effects of 18-to-21-year-old candidates in school board races in Fall, 1971. Of the 67 candidates, 41 were 18 years old, 14 were 19, 7 were 20, and 5 were 21; 58 were college students and five were high school students. More than half the candidates ran in Ohio races, while others ran in Texas, Washington, Iowa, Arizona, Massachusetts, California, Rhode Island, Oregon, and Wisconsin. Most ran on liberal, not radical, platforms; communication, drug education, and curriculum were the major issues. The issues and campaigns of the nine successful candidates are described.
Mather, L.S. (1970) The Legal Status of the Student Body Organization in Public High Schools and Junior Colleges. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California, 1970. A survey of the legal environment of student organizations in the 50 states, and a discussion of legal implications of the organization’s activities and relationship to the school structure.
McDermott, G.A. (1971) The California Association of Student Councils: A Historical Survey of Student Participation. Unpublished doctoral thesis, UCLA. Claims that this statewide advisory body of student council representatives has been “effectively involved in an advisory capacity in the areas of youthful concern and educational activity.”
McKenna, B. (February 1971) “Student Unrest: Some Causes and Cures,” Bulletin of NASSP, 352, pp. 54-60. An “analysis and prescription” article focusing on dull curriculum, unmotivating teaching practices, poor human relations, and the lack of student involvement in decision-making, with a few recommendations. McKenna was the head of the NEA task force on student involvement; the group’s report is said to include “100 techniques for responding to unrest.”
McPartland, J., McDill, E.W., Lacey, C., Harris, R.J. and Hovey, L.B. (1971) Participation in High Schools: A Study of 14 Urban High Schools. Baltimore: Center for Social Organization of High Schools, Johns Hopkins University. A study of effects of student participation based on data from 3450 students and 765 teachers. Surveys teachers’ and students’ perceptions of actual and desired student participation in decisions on social and political rules, including courses, discipline, rating teachers, and grades. Perceptions of actual participation generally agree, but students want more involvement than teachers want to grant, and students perceive greater discrepancy between actual and desired participation than do teachers. Teachers and students generally have similar priorities: both want more student participation in nonacademic matters than in academic matters, though a quarter of the teachers would welcome real student authority in decisions. Most students were satisfied with schools’ services and facilities but a substantial minority was not: boys, older students, and students of higher social class were more critical than Students of other categories. While most students were interested in the student government only for the social services it offered, a minority in every school wanted access to the government to advance its own ideas for social change.
Miller, H. (May 1970) “Santa Barbara Has a Student School Board,” American School Board Journal, 157(11). Fourteen students elected by peers or appointed by student governments meet twice monthly with the school board-to bring student concerns to the board’s attention.
Moffett, A.J., Jr. (May 1970) “Youth Gets a Voice in New Student Center,” Nation’s Schools, 85(5). pp. 57-59. Describes the “Office of Students and Youth” within USOE, started in September 1969. The office was set up to seek technical and financial assistance for innovative student-run programs, keep USOE tuned in to students, and present a national overview of school tensions and ways of dealing with them. The office also runs the Student Information Center in Washington) D.C. Staffed mainly by local students, the center collects information on innovations in public high schools, especially those started by students; student rights; and participation in governance. At the time of the article the center was trying to establish a clearinghouse of information on secondary school issues, especially student-initiated reforms.
New Jersey State Federation of District Boards of Education. (1971) Student Activism And Involvement in the Educational Program: Federation Ad Hoc Committee Report; Trenton, N.J.: State Federation of District Boards of Education. Prescriptions and sample policies on student rights, participation, and grievance procedures, none of which seem to offer substantial amounts of student power.
North Carolina State Board of Education. (1971) Student Involvement: A Bridge to Total Education. Revised Edition. Raleigh, N.C.: Task Force on Student Involvement, Department of Public Instruction. A foundation for ways of opening channels for students to express opinions and have greater responsibilities for solving educational problems in policies, attitudes, extracurricular activities the student council, human relations) and the curriculum.
Nystrand, R.O. (February 1969) “High School Students as Policy Advocates)” paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association. Argues that students can organize themselves to present demands to school officials, and that some of the things they demand can be negotiated successfully.
OM Collective. (1971) The Organizer’s Manual. New York: Bantam. Includes-a section on high schools that suggests questions for pinpointing the system’s weaknesses, some issues that can be used to-rally students to an organization, and strategies Chapter references include handbooks for starting high school underground organizations, and four national organiiations of high school students.
Ornstein, A.C. (March 1970) “On High School Violence: The Teacher-Student Role,” Journal of Secondary Education, 45(3), pp. 93- 105. Among the more radical indictments to be found in the establishment press. Analyzes the split between teaching democracy and the bureaucratic repression in schools, powerlessness of students, and schools’ control – authority obsession. Argues that if open rebellion is the only students can achieve citizenship, then so be it.
“On School Violence,” (1971) Journal of Secondary Education, pp. 9-15. An indictment of theSecondary school system for dehumanization, oppression, and irrelevance, and disCUssion of students’ reactions to the system. The editors include a funny little note of apology to readers who might be offended by the strength of the argument.
Ostrander, K., Lundquist, R.M. and Shaw, C.H. (February 1971) “Grievance Procedures for Students, “ Journal of Secondary Education, 46(2), pp,: 92-90. DescrIbeS the Seattle schools’ appeals procedure. Students first: go to:a guidance counselor appointed by the principal, then to a board composed of four students (One each appointed by the principal, 0.0P4 dent body president, student council, and student union) and three faculty.
Pearl, A. The Atrocity of Education.- St, Louis: He Critics Press, 1972. See especially Chapter 4, “Preparing for Democratic Citizenship,” which describes Pearl’s views on student rights, governance, proper administrative reaction to strong student organizations, and his suggestions on giving students real power..
Peterman, L.E. “A Place of Responsibility: Where it Worked Both Ways,” Bulletin of NASSP, 338, September 1969, pp. 1-22. Case study of Oak Park, Mich., high school, where a black student group successfully negotiated demands. A white student group then negotiated demands for more poWer and participation, and-then a student liberation front arose to present further demands. He claims that avoidance of over-reaction and Prior commitment to change were instrumental in the success of negotiations.
Pileggi, V. (July 1969) “Revolutionaries Who Have to be Home by 7:30,” Phi Delta Kappan, 50(10), pp. 560-569. A famous and supercilious account of militants in New York and elsewhere, with responses by five educational leaders. Friedenberg’s response calls attention to the inadequacy of typical administrative assumptions about students and schools.
Postman, N. (June 24, 1970) “Once Upon a Time – A Fable of Student Power,” New York Times Magazine, pp.-10-11. Delightful scenario for alternative education when the mayor of New York shuts down secondary schools and lets students do useful and interesting things around the city.
Postman, N. and Weingartner, C. (1971) The Soft Revolution: A Student Handbook for Turnin: the Schools Around. New York: Delacorte. Essential reading for students and others. A McLuhanesque collection of analysis, information and strategies for making changes; unfortunately, it has neither index nor table of contents. 3ased on a metaphor of judo as a strategy (float like a butterfly, sting like a bee) and the authors’ emphasis on language as a shaper of thought. The grab bag approach comes from their insistence that no lineal change program is suitable for all situations. Rather, you look at who you are (understand very well the structure of the system, its symbology, and the psychology of people in it), decide where you want to go, and look at different ways of getting there. The authors make the point that “considering the energy spent in [confrontational] tactics in the past five years, the movement has been depressingly inefficient. With few real changes, the system persists, better than ever equipped to deal with confrontation. Includes many short sections on principles, strategies, cartoons; many examples of what students have done; Nader; ACLU; starting publications, questions to help structural analysis, and “Ten Smart Things You Can Do Anytime Within the Next Two Weeks.”
Teaching as a Subversive Activity. New York; Delacorte, 1969. A by-now familiar rationale for inquiry teaching and freedom, some suggestions for doing things differently, and altering authority relations. See especially chapters on new teachers and big city schools.
(January 1971) “Profile of-the Large City High School,” Bulletin of NASSP, 351, pp. 3-104. In an issue devoted to results of a survey of 670 schools in 45 cities of more than 300,000 population, each chapter describes one facet Of contemporary big-city schools: goals, structure, staff, extracurricular activities, school-community relations, and others. See especially Chapter 8, “Student Activism and Conflict.” Reports of the frequency of conflict, contributing factors, support among adults and students, confrontations, issues, and demands at stake are included.
Reed, J.O. (1971) “The Role of the Student in Decision-Making in 16 Metropolitan Schools in Indianapolis, Indiana, as Perceived by Secondary School Administrators.” Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Ball State University. Finds that administrators would welcome more student involvement in extracurricular activities, assembly programs, curriculum, dress codes, building plans, faculty meetings, and building use, but not in discipline, teacher appraisal, school board membership, length of periods and school days, and athletic decisions.
Ruth, R. (March 1970) “Student to Schoolmen: Let’s Work Together,” School Management, 14(3), pp. 24-28. A student discusses problems of getting through to administrators and teachers, analyzes causes of unrest, suggests proposals for change, and describes “Students for Responsible Reform,” an independent radical action group that has been instrumental in some changes in curriculum and conduct policies in Hampden, Connecticut,
Sapone, C.V. (December 1969) “Education or Revolution,” Bulletin of NASSP, 341, pp. 76-80. Case study of Moline High School (Illinois), where students presented a petition to change the dress code, and negotiated changes.
Schmuck, R.A. and Runkel, P.J. (March 1972) Basic Program Plan. Strategies for Bringing Students, Parents, and Educators into Joint Decision-Making: A Proposal for a Program. Eugene, Oregon: Program R1503, CASEA. Describes the proposal to test organizational development strategies as a way or re-distributing power in schools. Rejecting eonfrontive and “administrative fiat” strategies, the authors propose to give each group training in communication and problem-solving skill’s, to help each group develop norms promoting collaboration and joint action, and then to bring the groups together to develop new decision-making structures, set consensually-validated goals, and adopt strategies for achieving the goals.
Shapiro, Arthur. “Minisimulation: Should Students Have a Voice in Curriculum Decisions?” Nation’s. Schools, 88(3), September 1971, pp. 59-62. Directions for role-playing game: students have presented demands for greater participation, the principal has refused to discuss them, and some community members have supported students. The game puts the roles of teacher, student, parent, central office administrator, and principal in a one-day conference called by the superintendent.
Silberman, C.E. (1970) Crisis in the Classroom: The Remaking of American Education. New York: Random House, 1970. 7 See especially Chapter 8, “Reforming the High School,” with his suggestions for loosening arbitrary administrative procedures, and description of recent developments that hold promise. Includes profiles of Parkway (Philadelphia), Adams (Portland, Ore.), and Murray Road Annex (Newton, Mass.) schools. There is disappointingly little discussion of collective action by students or student involvement in governance.
Sirkift, Joel. “Pilot School Governance.” Cambridge: Cambridge School Department and Graduate School of Education, Harvard University, 1971. 32 pp. ED 056 382. Describes the difficulties encountered in trying to establish genuine shared power in an experimental school operated jointly by the Cambridge schools and Harvard. The 120 students and 30 adults began with no formal governing structure and tried to create one. The author’s impressionistic account cites the failure to develop a coherent ideology or political theory as a major cause for failure. Introduction by Frederick Mulhauser raises good questions about what form of governance might replace the status quo in public schools.
Sproule, J.R. (September 1969) “A Potentially Constructive Force,” Bulletin of NASSP, 338, pp. 23-27. Case study of Brighton High School Rochester, N.Y., where a faculty/student forum, a stronger and more representative student council, and greater flexibility in curriculum are recent changes.
(September 1969) “Student Involvement; Channeling Activism into Accomplishment,” Nation’s Schools, 84(3), pp 39-50. This article reviews of ways students are more involved in different aspects of schools. Curriculum consultation, adV0OrY groups, minicourses, teacher evaluation, underground newspapers, and community action in several school systems are discussed. Includes articles on Parkway school in Philadelphia, and the Montgomery County Student Alliance.
Swanchak, J. (March 1972) “Student Radicals and the High Schools,” Educational Forum, 36(3) , pp. 373-381. Discusses causes of unrest, explanatory hypotheses, and administrative responses, based on his experiences in Nassau County* N.Y., where organized students issued an 80-page critique of schools and developed proposals for change.
Telles R.H. (1971) The Relationship Between Student Militancy and the Administration of the Urban Secondary School: A Case-Study of Three Detroit, Michigan High Schools. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan 1971. Finds that student involvement in decision-making is limited to inconsequential matters, partly due to teacher resistance. Administrators in the schools reported changes due to activism — especially in relations with the central office — but teachers and students did not perceive the same changes.
Vernon, S.A. (1970) The Task Force for Student Involvement. Raleigh: Department of Public Instruction, North Carolina State Board of Education. Describes the committee of high school students formed to promote greater student involvement. Sponsored by the state education department, the committee tries to be a forum for student opinion.
Wayne County Intermediate School District. (1968) Strategies for Educational Change: Final Report. Detroit: Author. Describes an attempt to test ways of changing policies and procedures to decrease alienation, identify new roles in decision-making for students, and to examine ways of training teachers to create learning experiences for delinquent and non-delinquent youth. Change agents from the district worked with two schools, including summer workshops and follow-up training during the school year, to promote organizational change. Major strategies were to establish new communication channels among role groups and to bring students and teachers together in curriculum development and other joint ventures. One of the very few reported attempts to base a deliberate change effort on a theory and consideration of relevant variables, but it seems to be very poorly conceptualized, planned and executed.
Wertheimer, P.A. (May 1971) “School Climate and Student Learning,” Phi Delta Kappan, 52(9). pp. 527-530. Talks about student freedom, student7teacher relationships, and student involvement in decision-making at John Adams High School in Portland, Oregon, but doesn’t really say much about what actually happens and how decisions are made.
(March 1969) “What Student Activists Are Doing,” Nation’s Schools, 83(3). pp. 61-66. Survey of organization and activities of the New York student union; student unions in Seattle, Baltimore, and Ohio; and student activities in several other cities.
Williams, S.B. (1970) Hassling. Boston: Little, Brown and Co. Case study of the 1967-68 year in Cubberly High School in Palo Alto, following formation of the Student Power Conference.
Wittes, Simon. (1970) People and Power: Crisis in Secondary Schools. Ann Arbor: Center for Research on Utilization of Scientific Knowledge, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan. Study of powerlessness among students in ten high schools that were disrupted by student activity. Includes measures on distribution of power among staff and students, student feelings of influence over school policy and his own life, alienation, and racial correlates. Finds that students who feel close to other students, in a school that has a high level of total power, believe more strongly in their own ability to control their environment. Implications for school system organization are discussed.
Yarnel, E.B. (1972) Student Involvement as an Administrative Technique in Decision Making by the Chief School Officer. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Ohio University. Survey of 318 administrators in Ohio and Pennsylvania indicates that 60% plan some kind of student participation in decision-making. He claims to have found more instances of constructive student actions and involvement than are reported in the current literature.
- Much of this was taken from Wyant, S. (April 1973) Power to the Pupil: An annotated bibliography of student involvement, student power and student participation in decision-making in public secondary schools. An occasional paper. Washington, DC: National Center for Educational Research and Development.
One reply on “Historical Student Involvement Bibliography”
This is absolutely outstanding!