No description available.

No description available.

For low-income minority and marginalized communities, American democracy’s educational mission remains unfulfilled. Student voices have provided insight into ways that schools disserve and serve students and how schools can improve in promoting academic achievement; however, academically successful low-income students’ voices—particularly those at the elementary school level—are largely excluded from the literature. Providing a platform for student voices, this qualitative, intrinsic critical case study explored six high achieving low-income students’ views of their academic success and how that success was achieved. Participants were six fifthgrade students, their parents, and teacher, in a school-wide Title I urban public school. Data were collected over a 12-week period through individual interviews, observation, participation, and semiformal conversations. Using an immersive pattern analysis, four main categories emerged from the student interview data: student beliefs about their role; classroom structures; teacher practices; and family support. The study found four principal success factors: a dynamic effort-driven view of success and intelligence; a rigorous dialogic classroom that prioritized student voice, critical thinking, collaboration, and social imagination; an accountable classroom culture of high expectations and mastery learning; and the richly diverse experiences and teachings of parents and families as valuable funds of knowledge. Implications and recommendations are included for policy, practice, and future research.

Although students have more opportunities than ever before to participate in advanced academic programs while in high school, it is unclear whether this has affected their ability to succeed in college. To determine what impact the students' experiences in Advanced Placement (AP) and dual credit coursework had on their level of college and career readiness (CCR), students were asked to recall what factors influenced their ability to succeed in postsecondary education and describe what information is most beneficial for students as they select their academic pathways. This phenomenological qualitative study gathered data from students that had recently graduated from two high schools in a rapidly growing, suburban school district. Participants in the study reported that the most common benefits from advanced academic programs included more challenging expectations and learning how to navigate the various logistics of postsecondary education. By examining these students' perspectives, the findings from this study may positively influence policy and practice by increasing the likelihood that students are adequately prepared for college and have the ability to succeed at the collegiate level. Continued examination of student experiences in postsecondary education is imperative for improving CCR and may provide more insight into what factors inhibit student success after they graduate. Data collected from a more inclusive sample of participants or perhaps longitudinal data following a cohort through the transition from high school to college could help ensure that educators are able to adequately prepare students for life beyond high school.

No description available.

No description available.

This qualitative case study examined how Madison High School's governance model generated youth-adult collaborations around school problems. This seven-month intensive study collected data through numerous site observations, semi-structured one-on-one interviews with 27 adults and students, focus group interview with 11 students, and document collection. This data collection answered the following research questions: To what extent does Madison High School include students and faculty into the policy decision-making, implementation, and review process? If so, how? Why is it done this way? How do faculty, students, administration, and staff perceive its impact on improving the school policy creation and implementation process? Student voice scholars are still investigating the ways in which student leadership around school reform can be facilitated (Dempster & Lizzio, 2007; Fielding, 2004; Mitra, 2005; Mitra & Gross, 2009; O'Donoghue, Kirshner & McLaughlin, 2002; Zeldin, McDaniel, Topitzes, & Calvert, 2000; Zeldin, 2004a). And scholars are interested in investigating how participants enact leadership when it is distributed to them (Hallinger & Heck, 1996; Spillane, 2001, 2004). This study found that not only does the school's governance model include students in the policy making, implementation, and review processes, it distributed leadership across the school and aided in organizational learning by designing its structures and processes around constitutional principles. / Educational Leadership

Many teachers of young adolescents face compelling pressures to dramatically change their practice. The rapid adoption of 1:1 computing, whereby each student has nearly constant access to an Internet-connected laptop, netbook or tablet, poses unique challenges to established practices in curriculum, instruction and classroom management. A growing number of teachers also confront a movement to provide students more personalized and flexible pathways to high school graduation, including experiential, blended and online learning, and allow students to apply knowledge and skills to tasks of personal interest. How teachers cope in this dynamic period may hinge on their ongoing professional development. In recent decades, a general consensus has emerged that promotes teaching as a learning profession in which teachers work together in learning communities and seek expertise not just from outside experts, but also from colleagues attuned to local circumstances. At the same time, the student voice movement encouraged schools to empower students as key collaborators in school improvement. In spite of common themes in the narratives on teacher learning and student voice—collaboration, empowerment and effective change—they seldom intersect in traditional professional development settings or in teachers' collegial learning. This dissertation proposes student consultation as a link between students and teachers in collaborative school improvement and suggests next steps toward more sustainable efforts to involve students in the preparation and ongoing learning of teachers. Three studies are presented. The first study described a weeklong summer professional development institute in which students have played a central role for more than two decades. It outlined the conditions conducive to the collaborative culture among teachers and consulting students and summarizes participants' perspectives on student consultation. The second study applied a qualitative case study design involving observations, interviews, focus groups and surveys with 72 teachers and 20 students to delve more deeply into consultations at the summer institute. Most teachers and students perceived the consultations as enjoyable and beneficial, willingly embraced shifts in authority during consultations, and noted the benefits of strategies employed to support the culture and practices of student consultations. The third study explored how teachers engaged with students as consultants in classroom action research projects initiated at the summer institute and in professional development contexts. The multi-site, collective case study examined six projects involving twelve teachers and 241 students. Interviews and focus groups with nine teachers and 22 students were coded by stages of the action research cycle and characteristics of student involvement in order to examine at which stages in the action research and in what capacities teachers involved their students. The study confirmed teachers' and students' general appreciation of consultation and suggests that parsing the subtleties of when and how students are consulted can contribute to deeper understand of student involvement and better facilitation of action research in teacher professional development. Together, this collection of studies has implications for the design and evaluation of student consultation in teacher professional development.

‘Tell me and I'll forget. Show me, and I may not remember. Involve me, and I'll understand.’ (Chinese proverb) Why is it that children in Year 6 have the ability to construct stories independently, yet at the start of Year 7 the same children have difficulties recalling this knowledge and understanding? Transfer from primary to secondary education has been widely debated for a number of decades. Despite this, Evans et al.’s (2010) evaluation of transition concluded that for over 20% of transferring children, the process remains problematic, leading to inconsistent progress, both academically and socially. Transition research has focused significantly on process and procedures, accumulating data from a wealth of stakeholders, but largely neglecting the voice of the child experiencing this process. My research centres on the child, documenting their learning journey through their transition from primary to secondary school. Galton et al (1999b) identify three elements supporting a child’s continuation of learning post- transfer: enthusiasm for learning; confidence in themselves as learners; and a sense of achievement and purpose. A significant contribution to these qualities is the socio- constructivist view that ‘talk drives learning.’ Clear differences in progress, learning and teaching are contained within the microsystems of classroom life. Therefore, to deepen understanding of contexts of transition it is essential to focus research on language and relationships within such systems. Bronfenbrenner’s bio-ecological framework (1979) provides a basis for an analysis of the contribution of microsystem relationships and sub- cultures to the social matrix of different and progressive classroom environments. My research used an exploratory multi-case study approach (Merriam, 1988a; Yin, 2009). Three distinct models of transfer were identified and examined in depth. Within each of these cases, the learning of a group of children was observed and key points discussed with them throughout the transition process. Therefore, my research explored transition in the broadest sense, through the child’s experiences. The research moved beyond myth and procedures in order to understand the tools a child needs to transfer into secondary school to ensure sustainable progress and enjoyment of learning. Each of the cases had their own model of transfer. The first, Case1, considered children transferring from the more ‘traditional’ primary school into a ‘secondary’ school. In the second, Case 2, children transferred within an ‘all-through’ school within the same building. The third, Case 3, operated within the experience of Case 2, but transferred from their primary setting into the all-through school (the same school as Case 2). The study expected Case 2 as being the best model of transfer and provider of seamless progression of learning for children in Years 6 and 7. However, each model had case-dependent issues that affect a child’s progress within the wider contexts of transition. As a result, the study acknowledged the impact of previous research and further considered this study’s impact on learning in meso and microsystems. Three main, associated arose across the case studies. The first considered teacher provision during the transition period identifying: • the importance of learning roles and relationships between the child and their teacher, and the child and their peers. • structures of accountability generated by Statutory Assessment Tests (SATs). Within a culture of test-based curriculum structures, the study discusses the impact on children’s learning within continual testing and reporting frameworks. It does not discourage the importance of developing basic skills, but considers the purpose of continually tracking and monitoring children throughout their transition period. The importance of standardised test scores is questioned, as these routines are not followed through post-SATs. • children encouraged to participate in new learning routines and contexts. However, the study identifies an absence of sufficient communication between schools that diminishes consistency of learning opportunities during transfer. In addition, the study highlights differing definitions of independent learning between individual school and classroom contexts. The second considered barriers to the continuous development of independent learning. It further identified the distorting influence of SATs, firstly on a child’s development of independent learning, and secondly, on differences of definition between primary and secondary contexts. It suggested that skills recognised in independent learning are situated within almost singular contexts of primary school. When transferring to secondary school, there is an increased challenge for children to transfer these skills into multifarious contexts. Finally, the study identified the differing challenges of language demands on a child’s continuous learning, specifically • inconsistencies of curriculum terminology between primary and destination schools. • differing language clusters that children develop during group work. I observed that these clusters were transferred within each independent learning activity, but were not recognised in the analysis of my secondary classroom observations. This raised the issue of teacher expectations, questioning whether on transfer teachers expect all children to be classified as ‘workers’, rather than consultant, leader, engineer or technician within group and learning activities. • the role of ‘strong’ and ‘weak’ learning relationships between effective partnerships of ‘novice’ and ‘expert’, concluding that weak novice-to-novice relationships affected the continuity of learning. Findings common across all three cases exposed wider implications for transition. These were compared to the ORACLE studies (Galton et al, 1999b; Hargreaves and Galton, 2002). Recommendations offered were to: • ensure the continuity of learning progression, • promote active participation in learning, • improve the quality of children’s work during the transition period.

El proyecto de tesis doctoral presenta dos estudios de caso, en dos centros públicos de Educación Infantil y Primaria de la Comunidad Autónoma de Cantabria, en los que se documenta el proceso que se pone en marcha cuando se desarrollan iniciativas o planes de mejora local incorporando la voz del alumnado. La aproximación al campo de estudio se nutre de diferentes planteamientos teóricos, destacamos, entre otros: la apuesta por reconocer la mejora escolar como acciones de cambio locales, vinculadas a contextos únicos e irrepetibles y la necesidad de incorporar en los procesos de mejora la voz del alumnado, particularmente la de aquéllos alumnos y alumnas que tradicionalmente han ocupado un sitio en los márgenes del sistema escolar. El proyecto, desde el punto de vista metodológico, se enmarca dentro de los modelos de investigación cualitativa-colaborativa, con predominio de métodos etnográficos. El diseño de investigación, flexible y emergente, se ha estructurado en cinco fases que van desde el acceso al centro, pasando por la detección de necesidades en los mismos, la consulta al alumnado sobre las posibilidades de mejora, el diseño e implementación de un plan concreto, hasta poder evaluar el trabajo desarrollado en cada uno de los dos centros. / This thesis presents two case studies in two public primary schools in Cantabria (Spain). It deals with the development of improvement projects that incorporate student voice. The study draws on different theoretical approaches, we highlight: the commitment to recognize school improvement as local change actions and the need to recognize student voice, particularly of those students who have traditionally occupied a place in the margins of the school system. The project, from the methodological point of view, is part of qualitative and collaborative research models, dominated by ethnographic methods. The research design, flexible and emergent, is structured in five phases: 1) access to the center, 2) detection of the their needs, 3) students´ consultation 4) design and development of an improvement project, and 5) Evaluating the work done in each of the two centers.