In The News

SoundOut is regularly cited as an expert service organization. Following are citations from news outlets, online media, scholarly sources and other locations.


Media Citations

Book Citations


  • Children’s Rights 0-8: Promoting participation in education and care by Mallika Kanyal for Routledge. March 26, 2014.
  • Organisation und Partizipation: Beiträge der Kommission Organisationspädagogik by Susanne Maria Weber, Michael Göhlich, Andreas Schröer, et al for Springer DE. 2013.
  • Engaging Pupil Voice to Ensure that Every Child Matters: A Practical Guide by Rita Cheminais for Routledge. January 11, 2013.
  • I’ve Got Something to Say: How student voices inform our teaching by David Booth for Pembroke Publishers Limited. October 9, 2013.
  • Young Citizens of the World: Teaching Elementary Social Studies through Civic Engagement, Second Edition by Marilynne Boyle-Baise and Jack Zevin for Routledge. December 4, 2013.
  • “I think it’s important we get a say”: KidsMatter and student voice by Australia Primary Schools Mental Health Initiative. 2013.
  • Better Serving Teens through School Library–Public Library Collaborations by Cherie P. Pandora and Stacey Hayman for ABC-CLIO. August 15, 2013.
  • Socially Responsible Literacy: Teaching Adolescents for Purpose and Power by Paula M. Selvester and Deborah G. Summers for Teachers College Press. 2012.
  • Aim High, Achieve More: How to Transform Urban Schools Through Fearless Leadership by Yvette Jackson and Veronica McDermott for ASCD. 2012.
  • Increasing Student Engagement and Retention Using Immersive Interfaces: Virtual Worlds, Gaming, and Simulation by Charles Wankel, Patrick Blessinger, Jurate Stanaityte and Neil Washington for Emerald Group Publishing. 2012.
  • The Student Voice Handbook: Bridging the Academic/Practitioner Divide by Warren Kidd and Gerry Czerniawski for Emerald Group Publishing. 2011.
  • Young People’s Voices in Physical Education and Youth Sport by Mary O’Sullivan and Ann MacPhail for Routledge. July 12, 2010.
  • A School District’s Journey to Excellence: Lessons From Business and Education by Bill McNeal and Tom Oxholm for Corwin Press. July 3, 2008.
  • Communities that Learn, Lead, and Last: Building and Sustaining Educational Expertise by Giselle O. Martin-Kniep for John Wiley & Sons. 2008.
  • International Handbook of Student Experience in Elementary and Secondary School by Dennis Thiessen and Alison Cook-Sather for Springer. June 3, 2007.
  • “Student school board reps are being heard” by W. Yost for the Sacramento Bee. January 25, 2007.
  • Designs and Methods for Youth-Led Research by Melvin Delgado for SAGE. 2006.
  • Students Are Stakeholders, Too!: Including Every Voice in Authentic High School Reform by Edie Holcomb for Corwin Press. 2006.
  • Lift Every Voice: African American Students’ Beliefs of Their School Climate by Constinia Charbonnett for West Virginia University. 2005.
  • “Youth Development, Participation, and School Reform: Creating Opportunities and Supports for Student Decision-making in a High School” by Matthew Calvert for University of Wisconsin-Madison. 2004.

Scholarly Citations


Dissertations Based on SoundOut

Other Citations



SHARE YOUR CITATION WITH US! Please leave a comment below with your information, or contact us.


Measuring the People in Meaningful Student Involvement

Whenever educators, students, researchers, advocates or parents are considering if an opportunity for involvement is meaningful, its essential to measure the people. When we consider the people, SoundOut examines motivation, student readiness and adult readiness, among other factors.


When we think about the outcomes of Meaningful Student Involvement, it’s important to identify the original motivation for action. Perhaps the first step is the most important, that the purpose of student involvement is clearly defined. It can be important to identify who declared that purpose, and whether their intention was known to everyone involved. Meaningful Student Involvement should matter in the classroom, throughout the school, and across your district.

The process of fostering Meaningful Student Involvement at your school affects how it is received. Different people who can foster the engagement of students as partners include students from the individual school who requested it, elected officials such as the school board or mayor, teachers, school leaders such as superintendents, principals, or other administrators. Identifying whether Meaningful Student Involvement was a district/state/federal policy directive can be important, and considering whether it was a response to internal or external challenges facing students in schools.

Motivation for Meaningful Student Involvement may include the expected or delivered outcomes of the action for students; teachers, principals, or other adults; building culture; the larger community, or; the entire education system. It might also include the history of student involvement in the individual school or district, positive or negative.

The final motivation to measure is whether Meaningful Student Involvement is part of a larger strategy, policy, or campaign focused on school improvement. Formalization is frequently one of the main political and professional motivations behind school change of all kinds.

Student Readiness

Ensuring Student Readiness for Meaningful Student Involvement is essential. This can include enhancing the capacity of students to be involved through building skills and sharing knowledge. It can also be through strategic positioning and sustainable Student/Adult Partnerships.

The first component of student readiness for Meaningful Student Involvement could be to determine whether students where involved in negotiating, advocating, or deciding there was a need for engaging students as partners in their school. It is not a requirement that they were; however, if they were, there may be more student readiness. The next step should reflect how students are be made aware of educators’ intentions for their involvement. Measuring student readiness should show that students deliberately reflect on their learning through involvement, schools, the education system, school improvement, and student voice as a whole.

Meaningful Student Involvement should reflect what steps have been taken to ensure that the level of involvement is appropriate to the knowledge and ability of the students involved. The developmental needs of students should be taken into account, and skill building learning opportunities focused on the task at hand, i.e. preparing agendas and taking minutes, formal decision-making, problem-solving, action planning, evaluation, task completion, budgeting, self-management, curriculum design, research, community organizing, etc. should be available throughout the course of involvement. Advanced leadership skills should be intentionally taught to students, including how to create teams, depersonalize conflict, and how to learn from the process as well as outcomes. Students should be prepared for routines involved in the activities they are involved in.

Knowledge-acquisition opportunities should link learning with the task at hand, such as school improvement, supportive learning environments, equity and diversity awareness, standards-based learning, etc. should be available too. Students should learn about the politics and personalities involved, the bureaucratic structures and policy constraints of the education system, and the reasons why students (and other groups) have been excluded from decisions. Also, informal conversations should happen to explain potential underlying reasons for personal conflict at meetings.

In addition to students’ leadership development, basic self-image and confidence of students should be built according to students’ experience, ability, and exposure. Activities should also deliberately provide opportunities for varying levels of engagement from students as well.


Adult Readiness

Students who schools work for often become adults who work for schools. The discrepancy between their experiences in academic success, social popularity, and student leadership do not prepare them to meaningful involve students. Ensuring adult readiness for Meaningful Student Involvement means taking time in order to critically reflect on our experiences as students and look at how we’ve behaved towards students as adults in schools.

Adults should be aware of what motivates students to be involved, and what students’ experiences of being involved have been. Adults should become fully informed about the issues, policies, programs, services, and/or activities that affect students. Becoming clear on what the need for student involvement is, adults should know who created or advocated for Meaningful Student Involvement—students, adults, or both. Adults should feel fully informed about Meaningful Student Involvement, student voice, and the possibilities and limitations of students’ roles in the activity at hand. Adults should be aware of how many adults are involved in ensuring student involvement in the activity. They should also be aware of how often adults advocate on behalf of students as partners to other adults in the system to persuade them to listen to students by listening to them, returning emails or phone calls, etc. On the flip side, they should be aware of which adults are not in favor of Meaningful Student Involvement, and how they resist, refuse, or deny student voice.

When it comes to promoting Meaningful Student Involvement, adults should consider whether adults promote the activities in a way that is fun or pleasant; gives positive recognition to Meaningful Student Involvement; and demonstrates adult trust in students. Promoting activities should not marginalize students to a limited role or set of issues in the school, and should show that adults allow students to make mistakes in the course of being involved. All activities should genuinely provide time to listen to students as part of the activities.

When considering readiness, adults should be prepared through training to provide emotional support for Meaningful Student Involvement by paying attention to students’ feelings, demonstrating appropriate levels of caring about their personal issues, helping students with their challenges and problems related to Meaningful Student Involvement, and discussing sensitive topics with students.

Meaningful Student Involvement should create space for adults to offer support for students through suggestions, feedback, critical questions, and other responses to student voice. Students should have a range of options to stimulate their ideas while adults are capable of helping students organize their activities and co-facilitate when appropriate. Adults should be provided timely information, and be presented information in real, concrete terms. (Read more about this subject in Student Voice Revolution: The Meaningful Student Involvement Handbook.)

Related Articles


Student Voice Revolution: The Meaningful Student Involvement Handbook written by Adam Fletcher published by CommonAction Publishing in 2017.

Measuring Meaningful Student Involvement

There are particular measures that should be evident when we measure the meaningfulness of student involvement. However, these measures are not quantitative metrics dependent on highly entwined outcomes that can be attributed to interventions, strategies, and approaches throughout the education system. Instead, the measures used here are larger systematic developments, qualitative processes, and procedural developments designed to acknowledge specific actions as well as generalized outcomes.

3 Areas to Measure

There are three primary areas to measure in Meaningful Student Involvement. They are:

1. Measuring the People in Meaningful Student Involvement

Measuring the people in Meaningful Student Involvement means looking at the whole person, including Motivation, Student Readiness and Adult Readiness.

2. Measuring the Activities in Meaningful Student Involvement

Measuring the activities in Meaningful Student Involvement means including Culture, Action, Barriers and Evaluation.

3. Measuring the Outcomes of Meaningful Student Involvement

Measuring the outcomes of Meaningful Student Involvement means including Relationships, Rigor and Relevance.


The effect of Meaningful Student Involvement on student learning is key to assessing opportunities. So is examining the effects of Meaningful Student Involvement on relationships among students, between students and adults, and on the culture of schools.

Programs, classrooms, schools, districts, agencies and other places promoting Meaningful Student Involvement should create specific policies in order to sustain Meaningful Student Involvement. Additionally, every formal and informal procedure within educational environments should be reformed in order to embrace and encourage Meaningful Student Involvement. This could include curricular approaches, student development processes, adult professional development; formal school improvement planning; and other avenues.

Each of these evaluative measures and assessments are important for examining the depth, breadth, and power of Meaningful Student Involvement.

You Might Like…

Measuring the Outcomes of Meaningful Student Involvement

There are many ways to measure Meaningful Student Involvement. One of the primary ways is by looking at the outcomes. SoundOut identifies Relationships, Rigor and Relevance as being the key outcomes to consider.

Measuring Relationships

Relationships are the most vital factor in determining the meaningfulness of student involvement. Adults who are chosen by students to provide safe, supportive relationships with them are called adult allies. Students can seek guidance from adult allies on informal and formal bases. Adult allies encourage students to work in solidarity with other students and adults when possible, and when that’s not possible they help strategize appropriate relationships. When students and adults have consciously chosen to work for equity and equality together, they form a type of relationship called a student/adult partnership. Student/Adult Partnerships can be present throughout the education system and are an innate component of Meaningful Student Involvement. These relationships include systematic, horizontal student-to-student mentorships and consultations, and gives students room to seek guidance from their peers all the time, as well as adults when appropriate.

In Meaningful Student Involvement, relationships give students opportunities to determine clearly stated goals, a plan of action, and time limits or deadlines. Students should start with short-term goals and activities in order to ensure their relationships with other students and adults, too. Students should not expected to make representations on behalf of the whole student body. There are careful considerations for activities, including to ensure that other areas of a students’ life do not suffer from their involvement, including their health, family, schoolwork, friends, or community activities. If students are selected to be involved by adults, consideration is also made to how that happens, and whether there’s a suitable alternative.

Students are adults should be aware of the peer-to-peer relationships among students. It’s important to encourage non-hierarchical relationships among students that are focused on equality and commonality. Furthering separating and segregating students within the student body in the name of meaningful involvement does nothing for students. Instead, encouraging cross-boundary student-to-student relationships enforces the collaborative, team-building orientation of Meaningful Student Involvement. Students who are involved should deliberately capture others students’ opinions, and report back to their peers when appropriate.


Measuring Rigor

Rigor is a key element in ensuring that student involvement is meaningful. Measuring rigor in Meaningful Student Involvement focuses primarily on robustness and authenticity.

One element of rigor in Meaningful Student Involvement is present in having different types of students motivated and encouraged to be meaningfully involved throughout education. Outreach should focus on historically disengaged students, differently-abled students, low achieving students, students from different youth sub-cultures, low-income students, and students from any minority populations within a school or community.

Meaningful Student Involvement should include an active recruitment program that’s integrated into the course of the regular school day. Currently involved students should be encouraged to nurture their successors, while all the students should be given opportunities to learn the knowledge and skills critical to their successful involvement. Meaningful Student Involvement needs to be visible in activities, programs, services and policy-making throughout individual schools and districts, as well as state education agencies and education-oriented nonprofits. Actively involved students should have student mentors who coach them when necessary

Rigorous activities focused on Meaningful Student Involvement should have resources dedicated specifically to engage students as partners, including training and travel budgets, technology, and office space. Students should be actively encouraged to speak at meetings, and active measures within the school should promote a positive image of students among adults.

In all activities, addressing student issues should happen primarily from a positive, present, and powerful perspective. It is important for students to critically examine and critique student involvement, schools, and the larger society. However, that should not happen at the expense of maintaining their positive, present, and powerful perspectives. Participants in all activities should be prepared for turnover among the students and adults involved in Meaningful Student Involvement as well. Traditional processes should be made more flexible to accommodate engaging students as partners, including timelines and deadlines. The most rigorous Meaningful Student Involvement activities build upon existing student involvement opportunities.

Assigning school staff the responsibility is a challenging, yet essential, component to ensuring rigor. School assignments should include pay, re-balancing work loads, and otherwise compensating school staff for their work. Adults throughout the school community can volunteer to support Meaningful Student Involvement, as can students.

Measuring Relevance

Ensuring the relevance of Meaningful Student Involvement happens when students are integrated as partners throughout the education system, and when activities stay genuinely focused on student voice.

Relevance can be ensured when deliberate steps are taken to ensure the issues addressed by Meaningful Student Involvement are relevant to students. Capacities that are explicitly developed among student and adults should be connected to schooling and the world beyond the activity students are engaged in. Acknowledging and/or assessing student learning from Meaningful Student Involvement should happen throughout the activity, and clear classroom learning connections should be drawn whenever appropriate. Ultimately, the relevance of Meaningful Student Involvement can be determined through the assessment and acknowledgement of student and adults learning, both about engaging students as partners throughout education, and about classroom based learning, when appropriate.

Steps should be taken to ensure that recognition is relevant to students, as well as to make sure Meaningful Student Involvement is fun for both students and adults. Students should have opportunities to form friendships beyond activities. Meaningful Student Involvement can enhance the goals and mission of your school, and activities should reflect those connections.



Related Articles



Student Voice Revolution: The Meaningful Student Involvement Handbook written by Adam Fletcher published by CommonAction Publishing in 2017.

Feature on Dana Mitra

Dana Mitra is a bright light shining for student voice. Since the inception of SoundOut in 2002, Dana has provided constant inspiration and guidance, gently pushing our thinking as we established the frameworks of Meaningful Student Involvement and making strident efforts to take student voice further across the United States.

Dana began her career in education as a teacher in the Washington DC area. With her PhD from Stanford University’s School of Education, she has become an Associate Professor of Education in the Educational Theory and Policy program at Penn State University. She is the Director of the Willower Center for Ethics and Leadership at Penn State and a co-Editor for the American Journal of Education, and served as a Fulbright-Nehru scholar to Bangalore, India in 2012.

Learn more about Dana and contact her at the Penn State University website.

Dana Mitra Bibliography

  • Mitra, D. (2015). The intersection of student voice and policy research. In Conner, J. and Rosin, R. (Eds.) Student voice in American educational policy: A national society for the study of education yearbook. NY: Teachers College Press.
  • Mitra, D. (2015) Forward in Brasoff, M., Student voice and school governance: Distributing leadership to youth and adults. NY: Routledge.
  • Serriere, S. & Mitra, D. (2014). Service-learning to empower second graders as change agents. In A. Libresco (Ed.), Exemplary Elementary Social Studies:  Case Studies in Practice (pp. xx-xx). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
  • Kawai, R., Serriere, S, & Mitra, D. (2104). Fostering civic efficacy and action through fifth graders’ civic ‘zines. In A. Libresco (Ed.), Exemplary Elementary Social Studies:  Case Studies in Practice (pp. 35-58). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
  • Cook-Sather, A and Mitra, D. (2013). Linking across the links: Student voice works-in-progress. Connect: supporting student participation, 202, August, 11-16. ISSN 2202-4980
  • Mitra, D. L. (2012). Increasing student voice in school reform: Building partnerships, improving outcomes. In Kelly, B. and Perkins, D. (Eds), Handbook of Implementation Science for Psychology in Education (pp. 361-372). New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • Mitra, D.L. & Kirshner, B. (2012). Insiders versus outsiders—Examining variability in student voice initiatives and their consequences for school change. In B. McMahon & J. Portelli (Ed.), Student engagement in urban schools: Beyond neoliberal discourses (pp. 49-72). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing
  • Mitra, D. & Zheng, A. (2011). Pennsylvania’s best investment: The social and economic benefits of public education. Education Law Center. Philadelphia, PA.
  • Mitra, D.L., Frick W. C., & Crawford, E. (2011). The ethical dimensions of student voice activities in the United States. In G. Czerniawski & W. Kidd (Eds.) The Student Voice Handbook: Bridging the Academic/Practitioner Divide (pp. 369- 380). London: Emerald.
  • Serriere, S. & Mitra, D. (2011). Student voice and youth development. In C. Day (Ed), Handbook on Teacher and School Development (pp. 223-232). New York: Sage.
  • Boggess, L. & Mitra, D. (2011). The extraordinary mentorship of Bill Boyd. Peabody Journal of Education, 86, 4, 380-389.
  • Eckert, S & Mitra, D.L. (2011). Policy. Oxford Biographies Online. New York: Oxford Press.
  • Mitra, D.L. (2011). Student participation. Oxford Biographies Online. New York: Oxford Press.
  • Mitra, D. L. (2009). Amplifying student voice. In M. Scherer (Ed.), Engaging the whole child: Reflections on best practices in learning, teaching, and leadership. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
  • Mitra, D. L. (2008). Making it ‘real’: The role of student voice in reforming classroom practice. Educational Leadership, 66, 3, 20-25.
  • Mitra, D. L. (2008). Student voice or empowerment? Examining the role of school-based youth-adult partnerships as an avenue toward focusing on social justice. In A. Normore (Ed.), Leadership for social justice: Promoting equity and excellence through inquiring and reflective practice (pp. 193-212). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
  • Mitra, D., Perkins, D., Movit, M. (2006, June) Second Mile Leadership Institute 2006: Report from the evaluation’s open ended questions. The Pennsylvania State University, College of Education.
  • Mitra, D., Movit, M., Perkins, D. (2006, June) The Make a Difference Conference 2006 Executive Summary. The Pennsylvania State University, College of Education.
  • Mitra, D. L. (2005). Increasing student voice and moving toward youth leadership. The Prevention Researcher, 13, 1, 7–10.
  • McLaughlin, M. & D. L. Mitra. (2003). The cycle of inquiry as the engine of school reform: Lessons from the Bay Area School Reform Collaborative. Stanford, CA: Center for Research on the Context of Teaching.
  • Mitra, D. L. (2001) Opening the floodgates: Giving students a voice in school reform. Forum. United Kingdom. September.
  • Stites, R. & D. L. Mitra. (2001). Palo Alto Unified school district team. In Penuel, W. R., & Korbak, C. (Eds.). Silicon Valley Challenge 2000 Longitudinal Case Studies Final Report. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.
  • Brezicha, K., Bergmark, U. & Mitra, D. (2015). One Size Does Not Fit All: Differentiating Leadership to Intentionally Support Teachers in School Reform. Education Administration Quarterly, 51, 1, 96-132.
  • Kawai, R., Serriere, S., & Mitra, D. (2014). Contested Spaces of a “Failing” Elementary School. Theory and Research in Social Education, 42, 4, 486-515
  • Mitra, D., Serriere, S., & Kirshner, B. (2014). Youth participation in U.S. contexts: Student voice without a national mandate. Children & Society, 28, 4, 292-304
  • Mitra, D., Lewis, T., & Sanders, F. (2013). Architects, Captains, and Dreamers: Creating Advisor Roles that Foster Youth-Adult Partnerships. Journal of Educational Change, 14, 2, 177-201.
  • Serriere, S., McGarry, L., Fuentes, D., & Mitra, D. (2012). The thinking that service-learning ignites. Social Studies and the Learner, 9, 4, 6-10.
  • Mitra, D. L. & Halabi, S. (2012). Paradoxes in policy practice: Signaling post-secondary pathways in the Rust Belt. Teachers College Record, 114, 1, 1-34.
  • Mitra, D., & Serriere, S. (2012). Student voice in elementary-school reform: Examining youth development in fifth graders. American Educational Research Journal, 49, 743774, doi:10.3102/0002831212443079
  • Mitra, D., Serriere, S, & Stoicovy, D. (2012). The role of leaders in enabling student voice. Management in Education, 26, 3, 104-112.
  • Serriere, S. & Mitra, D. (2012). Student voice and youth development. In C. Day (Ed), Handbook on Teacher and School Development. New York: Sage.
  • Serriere, S. C., Mitra, D. L., & Reed, K. (2011). Student voice in the elementary years: Fostering youth-adult partnerships in elementary service-learning. Theory and Research in Social Education, 39, 4, 541-575.
  • Mitra, D. L. & Frick, W.F. (2011). Civic capacity in educational reform efforts: Finding agency in a time of globalization. Educational Policy, 25, 5, 810-843.
  • Serriere, S. C., Mitra, D. L. & Cody, J. (2010). Youth citizens taking action: Better school lunches, and more. Social Studies and the Learner, November.
  • Mitra, D., Sanders, F., and Perkins, D. (2010). Providing spark and stability: The role of intermediary organizations in establishing school-based youth-adult partnerships. Applied Developmental Science, (14), 12, 1-18.
  • Mitra, D. L. & Gross, S. J. (2009). Increasing student voice in high school reform: Building partnerships, improving outcomes. Educational Management, Administration, and Leadership, 37, 4, 452-473.
  • Mitra, D. L. (2009).Collaborating with students: Building youth-adult partnerships in schools. American Journal of Education, 15, 3, 407-436.
  • Mitra, D. L. (2009). Student voice and student roles in education policy and policy reform. In D. N. Plank, G. Sykes & B. Schneider (Eds.), AERA Handbook on Education Policy Research (pp. 819-830). London: Routledge.
  • Mitra, D. L. (2009). Strengthening student voice initiatives in high schools: An examination of the supports needed for school-based youth-adult partnerships. Youth and Society 40, 3, 311-335.
  • Mitra, D. L. (2009). The role of intermediary organizations in sustaining student voice initiatives. Teachers College Record 111, 7, 1834-1868.
  • Syvertsen, A.K., Stout, M.D., Flanagan, C.A with Mitra, D. L., Oliver, M.B., Sundar, S. S. (2009). Using elections as teachable moments: A randomized evaluation of the Student Voices civic education program. American Journal of Education, 116, 1, 33-66.
  • Mitra, D. L. (2008). Student voice in school reform: Building youth-adult partnerships that strengthen schools and empower youth. Albany, NY, State University of New York Press.
  • Mitra, D. L., Frick, W. C., & Movit, Marcela A. (2008). Brain drain in the Rust Belt: Can educational reform help to build civic capacity in struggling communities? Educational Policy, 22, 731-757.
  • Mitra, D. L. (2008). Balancing power in communities of practice: An examination of increasing student voice through school-based youth-adult partnerships. Journal of Educational Change, 9, 3, 221-324.
  • Sanders, F., Movit, M., Mitra, D., & Perkins, D. F. (2007). Examining ways in which youth conferences can spell out gains in positive youth development. LEARNing Landscapes, 1, 1, 49-78.
  • Mitra, D. L. (2007). The role of administrators in enabling youth-adult partnerships in schools. NASSP Bulletin, 91, 3, 237-256.
  • Mitra, D. L. (2007). 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. (pp. 727-744). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
  • Mitra, D. L. (2006). Student voice or empowerment? Examining the role of school-based youth-adult partnerships as an avenue toward focusing on social justice. International Electronic Journal for Leadership in Learning, 10, 22,
  • Mitra, D. L. (2006). Youth as a bridge between home and school: Comparing student voice and parent involvements as strategies for change. Education and Urban Society, 38(4), 455-480.
  • Mitra, D. L. (2006). Educational change on the inside and outside: The positioning of challengers. International Journal of Leadership Education, 9, 4, 315-328.
  • Mitra, D. L. (2005). Adults advising youth: Leading while getting out of the way. Educational Administration Quarterly, 41, 3, 520-553.
  • Mitra, D. L. (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. L. (2003). Student voice in school reform: Reframing student-teacher relationships. McGill Journal of Education, 38, 2, 289–304.
  • McLaughlin, M., & D. L. Mitra. (2001). Theory-based change and change-based theory: Going deeper, going broader. Journal of Educational Change, 3, 1, 301–323.

See the SoundOut Bibliography for more features on your favorite authors!

You Might Like…

Feature on Roger Holdsworth

Roger Holdsworth is one of the longest standing and most successful advocates and allies for student voice, student engagement and Meaningful Student Involvement in the world. Based in Sydney, Australia, his work is admired, learned from and shared globally by researchers, practitioners, students and others. He is also the publisher of the internationally respected journal Connect for Student Participationpublishing six editions per year from more than 35 years. Roger is widely sought after for his expertise in the areas of student voice, student engagement and student participation.

A longtime secondary school teacher focused on physics and math, Roger has been involved in dozens of highly innovative, student-led and student-driven projects in Australia. As a curriculum consultant and nonprofit youth director, Roger worked with several vibrant youth engagement programmes in Australia. In 1990, he joined the Australian Youth Research Centre at The University of Melbourne. As their manager, he wrote and assisted writing many reports and facilitated numerous research programmes. Since retiring in 2004, Roger continues consulting with a number of schools and keeps publishing Connect.

Roger Holdsworth Bibliography

  • Holdsworth, R. (2014) “Spaces for Partnerships. Teach the Teacher: student-led professional development for teachers,” Forum Vol 56 No 1; pp 67-78.
  • Holdsworth, R. (2011) “Young people’s engagement in education and community,” In Beadle, Sally; Holdsworth, Roger; Wyn, Johanna (eds) (2011) For we are young and … ? Young people in a time of uncertainty. MUP Academic Monographs, Melbourne University Publishing: Melbourne.
  • Holdsworth, R. (2010)  “Travelers and immigrants: European influences on Australian world music,” In Jordan, Seth (ed) (2010) World Music: Global sounds in Australia. University of NSW Press: Sydney.
  • Taylor, F.E., Walsh, L, Holdsworth, R.  (eds) (2010) Partnerships in the Youth Sector. Series: What Works: stories from around Australia. Foundation for Young Australians.
  • Taylor, F.E., Walsh, L, Holdsworth, R. (eds) (2010) Young People Active in Communities. (series: What Works: stories from around Australia; v. 2) Foundation for Young Australians.
  • Kimberley, Michael; Walsh, Lucas; Holdsworth, Roger.  (eds) (2010)  Inclusive Approaches with Young People. (series: What Works: stories from around Australia; v. 3) Foundation for Young Australians.
  • Holdsworth, R. and Tonson, J. (2010). Represent! An SRC resource kit for students and teachers. Victorian Student Representative Council and Office for Government School Education, Victorian Department of Education and Early Childhood Development: Melbourne.
  • Holdsworth, R. (2010) Transition and Engagement: Research Document 6. Student Wellbeing, Catholic Education Office: East Melbourne.
  • Holdsworth, Roger (2010) “Students Leading in Investigating and Enacting Values in School Communities,” in Terence Lovat, Ron Toomey and Neville Garner (eds) International Research Handbook on Values Education and Student Wellbeing, Springer: Dordrecht.
  • Holdsworth, R. and Blanchard, M. (2006) “Unheard Voices: Themes Emerging From Studies of the Views About Engagement of Young People With High Support Needs in the Area of Mental Health” 16(01):14 – 28.
  • Holdsworth, R. (2006) Student Action Teams: Implementing productive practices in Primary and School classrooms. Sydney: Connect Publications.
  • Holdsworth, R. (2005) Student Councils and Roger Holdsworth. Sydney: Connect Publications.
  • Holdworth, R. (2005) “Taking young people seriously means giving them serious things to Roger Holdsworth Children Taken Seriously” in Mason, J. and Fattore, T. (2005) Theory, Policy and Practice. pages 139-150; Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
  • Thomson, P. and Holdsworth, R. (2003) “Theorizing change in the educational ‘field’: re‐readings of ‘student projects’,” International Journal of Leadership in Education 6(4):371-391. (December)
  • Holdsworth, R. (2000) “Schools that create real roles of value for young people,” Prospects 30(3):349-362. (September)
  • Hampel, B., Holdsworth, R. and Boldero, J. (1996) “Gender patterns in environmental consciousness,” Journal of Sociology 32(1):58-71. (March)
  • Hampel, B., Holdsworth, R. and Boldero, J. (1996) “The Impact of Parental Work Experience and Education on Knowledge, Concern and Behaviour among Adolescents,” Environmental Education Research 2(3):287-300. January.
  • Holdworth, R. (1985) Student Participation and the Participation and Equity Program. Commonwealth Schools Commission.


More Info


SoundOut has compiled the following bibliography supporting our work. We need evidence, stories, and tools. More than ever, schools need the proof and evidence provided by solid theory, concrete studies, practical tools, and real results from any strategy that claims to improve learning. Student voice is no exception.

Luckily, there is a steadily growing body of literature available. Researchers, theorists, academics, and practitioners from across several fields have explored many angles of student voice, including student engagement, student/adult partnerships, pupil consultation, total building leadership, whole-school reform, small schools, and supportive learning environments.

The articles, reports, and books collected here cross several educational disciplines, including the sociology of education; the psychology of education; the philosophy of education; and the history of education. Other areas explored in this bibliography examine educational leadership; critical pedagogy; instructional technology; equity and race relations; curriculum and instruction; policy; psychology and counseling; and educational research.

Where does the search begin for the eager learner who wants to find out more about student voice? Start by scanning through SoundOut’s virtual library, looking through the titles to see what interests you, and read some of the annotations.

Then look up your favorite online research engine and pull up the article, or go to the local campus library and dig up the book. SoundOut also provides limited copy services free, so contact us and we’ll let you know what we can do.


SoundOut features the following authors work. We regard them as mentors for all practitioners, advocates, researchers and leaders in the areas of student voice and student engagement. If you have a bibliography you would like SoundOut to feature, contact us.

You can also see a feature on SoundOut’s Adam Fletcher.

SoundOut Student Voice Bibliography

  • Abrell, R.L. and Hanna, C.C. (March 1971) “High School Unrest Reconsidered,” High School Journal, 54(6), pp. 396-404.
  • Ackerly, R.L.  (February 1971) “Reactions to ‘The Reasonable Exercise of Authority, “‘ Bulletin of NASSP, 352, pp. 1-12.
  • 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.
  • American Association of School Administrators and National Education Association. (October 1970) Experiment in Free-Form Educations Mini-Courses. (Educational Research Service Information Aid No. 6) Washington, D.C.: AASA-NEA. 25 pp.
  • American Association of School Administrators and National Education Association. (November 1970) Framework for Student Involvement. (Educational Research Service Circular No. 6) Washington, D.C.: AASA-NEA.
  • Alcoff, L. (1992). The problem of speaking for others. Cultural Critique , 20, 5–32.
  • Alvermann, D. E., & Eakle, A. J. (2007). Dissolving learning boundaries: The doing, re-doing, and undoing of school. In D. Theissen, & A. Cook-Sather, International Handbook of Student Experience in Elementary and Secondary School (pp. 143-166). Springer Netherlands.
  • Anthony, G., Ohtani, M., & Clarke, D. (2013). Student voice in mathematics classrooms around the world. Sense Publishers.
  • Arnstein, S. R. (1969). A Ladder of Citizen Participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners , 35 (4), 216-224.
  • Bailey, S.K. (1970) Disruption in Urban Public Secondary Schools: Final Report. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Research Corporation.
    Benson, G.L. (1970) Student Activism and Organizational Imperatives: A Case Study. Unpublished Ed.D. thesis, University of Oregon.
    Birmingham, J. (Ed.) (1970) Our Time is Now: Notes from the High School Underground. New York: Praeger.
  • Barton, R. (2008). A clear signal. Northwest Education , 3, pp. 30-36.
  • Beane, J., & Apple, M. (1995). Democratic schools. Arlington, VA: ASCD.
  • Beattie, H. (2012). Amplifying student voice: The missing link in school transformation. Management in Education , 26 (3), 158-160.
  • Beaudoin, N. (2005). Elevating student voice: How to enhance participation, citizenship, and leadership. Larchmont, NY: Eye On Education.
  • Benard, B., & Burgoa, C. (2010). Guide to a Student-Family-School-Community Partnership: Using a student and data driven process to improve school environments and promote student success. WestEd.
  • Berardi, L. L., & Gerschick, T. (2002). University Faculty Members’ Perceptions of Student Engagement: An Interview Study. [Doctoral Dissertation]. Illinois State University.
  • Berger, R., et al. (2014). Leaders of Their Own Learning: Transforming Schools Through Student-engaged Assessment. John Wiley & Sons.
  • Berliner, BA, et al. (2014)  Speak Out, Listen Up! Tools for using student perspectives and local data for school improvement. National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance Institute of Education Sciences (IES) for Regional Educational Laboratory West (WestEd).
  • Bhavnani, K. K. (1990). What’s Power Got to do With It? Empowerment and social research. In I. Parker, & J. Shotter, Deconstructing Social Psychology. London: Routledge.
  • (May 1970) “Boardmen Reason: Share the Power with Students,” American School Board Journal, 157(11), pp. 27-28.
  • Boccia, J. (1997). Introduction. In J. Boccia, Students Taking the Lead: The Challenges and Rewards of Empowering Youth in Schools (New Directions for School Leadership). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc.
  • Boma, L., & et al. (1997). “The Impact of Teaching Strategies on Intrinsic Motivation.”. ERIC.
  • Bonnen, C., & Flage, D. (2002). Descartes and method: A search for a method in Meditations.Routledge.
  • Booth, D. (2013). I’ve Got Something to Say: How student voices inform our teaching. Pembroke Publishers Limited.
  • Borden, R. (2004). Taking school design to students. Retrieved October 16, 2014, from National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities.
  • Bragg, S. (2007). Consulting young people: a review of the literature. London: Creative Partnerships.
  • Bragg, S., & Fielding, M. (2003). Pupil Participation: Building a Whole School Commitment.Cambridge: Pearson Publishing.
  • Brasof, M. (2009). Living democracy: How Constitution High School molds better citizens. Social Education , 73 (5), 207-211.
  • Brasof, M. (2011). Student input improves behavior, fosters leadership. Phi Delta Kappan , 93(2), 20-24.
  • Brasof, M. (2015). Student Voice and School Governance: Distributing Leadership to Youth and Adults. Routledge.
  • Breakthrough Collaborative. (n.d.). About Us. Retrieved November 2, 2014.
  • Brennan, M. (1996). Schools as public institutions: Students and citizenship. Youth Studies Australia , 24-27.
  • Brennan, M. (1996). Schools as Public Institutions: Students and citizenship. Youth Studies Australia , 15 (1), 24-27.
  • Brewster, C., & Fager, J. (2000). Increasing student engagement and motivation: From time-on-task to homework. Portland, Oregon: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory.
  • Bridges, E.M. (December 1969) “Student Unrest and Crisis Decision-Making,” Administrator’s Notebook, 18.
  • Britzman, D. (1992). ‘Who has the floor? Curriculum teaching and the English student teacher’s struggle for voice. Curriculum Inquiry , 19 (2), pp. 143-162.
  • Bron, J. and Veugelers, W. (2014) “Why we need to involve our students in curriculum design: Five arguments for student voice.” Curriculum & Teaching Dialogue 16.
  • Bryant, J. a. (2007). Power, Voice, and Empowerment: Classroom Committees in a Middle Level Language Arts Curriculum. Voices from the Middle , 16 (1).
  • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2009). Fostering School Connectedness: Improving Student Health and Academic Achievement. Atlanta.
  • Cervone, B. (2012 ). Youth and Adults Transforming School Together. Retrieved 1 2014, November, from What Kids Can Do.
  • Cervone, B., & Cushman, K. (2002). Moving youth participation into the classroom: Students as allies. New Directions for Youth Development , 96, 83-100.
  • Cervone, B., & Cushman, K. (2002). Moving youth participation into the classroom: Students as allies. New directions for youth development , 83-100.
  • Chapman, E. (2003). Alternative approaches to assessing student engagement rates. Practical assessment, research and evaluation , 13 (8).
  • Chapman, E. (2003). Alternative approaches to assessing student engagement rates. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation , 8 (13).
  • Chappuis, J., & Chappuis, S. (2002). Understanding school assessment: A parent and community guide to helping students learn. Assessment Training Institute.
  • Checkoway, B., & Richards-Schuster, K. (2006). Youth participation for educational reform in low-income communities of color. In S. A. Ginwright, P. Noguera, & J. Cammarota, Beyond Resistance! Youth activism and community change: New democratic possibilities for practice and policy for America’s youth (pp. 319-332). Routledge.
  • Cheminais, R. (2013). Engaging pupil voice to ensure that every child matters: a practical guide.Routledge.
  • Chemutai, L., & Chumba, S. (2014). Student councils participation in decision making in public secondary schools in Kericho West Sub County, Kenya. International Journal of Advanced Research , 2 (6), 850-858.
  • 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.
  • Chesler, 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.
  • Children First Network 102. (2011). Student-led school improvement: Work, findings, and next steps: Student Voice Collaborative. New York City: New York City Department of Education.
  • Chopra, C. H. (2014). New Pathways for Partnerships: An Exploration of How Partnering With Students Affects Teachers and Schooling (Doctoral dissertation). University of Washington.
  • Christensen, C. (1997). The view from the principal’s desk. In J. Boccia (Ed.), Students Taking the Lead: The Challenges and Rewards of Empowering Youth in Schools (pp. 107-120). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc.
  • Coates, T.-N. (2014, January 8). What It Means to Be a Public Intellectual. Retrieved November 1, 2014, from The Atlantic.
  • Combs, S.L. (October 1970) “A Summary of a Survey of Student Involvement in Curriculum,” Journal of Secondary Edtcation, 45(6), pp. 243-249.
  • Comfort, R. E., Giorgi, J., & Moody, S. (1997). In a different voice: A student agenda for high school reform. The High School Journal , 179-183.
  • Conner, J., & Rosen, S. (2013). How Students Are Leading Us: Youth Organizing and the Fight for Public Education in Philadelphia. PennGSE Perspectives on Urban Education , 10 (1).
  • Conzemius, A., & O’Neill, J. (2001). Building shared responsibility for student learning. ASCD.
  • Cook-Sather, Alison. See the SoundOut Feature by this author for a complete bibliography.
  • Corbett, D., & Wilson, B. (1995). Make a difference with, not for, students: A plea to researchers and reformers. Educational Researcher , 24 (5), 12-17.
  • Corbett, D., & Wilson, B. (1995). Make a Difference with, Not for, Students: A Plea to Researchers and Reformers. Educational Researcher , 24 (5), 12-17.
  • Counts, G. S. (1978). Dare the School Build a New Social Order? Champagne, Illinois: Southern Illinois University.
  • Critchley, S. (2003) “The Nature and Extent of Student Involvement in Educational Policy-Making in Canadian School Systems,”  Educational Management Administration & Leadership. 31: 97.
  • Cushman, K. (2003). Fires in the bathroom: Advice for teachers from high school students. New York City, NY: The New Press.
  • Cushman, K. (2010). Fires in the Mind: What kids can tell us about motivation and mastery.John Wiley & Sons.
  • Cushman, K., & al., e. (2005). Sent to the principal: Students talk about making high schools better. Next Generation Press.
  • Dahal, B. P. (2014, January). Child Participation in Schools of Nepal: Role and contributions of child clubs. Kathmandu University.
  • Dalton, L., Churchman, R., & Tasco, A. (2008). Getting Students Involved in Creating a Healthy School. ASCD.
  • 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.
  • Defining Student Voice (Washington ProTeach Portfolio). (2009). Retrieved October 12, 2014, from Washington Professional Educators Standards Board.
  • 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.
  • 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.). Denning, B.N. (1970) Evolving a Plan for Significant Student Participation in Decision-Making in Urban High Schools. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Wayne State University.
  • Delpit, L. (1988). The silenced dialogue: Power and pedagogy in educating other people’s children. Harvard Education Review , 58, 280-298.
  • Dewey, J. (1948). Democracy and Education: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Education.New York City: The MacMillan Company.
  • Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and Education. New York City: Collier Books.
  • Dickinson, M. (2014, December 9). Do as I say, not as I do? Retrieved from
  • Dickler, M. C. (2007). The Morse Quartet: Student Speech and the First Amendment. Loy. Law Review 53 , 355.
  • Divoky, D. (Ed.) (1969) How Old Will You Be in 1984? Expressions of Students from the High School Free Press. New York: Discus Avon.
  • 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.
  • Douglas, W. (2003). Student engagement at school: A sense of belonging and participation (Results from PISA 2000). Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development .
  • Duffy, E. (2014, July 26). North High eyes a stadium of its own. Retrieved from Omaha World-Herald.
  • Dweck, C. (2010). Even geniuses work hard. Educational Leadership , 1, pp. 16-20.
  • Dweck, C. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. Random House LLC.
  • Dweck, C. (1999). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and development.Philadelphia: Psychology Press.
  • Dzur, A. (2013, November 8). Trench Democracy in Schools: an Interview with Principal Donnan Stoicovy. Retrieved November 1, 2014, from Boston Review:
  • Elias, M. J. (2014, November 1). School Climate that Promotes Student Voice. Principal Leadership , 1, pp. 22-27.
  • Erlich, J., & Erlich, S. (1971). Student Power, Participation and Revolution. Association Press.
  • Erickson K., et al. (March 1969) Activism in the Secondary Schools: Recommendations. Eugene: Bureau of Educational Research, University of Oregon.
  • 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.
  • Fahey, J.J. (1971) Shared Power in Decision-Making in Schools: Conceptualization and Implementation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan, 1971.
  • Farmer-Dougan, V., & McKinney, K. (2001). Examining student engagement at Illinois State University: An exploratory investigation. Center for Teaching, Learning & Technology at Illinois State University.
  • 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.
  • Fielding, Michael. See the SoundOut Feature on this author for a complete bibliography. 
  • Fielder, M. (October 1969) “A Diversified Team Approach to Conflict Intervention,” Educational Leadership, 27, pp. 15-18.
  • Fine, M., & Weis, L. (2003). Silenced voices and extraordinary conversations: Re-imagining schools. New York City: Teachers College Press.
  • Fink, N.W. and Cullers, B. (March 1970) “Student Unrest: Structure of the Public Schools a Major Factor?” The Clearinghouse, pp. 415-419.
  • Fish, K. (1970) Conflict and Dissent in the High Schools: An on the Scene Analysis. New York: Bruce Publishing Co.
  • Fletcher, A. See the SoundOut Feature on this author for a complete bibliography.
  • Flutter, J., & Rudduck, J. (2006). Student Voice and the architecture of change: Mapping the territory. 2.
  • Flynn, W. (1971) The Principal as an Organizational Consultant to His Own School. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Oregon.
  • Forum for Youth Investment. (2002). Holding schools accountable: Students organizing for educational change.
  • Fredricks, J., & al, e. (2011). Measuring student engagement in upper elementary through high school: A description of 21 instruments” Issues & Answers Report. Washington, D.C.: United States Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Southeast.
  • Fredricks, J., Blumenfeld, P., & Paris, A. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research , 74 (1), 59-109.
  • (1998). In P. Freire, Teachers as Cultural Workers. (pp. 85-89). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
  • Freire, P. (1973). Education for Critical Consciousness. Bloomsbury Publishing.
  • Freire, P. (1998). Pedagogy of freedom: Hope, democracy and civic courage. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman.
  • Freire, P. (2004). Pedagogy of hope: Reliving the Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York City: Bloomsbury Publishing.
  • Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. (M. B. Ramos, Trans.) New York: Continuum.
  • Fullan, M. (1991). The New Meaning Of Educational Change (p. 162). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
  • Friedenberg, 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.
  • Galloway, M., Pope, D., & Osberg, J. (2007). Stressed-out students-SOS: Youth perspectives on changing school climates. In D. Theissen, & A. Cook-Sather, International handbook of student experience in elementary and secondary school (pp. 611-634). Springer Netherlands.
  • Gandhi, M. (1931). Young India, Bombay, India. In R. a. Prabhu, The Mind of Mahatma Gandhi: Encyclopedia of Gandhi’s thoughts. Ahmedabad, India: Navjeevan Trust.
  • George Lucas Educational Foundation. (2008, July 18). What are some types of assessment?Retrieved from Edutopia.
  • Giroux, H. A. (2014, October 28). “Higher Education and the New Brutalism“. Truthout.
  • Giroux, H. A. (2013). America’s Education Deficit and the War on Youth: Reform Beyond Electoral Politics. New York City: NYU Press.
  • Giroux, H. A. (2013). Can Democratic Education Survive in a Neoliberal Society? In C. Reitz, Crisis and Commonwealth: Marcuse, Marx, McLare. Lexington Books.
  • Giroux, H. A. (1981). Ideology, Culture and the Process of Schooling. The Falmer Press.
  • Giroux, H. A., & McLaren, P. (1982). Teacher education and the politics of engagement: The case for democratic schooling. Harvard Educational Review , 56 (3), 213-239.
  • Giroux, H. (1989). Schooling for democracy: Critical pedagogy in the modern age. London: Routledge.
  • Goodlad, J. (1984). A Place Called School. New York City: McGraw Hill.
  • Goodman, M. (Ed.) (1970) The Movement Toward a New America. Philadelphia: Pilgrim Press.
  • Grace, M. (1999). When Students Create the Curriculum. Educational Leadership , 57 (5), 71-74.
  • Gross, R. and Gross, B. (Eds.) (1969) Radical School Reform. New York: Clarion.
  • Gross, R. and Osterman, P. (Eds.) (1971) High School. New York: Simon and Schuster.
  • 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.
  • Herr, E.L. (February 1972) “Student Activism: Perspectives and Responses,” High School Journal, 55(5), pp. 219-233.
  • Heussenstamm, F. K. (Fall 1971) “Activism in Adolescence: An Analysis of the High School Underground Press,” Adolescence, 6(23), pp. 317-336.
  • Haggar, R. (2013, June 26). Functions of Formal Education Systems. Retrieved November 1, 2014.
  • Halleck, S. L. “Hypotheses of Student Unrest,” Phi Delta Kappan, 40(1), September 1968, pp. 2-9.
  • Hands, C. (2009). “Student Voice in the Process of Developing School-Community Partnerships Project Completion: August 2009 Report submitted to San Diego Unified School District. San Diego, California: San Diego Unified School District.
  • Hansen, S. and Jensen, J. with Roberts, W. (1971) The Little Red Schoolbook. New York: Pocket Books.
  • Harper, D. (1996, December 1). Students as change agents. Retrieved September 15, 2012, from Edutopia.
  • Harper, D. (2000). Students as Change Agents: The Generation Y Model.
  • Harrington, J.H. (October 1968) “Los Angeles’ Student Blowout,” Phi Delta Kappan, 50(2), pp. 74-79.
  • Harrison, H.M. and Patterson, W.N. (November 1970) “A Student Social Action Seminar with Influence,” Bulletin of NASSP, 349, pp. 79-89.
  • Hart, R. L. and Saylor, J.G. (1970) Student Unrest: Threat or Promise? Washington, D.C.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
  • Hart, R. (1997). Children’s Participation: The theory and practice of involving young citizens in community development and environmental care. United Kingdom: Earthscan.
  • Harvard Family Research Project. (2002). Youth Involvement in Evaluation and Research: Issues and opportunities in out-of-school time evaluation. . Boston: Harvard Family Research Project.
  • Hayden, T. (1962). Port Huron Statement of the Students for a Democratic Society. Retrieved October 24, 2014.
  • Haynes, C. (2014, November 13). First Amendment: In land of the free, why are schools afraid of freedom? Retrieved November 20, 2014, from GazetteXtra.
  • Holcomb, E. (2006). Students Are Stakeholders, Too!: Including Every Voice in Authentic High School Reform. Corwin Press.
  • Holdsworth, R. See the SoundOut Feature on this author for a complete bibliography.
  • hooks, b. (2014). Teaching to transgress. New York City: Routledge.
  • hooks, b. (1994). Teaching to Transgress: Education as the Practice of Freedom. New York City: Taylor & Francis.
  • Hurtado, S. (1999). Reaffirming Educators Judgment: Educational Value of Diversity. Liberal Education (Spring), 28.
  • Innovation Center. (2005). Reflect and improve: A toolkit for engaging youth and adults as partners. Takoma Park, Maryland: The Innovation Center for Youth and Community Development.
  • Jackson, D. (2005). Why Pupil Voice? Facilitating Pupil Involvement in Learning Networks. NCSL.
  • Jacobs, S. (April 1, 1972) “What Happened When a High School Tried Self-Government,” Saturday Review, 55(14), 1, .12.
  • 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.
  • Joselowsky, F. (2007). Youth engagement, high school reform, and improved learning outcomes: Building systemic approaches for youth engagement. NASSP Bulletin , 91 (3), 257-276.
  • Joselowsky, F. (2007). Youth Engagement, High School Reform, and Improved Learning Outcomes: Building Systemic Approaches for Youth Engagement. NASSP Bulletin , 91 (3).
  • Jovenes Unidos. (2004). North High School Report: The Voices of Over 700 Students. Denver: Jovenes Unidos and Padres Unidos.
  • Kaba, M. (2000). “They Listen to Me… but They Don’t Act on It”: Contradictory Consciousness and Student Participation in Decision-Making. The High School Journal , 21-34.
  • Kay, M.S. (February 1970) “Student Freedom and Power as Instruments,” Educational Leadership, 27(5), pp. 462-464.
  • Kean, M.H. (1972) Student Unrest and Crisis: The Response of an Urban Educational System. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Ohio State University.
  • Kenny, G., Kenny, D., & Dumont, R. (2005). Mission and Place: Strengthening Learning and Community Through Campus Design. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
  • Kipp, G., Quinn, P., Lancaster, S., & et al. (2014). The AWSP Leadership Framework User’s Guide.Olympia, Washington: Association of Washington School Principals.
  • Kirk, R. (2014). A leadership experiment in student voice: A new kind of summer school. OPC Register , 16 (1), 28-32.
  • Kleeman, R. P. (1972). Student rights and responsibilities: Courts force schools to change.National School Public Relations Association.
  • Klein, R. (2003). We want our say: children as active participants in their education. Stylus Publishing, LLC.
  • Kohn, A. (2006). Beyond Discipline: From compliance to community. ASCD.
  • Kohn, A. (1993). Choices for Children: Why and How to Let Students Decide. Phi Delta Kappan , 75, 18-21.
  • Kohn, A. (2007). The homework myth: Why our kids get too much of a bad thing. Da Capo Press.
  • Kohn, A. (2007). The Homework Myth: Why our kids get too much of a bad thing. Da Capo Press.
  • Kozol, J. (1991). Savage Inequities. New York City: Crown Publishers.
  • Krogh, S., & Morehouse, P. (2014). The early childhood curriculum: Inquiry learning through integration. Routledge.
  • Kukla, D. (January 1970) “Protest in black and white: Student radicals in the high schools,” Bulletin of the NASSP, 342, pp 72-86.
  • Kurth-Schai, R. (1988). The roles of youth in society: A reconceptualization. The Educational Forum , 52 (2).
  • Kushman, J. W., & Shanessy, J. (1997). Look Who’s Talking Now: Student Views of Learning in Restructuring Schools. Portland: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory.
  • Kushman, J., & Shanessey, J. (1997). Look Who’s Talking Now: Student views of restructuring schools. Portland, Oregon: NWREL.
  • Lewis, R., & Burman, E. (2008). Providing for student voice in classroom management: teachers’ views. International Journal of Inclusive Education , 12 (2), 151-167.
  • Libarle, M. and Seligson, T. (Eds.) (1970). The High School Revolutionaries. New York: Vintage Books.
  • Libbey, H. (2004). Measuring student relationships to school: Attachment, bonding, connectedness, and engagement. Journal of School Health , 74 (4), 274-283.
  • Loflin, J. (2006). A History of Democratic Education in American Public Education. International Democratic Education Conference.
  • Lorde, A. (1984). Sister Outsider: Essays and Speeches. Crossing Press.
  • Lowenhagen, C. (December 1969) “Anatomy of a Student Demonstration,” Bulletin of NASSP, 341, pp. 81-86.
  • Maine Department of Education and Campaign for the Civic Mission of Schools. (2006). Community Toolkit. Retrieved November 1, 2014, from Maine Department of Education.
  • Mann, J.S. (October 1970) “Political Power and the High School Curriculum,” Educational Leadership, 28(1), pp. 23-26.
  • March, W.L. (1971) A Study of Accommodation of Selected Indiana Secondary Schools to Student Unrest. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University.
  • Markham, T. (2013, September 11). Reinventing School From the Ground Up For Inquiry Learning. Retrieved October 28, 2014, from KQED Mindshift.
  • Martin, D.L.  (March 1972) “Assault of the Teenage Boardmen,” American School Board Journal, 159(3), March 1972, pp. 35-39.
  • Martin-Kniep, G. (2008). Communities that learn, lead, and last: Building and sustaining educational expertise. John Wiley & Sons.
  • Martin-Kniep, G. (2004). Developing learning communities through teacher expertise. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
  • Martin-Kniep, G., & Picone-Zocchia, J. (2009). Changing the Way You Teach, Improving the Way Students Learn. ASCD.
  • 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.
  • McCombs, B. L., & Pope, J. E. (1994). Motivating hard to reach students. American Psychological Association.
  • McDermott, G.A. (1971) The California Association of Student Councils: A Historical Survey of Student Participation. Unpublished doctoral thesis, UCLA.
  • McDermott, J. C. (1998). Beyond the silence: Listening for Democracy. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
  • McKenna, B. (February 1971) “Student Unrest: Some Causes and Cures,” Bulletin of NASSP, 352, pp. 54-60.
  • McGarry, L., & Stoicovy, D. (2014). Writing a school constitution: Representative democracy in action. Social Studies and the Young Learner , 27 (1), 5-7.
  • McLaren, P. (2003). Life in Schools: An Introduction of Critical Pedagogy in the Foundations of Education. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
  • 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.
  • Miller, L., Gross, B., & Ouijdani, M. (2012). Getting Down to Dollars and Cents: What do school districts spend to deliver student-centered learning? . Center on Reinventing Public Education at the University of Washington.
  • Miller, H. (May 1970) “Santa Barbara Has a Student School Board,” American School Board Journal, 157(11).
  • Milne, A. J. (2006). Designing blended learning space to the student experience. Learning Spaces , 11 (1).
  • Mitra, D. See the SoundOut Feature on this author for a complete bibliography.
  • Mockler, N., & Groundwater-Smith, S. (2015). Methods for Engaging Student Voice. In Engaging with student voice in research, Education and Community (pp. 109-125). Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.
  • Moffett, A.J., Jr. (May 1970) “Youth Gets a Voice in New Student Center,” Nation’s Schools, 85(5). pp. 57-59.
  • Monument Mountain Regional High School. (2014). 2014-2015 Program of Studies. Retrieved November 1, 2014.
  • Morgan, B., & Porter, A. (2011). Student researchers exploring teaching and learning: Processes and issues. In W. Kidd, & G. Gerry Czerniawski, The student voice handbook: Bridging the academic/practitioner divide. Emerald Group Publishing.
  • Morgan, J. (2011). Students training teachers. In W. Kidd, & G. Czerniawski, The student voice handbook: Bridging the academic/practitioner divide. Emerald Group Publishing.
  • Mt. Pleasant High School. (n.d.). Senior Teacher Academy. Retrieved November 1, 2014, from Mt. Pleasant High School.
  • Natriello, G. (1984). Problems in the Evaluation of Students and Student Disengagement from Secondary Schools. Journal of Research and Development in Education , 17 (4), 14-24.
  • Nelson, J. R., & Fredrick, L. (1994). (1994). Can children design curriculum? Educational Leadership , 51, 71-75.
  • 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.
  • Newmann, F. (1992). Student Engagement and Achievement in American Secondary Schools.New York City: Teachers College Press.
  • Newmann, F., Wehlage, G., & Lamborn, S. (1992). The significance and sources of student engagement. In F. Newmann, Student Engagement and Achievement in American Secondary Schools. Teachers College Press: Teachers College Press.
  • Ngussa, B. M., & Makewa, L. N. (2014). Student Voice in Curriculum Change: A Theoretical Reasoning. International Journal of Academic Research in Progressive Education and Development , 3 (3), 23-37.
  • Nieto, S. (1994). Lessons from students on creating a chance to dream. Harvard Educational Review , 64 (4), 392-427.
  • 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.
  • Nova High School. (2014, November 1). Retrieved from Seattle Public Schools.
  • Nystrand, R.O. (February 1969) “High School Students as Policy Advocates,” paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association.
  • O’Neill, R. E., Horner, R. H., & Albi, R. W. (1996). Functional Assessment And Program Development For Problem Behavior: A Practical Handbook Author. Cengage Learning.
  • Office of the Secretary, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.  (August 1969) Participants’ Views of Disrupted Secondary Schools: A Preliminary Report. Appendix D of Task Force Report on Easing School Tensions. Washington, D.C.
  • Oldfather, P. (1995). Learning from student voices. Theory to Practice , 43 (2), 84–87.
  • OM Collective. (1971) The Organizer’s Manual. New York: Bantam.
  • Ontario Literacy and Numeracy Secretariat. (2007, December). Capacity Building Series: Student self-assessment. Retrieved from Ontario Ministry of Education.
  • Ornstein, A.C. (March 1970) “On High School Violence: The Teacher-Student Role,” Journal of Secondary Education, 45(3), pp. 93- 105.
  • Osberg, J., Pope, D., & Galloway, M. (2006). Students matter in school reform: Leaving fingerprints and becoming leaders. International Journal of Leadership in Education , 9 (4), 329-343.
  • Osguthorpe, R. T., & Graham, C. R. (2003). Blended Learning Environments: Definitions and Directions. Quarterly Review of Distance Education , 4 (3), 227-233.
  • Ostrander, K., Lundquist, R.M. and Shaw, C.H. (February 1971) “Grievance Procedures for Students, “Journal of Secondary Education, 46(2), pp,: 92-90.
  • Padres and Jovens Unidos. (2014, November 1). About Us.
  • Pearl, A. (1972) “Chapter 4: Preparing for democratic citizenship,” in Pearl, A. The Atrocity of Education. St, Louis: He Critics Press.
  • Peterman, L.E. “A Place of Responsibility: Where it Worked Both Ways,” Bulletin of NASSP, 338, September 1969, pp. 1-22.
  • Phillipson, S. (2013). Developing Leadership in the Asia Pacific: A Focus on the Individual.Routledge.
  • Pileggi, V. (July 1969) “Revolutionaries Who Have to be Home by 7:30,” Phi Delta Kappan, 50(10), pp. 560-569.
  • Place, R. A. (1973, October). Do You Need (or Want) Students on the School Board? California School Boards , 9.
  • Postman, N. (June 24, 1970) “Once Upon a Time – A Fable of Student Power,” New York Times Magazine, pp.-10-11.
  • Postman, N. and Weingartner, C. (1971) The Soft Revolution: A Student Handbook for Turning the Schools Around. New York: Delacorte.
  • Postman, N. (1969) Teaching as a Subversive Activity. New York; Delacorte, 1969.
  • Quaglia, R., Fox, K., & Corso, M. (2003, November). Got Opportunity? Educational Leadership , 68 (3).
  • Quaglia, R. J. and Corso, M. J. (2014) Student Voice The Instrument of Change. Corwin Press.
  • Quaglia, R. J., Corso, M. J. and Hellerstein, J. A. (2014) Student Voice: Turn Up the Volume 6-12 Activity Book. Corwin Press.
  • REAL HARD. (2003). Student Voices Count: A Student-Led Evaluation of High Schools in Oakland. Retrieved March 4, 2011, from Kids Count Oakland.
  • 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.
  • Reeves, D. B. (2009). Leading Change in Your School: How to conquer myths, build commitment, and get results. ASCD.
  • Rethink. (n.d.). Rethink programs. Retrieved November 1, 2014, from Rethink.
  • Richmond, E. (2014, October). What Happens When Students Control Their Own Education?Retrieved from KQED.
  • Rigolon, A. (2011). A Space with Meaning: Children’s Involvement in Participatory Design Processes. Design Principles & Practice: An International Journal , 5 (2).
  • Robinson, C., & Taylor, C. (2013). Student voice as a contested practice: Power and participation in two student voice projects. Improving Schools , 16 (1), 32-46.
  • Rogers, A. (2004). Student voice: Bridges to learning. Seattle, WA: University of Washiongton.
  • Rubin, B., & Silva, E. (Eds.). (2003). Critical voices in school reform: Students living through change. New York City: RoutledgeFalmer.
  • Rudd, T., Colligan, F., & Nalk, R. (2008). Learner voice: A handbook from Futurelab. Futurelab and ESSA.
  • Rudduck, J. (2007). Student voice, student engagement, and school reform. In D. Thiessen, & A. Cook-Sather, International Handbook of Student Experience in Elementary and Secondary Schools (pp. 587-610). Netherlands: Springer.
  • Rudduck, J., & Fielding, M. (2006). Student voice and the perils of popularity. Educational Review , 58 (2), 219-231.
  • Rudduck, J., & Flutter, J. (2004). How to improve your school.. Bloomsbury Publishing.
  • Rudduck, J., Arnot, D., Fielding, M., McIntyre, D., & et al. (2003). Consulting pupils about teaching and learning. Retrieved October 17, 2014, from Economic and Social Research Council.
  • Rudduck, J., Chaplain, R., & Wallace, S. (1996). School improvement: What can pupils tell us? Quality in secondary schools and colleges series. London: David Fulton Publishers.
  • Ruth, R. (March 1970) “Student to Schoolmen: Let’s Work Together,” School Management, 14(3), pp. 24-28.
  • 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.
  • Savrock, J. (2014, November 1). Student Voice Is an Integral Component of School Reform.Retrieved from Penn State University College of Education.
  • Schlecty, P. (1994). Increasing Student Engagement. Missouri Leadership Academy.
  • 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.
  • Schwartz, K. (2014, October 29). Students Tell All: What it’s like to be trusted partners in learning. Retrieved October 30, 2014, from KQED Mindshift.
  • Serriere, S., & Mitra, D. (2012). Student voice and youth development. In C. Day, Handbook on Teacher and School Development. New York: Sage.
  • Shapiro, Arthur. “Minisimulation: Should Students Have a Voice in Curriculum Decisions?” Nation’s. Schools, 88(3), September 1971, pp. 59-62.
  • Sharan, S., Shachar , H., & Levine, T. (1999). The innovative school: Organization and instruction. Greenwood Publishing Group.
  • Shor, I. (1996). When Student Have Power: Negotiating authority in a critical pedagogy.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • Shultz, J. J., & Cook-Sather, A. (2001). In our own words: Students’ perspectives on school. Rowman & Littlefield.
  • Silberman, C.E. (1970) Crisis in the Classroom: The Remaking of American Education. New York: Random House, 1970.
  • Sirkift, Joel. “Pilot School Governance.” Cambridge: Cambridge School Department and Graduate School of Education, Harvard University, 1971. 32 pp. ED 056 382.
  • Swanchak, J. (March 1972) “Student Radicals and the High Schools,” Educational Forum, 36(3) , pp. 373-381.
  • Simmons, E. J. (1968). Introduction to Tolstoy’s Writings. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • Sizer, T. R. (2004). Horace’s Compromise: The dilemma of the American high school. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
  • Skinner, E. A., & Belmont, M. J. (1993). Motivation in the classroom: Reciprocal effects of teacher behavior and student engagement across the school year. Journal of educational psychology , 85 (4), 571.
  • Smyth, J. (2007). Toward the pedagogically engaged school: Listening to student voice as a positive response to disengagement and ‘dropping out’? In D. Thiessen, & A. Cook-Sather, International handbook of student experience in elementary and secondary school. Springer Netherlands.
  • Smyth, J. (2006). When students have power: Student engagement, student voice, and the possibilities for school reform around “dropping out” of school. International Journal of Leadership in Education , 9 (4), 285–298.
  • SooHoo, S. (1993). Students as Partners in Research and Restructuring Schools. The Educational Forum , 386-393.
  • SoundOut. (2004). Student Voice Tip Sheet. Retrieved 10 18, 2014, from SoundOut.
  • SpeakOUT. (n.d.). SpeakOUT. Retrieved November 1, 2014, from Ontario Ministry of Education.
  • Sproule, J.R. (September 1969) “A Potentially Constructive Force,” Bulletin of NASSP, 338, pp. 23-27.
  • Stefanou, C. R. (2004). Supporting autonomy in the classroom: Ways teachers encourage student decision making and ownership. Educational Psychologist , 39 (2), 97-110.
  • Strong, R., Silver, H. F., & Robinson, A. (1995). What do students want (and what really motivates them)? Educational Leadership .
  • Students as Researchers Conference. (2014, November 1). Retrieved from Ontario Ministry of Education:
  • 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.
  • (1922, September 23). Mineola high school students strike after clash between students and teachers. The New York Time .
  • The Public Intellectual Project. (n.d.). About Us. Retrieved November 1, 2014, from
  • Thiessen, D. (2007). Researching student experiences in elementary and secondary school: An evolving field of study. In D. Thiessen, & A. Cook-Sather, International Handbook of Student Experience in Elementary and Secondary School (pp. 1-76). Springer Netherlands.
  • Thomas Dotta, L., & Ristow, M. (2011). Participação Significativa dos Estudantes: Uma Proposta de Formação Baseada na Coparticipação de Estudantes e Professores no Ensino Superior . Universidade do Oeste do Paraná – UNIOESTE et Faculdade de Psicologia e Ciências da Educação da Universidade do Porto – FPCEUP.
  • Thomson, P. (2011). Coming to terms with ‘voice’. In G. Czerniawski, & W. Kidd, The student voice handbook: Bridging the academic/practitioner divide. Bingley: Emerald Group.
  • Tolman, J. (2003). If Not Us, Then Who? Young People on the Front lines of Educational Equity. Unpublished paper.
  • Toshalis, E., & Nakkula, M. (2012). Motivation, engagement, and student voice. Students Center.
  • Towler, D. L. (1975). Student Representatives Serving with Boards of Education. American Association of School Administrators.
  • Turley, S. (1994). “The Way Teachers Teach Is, Like, Totally Whacked”: The Student Voice on Classroom Practice. ERIC .
  • Tyler, K., & Boelter, C. (2008). Linking Black middle school students’ perceptions of teachers’ expectations to academic engagement and efficacy. The Negro Education Review , 59 (1-2).
  • Ungerleider, J., & DiBenedetto, A. (1997). Empowering Students to Address Current Issues: The Vermont Governor’s institute on public issues and youth empowerment. In J. A. Boccia (Ed.), Students Taking the Lead: The challenges and rewards of empowering youth in schools(pp. 59-78). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc.
  • Usher, A., & Kober, N. (2012). Student Motivation: An Overlooked Piece of School Reform.Center on Education Policy.
  • Vavrus, J., & Fletcher, A. (2006). Guide to Social Change Led By and With Young People.Retrieved October 3, 2014, from The Freechild Project.
  • Verchick, R. R. (1991). Engaging the Spectrum
  • Vernon, S.A. (1970) The Task Force for Student Involvement. Raleigh: Department of Public Instruction, North Carolina State Board of Education. : Civic Virtue and the Protection of Student Voice in School Sponsored Forums. Retrieved November 1, 2014, from J. Marshall L. Rev. 339, here.
  • Wayne County Intermediate School District. (1968) Strategies for Educational Change: Final Report. Detroit: Author.
  • Walker, L., & Logan, A. (2008). Learner engagement: a review of learner voice initiatives across the UK’s education sectors. Bristol, UK: Futurelab.
  • Wankel, L. A., & Blessinger, P. (2013). Increasing Student Engagement and Retention Using Mobile Applications: Smartphones, Skype and Texting Technologies. Emerald Group Publishing.
  • Wertheimer, P.A. (May 1971) “School Climate and Student Learning,” Phi Delta Kappan, 52(9). pp. 527-530.
  • Westheimer, J., & Kahne, J. (1998). Education for action: preparing youth for participatory democracy. In W. Ayers, & e. al, Teaching for Social Justice. New York City: New Press.
  • What Kids Can Do. (2003, June). Students Push for Equity in School Funding . Retrieved November 1, 2014, from here.
  • What Kids Can Do. (2003). The Schools We Need: Creating Small High Schools That Work For Us.
  • (March 1969) “What Student Activists Are Doing,” Nation’s Schools, 83(3). pp. 61-66.
  • Williams, S.B. (1970) Hassling. Boston: Little, Brown and Co.
  • Williams, Z. (2012, February 11). The Saturday Interview: Stuart Hall. Retrieved July 1, 2013, from The Guardian.
  • Willison, S. (1997). The Human Relations Club: Student leaders addressing issues of multicultural education and social action. In J. A. Boccia (Ed.), Students Taking the Lead: The challenges and rewards of empowering youth in schools (Vol. 4, pp. 9-24). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc.
  • Wilson, B., & Corbett, D. (2001). Listening to urban kids: School reform and the teachers they want. SUNY Press.
  • Wilson, B., & Corbett, D. (2007). Students’ perspectives on good teaching: Implications for adult reform behavior. In A. C.-S. Thiessen, International handbook of student experience in elementary and secondary school (pp. 283-311). Springer Netherlands.
  • Wittes, S. (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.
  • Wright, D. C. (2003). Black Pride Day, 1968: High School Student Activism in York, Pennsylvania. The Journal of African American History , 151-162.
  • Wright, S. (2013 ). Start with Why: The power of student-driven learning. Retrieved November 1, 2014, from Powerful Learning Practice Network.
  • Yair, G. (2000). Reforming Motivation: How the Structure of Instruction Affects Students’ Learning Experiences. British Educational Journal , 26 (2), 191-120.
  • Yang, H. L. (2010, August). Middle School Student Involvement in China. Thesis paper . Montreal, Quebec, Canada: McGill University Department of Integrated Studies in Education.
  • Yarnel, E.B. (1972) Student Involvement as an Administrative Technique in Decision Making by the Chief School Officer. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Ohio University.
Author Unknown
  • (November-December 1970) “Student Power as a Means to Educational Change,” Integrated Education. pp. 32-39.
  • “On School Violence,” (1971) Journal of Secondary Education, pp. 9-15.
  • (January 1971) “Profile of-the Large City High School,” Bulletin of NASSP, 351, pp. 3-104.
  • (September 1969) “Student Involvement; Channeling Activism into Accomplishment,” Nation’s Schools, 84(3), pp 39-50.
  • (October 1969) “Student and Administration Crises,” Educational Leadership, 27, pp. 34-42.
  • (October 1970) “Shared Power and Decision-Making,” Educational Leadership, 28, pp. 9-14.
  • (February 1970) The New Morality of Teenagers: The New Student Voice. Paper presented at the annual convention of the American Association of School Administrators.
  • (November 1968) “Finding New Ways to Meet Youth’s Needs,” School Management, 12(11). pp. 77-98.
  • (March 1972) “Student Strikes in East Los Angeles,” School and Society (now Intellect), 100 (2340), pp. 182-185.
  • (December 1968) “High School Activists Tell What They Want,” Nation’s Schools, 82, pp. 29-31.
  • (November 1968) “High Schools Face New Challenges from Growing Student Unrest,” Nation’s Schools, 82, p. 28.
  • (March 1970) “How Student Involvement Pays Off,” School Management, 14(3), pp. 29-32.
  • (July 1969) “How to Involve Students in Decision-Making,” School Management, 13(7), p. 12.


Related Articles