Scope and Quality of Student Participation

5/3/2015
ScholarOne Manuscripts
InternationalJournalofAdolescenceandYouth
Preview
From: r.evans14@btinternet.com
To: leonmpe@gmail.com
CC:
Subject:
InternationalJournalofAdolescenceandYouthDecisiononManuscriptIDRADY2014
0043.R1
Body: 16Jan2015
DearDrPrezExpsito:
Ref:Scopeandqualityofstudentparticipationinschool:towardsananalyticalframework
foradolescents
Wehavenowconsideredyourrevisedpaperandhaverecommendedpublicationin
InternationalJournalofAdolescenceandYouth.Wearepleasedtoacceptyourpaperinits
currentformwhichwillnowbeforwardedtothepublisherforcopyeditingandtypesetting.
Youwillreceiveproofsforchecking,andinstructionsfortransferofcopyrightinduecourse.
Thepublisheralsorequeststhatproofsarecheckedthroughthepublisherstrackingsystem
andreturnedwithin48hoursofreceipt.
ThankyouforyourcontributiontoInternationalJournalofAdolescenceandYouthandwe
lookforwardtoreceivingfurthersubmissionsfromyou.
Sincerely,
Roy
ProfessorRoyEvans,PhD,FRSA
Editor,
InternationalJournalofAdolescenceandYouth
r.evans14@btinternet.com
Therearenowover1050Taylor&Francistitlesavailableonourfreetableofcontents
alertingservice!Toregisterforthisfreeservicevisit:www.informaworld.com/alerting.
DateSent: 16Jan2015
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/rady?PARAMS=xik_bD7MrP3ASvQ2Dy79YtmYQUDf4yjCJEAesnMWy4GNhZbFPnBbjLT4j5rUfBzTfEBxMRftZPUYxkfNz5d
1/2
RADY 10099205/2/2015MOHANRAJ.D505029Style 1
International Journal of Adolescence and Youth, 2015
Vol. 00, No. 0, 128, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02673843.2015.1009920
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Scope and quality of student participation in school: towards an

analytical framework for adolescents
Leonel Perez-Exposito*
8
9
10
Unidad Xochimilco, Universidad Autonoma Metropolitana, Mexico DF, Mexico

(Received 18 October 2014; accepted 16 January 2015)
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
There is growing support for the relevance of adolescents participation in school, as a

result of different works which focus on singular aspects of pupils involvement. Yet,
there is a lack of advancement in regard to integral analytical frameworks that are
capable of providing fundamental dimensions and concepts in the study and evaluation
of student participation in school. This article aims to fill the gap by introducing an
analytical framework for a more holistic examination of such practices. By using data
from a mixed methods research, which included qualitative work in two schools from
contrasting municipalities of Mexico City, and a representative survey (n 828) of
third grade students from the secondary schools in these two areas, the article shows
the empirical applicability of the model, and reveals its capacity for mapping,
understanding and evaluating student participation in school from an integral
perspective, based on two fundamental dimensions of inquiry: scope and quality.
Keywords: adolescent participation; student voice; school participation; citizenship
education; democratic schools
25
26
27
Introduction
28
29
There is growing empirical evidence, as well as theoretical and normative arguments, to

support the relevance of adolescent participation in school. Since the adoption of the
Convention on the Rights of the Child by the General Assembly of the United Nations
in 1989, a body of research has emphasised student participation as a right of children
and adolescents which must be guaranteed in school (Lansdown, 1998, 2001; Lundy,
2007; Osler & Starkey, 2005). It has also become relevant as an expected learning
outcome of different programmes of citizenship education (Perez Exposito, 2014b).
As part of the project of forming active citizens, these programmes encourage students
to learn how to participate effectively in their daily communities, including the school
(e.g. ECS, 2000; Great Britain, 1998; Ministerio de Educacion Nacional, 2004;
Secretariat of Public Education [SEP], 2007, 2011). Furthermore, research has shown
the role of students participation in developing meaningful knowledge, skills and
attitudes. These include communication abilities, interpersonal and social skills, critical
thinking, problem identification, problem solving, decision-making, creation and
development of plans of action, supportive relationships with adults and peers, and a
rising sense of tolerance and solidarity (Mager & Nowak, 2012; Mitra, 2004; Mitra &
Serriere, 2012; Perez Exposito, Ortiz Tirado, Gonzalez, & Gordillo, 2012). Their
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
*Email: leonmpe@gmail.com
48
49
q 2015 The Author(s). Published by Taylor & Francis.

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided
the original work is properly cited. The moral rights of the named author(s) have been asserted.
2
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
L. Perez-Exposito
development through participation is significant for an active citizenship, but also to

adolescents personal and social development, as well as valuable in other domains such
as professional labour markets.
A growing sense of belonging and engagement with their school constitutes an
especially important outcome of students participation (Mitra, 2004; Mitra & Serriere,
2012), which has been positively associated with academic achievement, increasing
motivation (Goodenow, 1993; Ryan & Powelson, 1991) and the inclusion of different
forms of diversity to the school community (Mitra & Serriere, 2012). It also explains the
relationship between student participation and a lower risk of dropping out of school
(Finn & Cox, 1992; Finn & Rock, 1997; Rumberger, 2001), and the reduction of school
violence (Fierro, 2011). Similarly, the literature has indicated how student participation
contributes to overcome a wide range of school problems, from the average of students
learning outcomes (Mitra, 2003) to the improvement of school grounds (Rickinson &
Sanders, 2005).
The increasing visibility of the importance of student participation in school is
substantially a product of a diverse corpus of research, whose individual works focus on
different aspects of students involvement: for instance, decision-making at school
(Fielding, 2001; Mitra, 2008), participation in classroom (Hess, 2009), taking part in
solving problems within schools communities (Annette, 2004, 2006; Apple & Beane,
2007a), conflict resolution (Bickmore, 2004, 2008; Fierro, 2011; Fierro, Carbajal, &
Martnez-Parente, 2010), participation in school councils (Whitty & Wisby, 2007),
students involvement in the improvement of schools facilities (Nunez, 2011), curricular
and pedagogical orientations (Apple & Beane, 2007a) and the establishment of school
rules (Raby, 2012). Yet, there is a lack of advancement in regard to integral analytical
frameworks that are capable of providing fundamental dimensions and concepts in the
study and evaluation of students participation in school. This article aims to fill the gap
by introducing an analytical framework for a more holistic examination of student
participation in school, especially in regard to adolescents. It is organised in two main
sections. First, based on a critical review of the related literature, I develop two core
dimensions of inquiry. The first focuses on the scope of student participation. I present
the notions of domains of participation, agencies and repertoires, in order to identify
different potential configurations of participatory practices in the school, and their main
characteristics. The second dimension refers to the quality of adolescents involvement,
understood as the interrelation of three components: authenticity, autonomy and efficacy.
Second, I apply both dimensions to the analysis of student participation in the general
secondary schools from two areas of Mexico City,1 as an illustration of their empirical
applicability. To conclude, I highlight the capacity of the analytical proposal for
mapping, understanding and evaluating student participation in school, from a more
integral perspective.
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
Student participation in school: scope and quality

Scope: potential configurations between domains, agencies and
repertoires in student participation in school
In regard to historical transformations in the forms of political participation, Norris (2002)
states that it evolves and diversifies in terms of the who (agencies or collective organisations), what (repertoires of actions commonly used for political expressions), and where
(the targets that participants seek to influence) (p. 4). In this section, I propose to employ
such categories to the analysis of adolescents participation in school. It means to analyse
International Journal of Adolescence and Youth
99
100
these practices as different configurations between targets or domains of participation

(where), agencies (who) and repertoires (what) (Byrne, 2010).
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
Domains of participation
Research shows that students participation is oriented to a variety of domains of the school
life: for instance, curricular choices, school governance, classroom dynamics and
rules (Apple & Beane, 2007a, 2007b; Mitra, 2009; OBrien, 2006; Raby, 2012), the
improvement of schools facilities (Nunez, 2011; TvPTS, 2010), school safety, no violence
and anti-bullying programs (Lansdown, 2005a), conflict resolution (Bickmore, 2008),
community problems (Annette, 2009; OBrien, 2006) and school reform (Mitra, 2008).
I identify five core domains of student participation in school, in which such a variety can be
classified. These are: binding decision-making, conflict resolution, knowledge construction,
resolution of community problems and identity construction.
Binding decision-making. A key aspect of adolescents participation in school is the
possibility of influencing various processes of decision-making, whose resolutions have a
binding character for different school actors. Major possible areas of binding decisionmaking are: school governance, curricular and pedagogical decisions, and the definition
of community problems.
Among other things, participation in school governance includes making decisions
about the academic project of the school, its goals and procedures; effective use of
resources and school budget; head teachers and teachers appointments; integral
evaluation of school performance (Balarin, Brammer, James, & McCormack, 2008) and
the establishment of policies and rules that organise the functioning of the school
according to a normative construct (Potgieter, Visser, Van der Bank, Mothata, & Squelch,
1997). In regard to curricular and pedagogical decisions, students involvement has to do
with having voice in the following debates: What do we learn, and why (Knowledge
selection and justification)? How do we learn (Pedagogical and didactical strategies and
procedures)? How is learning organised during school time (Curriculum organisation and
timetable)? (Apple & Beane, 2007a). Lastly, as OBrien (2006) points out, when students
participate in the analysis and resolution of problems in the school and surrounding
communities, these are usually defined from others perspective (authorities and adults
from school or community). Due to the fact that the definition of problems in these
communities is not neutral, student participation in binding decision-making also involves
taking part in defining what is problematic in such contexts.
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
Conflict resolution. Teachers, school counsellors or head teachers commonly solve

conflicts among students and between other school actors. They play the role of judges,
juries or mediators. It means that students are usually excluded from the resolution of their
own conflicts and those between adults in the school (e.g. between parents and school
authorities).
The idea of conflict resolution is generally seen as a non-violent way for solving
conflicts. Based on previous analysis of experiences of conflict resolution (Bickmore,
2004, 2008; Fierro, 2011; Fierro et al., 2010), student participation in this domain can be
classified according to three types established by Bickmore (2008): (1) Peacekeeping:
students take decisions and measures for controlling violence in school, rather than
solving the problems causing that violence. (2) Peacemaking: students solve their
own conflicts through negotiation and mutually acceptable forms of resolution.
4
148
149
L. Perez-Exposito
(3) Peacebuilding: adolescents participate in the construction of long-term policies and

actions to overcome violence in school, and the causes of conflict.
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
[AQ1]
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
Knowledge construction. Most of the time in the school day is dedicated to organise
activities aimed at constructing meaningful learning. An important consideration in
achieving this goal is students motivation, which is closely linked to being convinced
about knowledges validity, as well as its relevance in regard to students present and/or
future lives (Ausubel, Novak, & Hanesian, 1968; Illeris, 2003, 2008). Student
participation in establishing what is valid and relevant knowledge, and why it is so,
demands at least three conditions: (a) to overcome the dichotomy educator educand
(Freire, 1970/2002), (b) a school and classroom climate open to controversy and debate
(Hess & Avery, 2008; Hess, 2009) and (c) a differentiated pedagogy (Perrenoud, 2008;
Sousa & Tomlinson, 2011; Tomlinson, 1999; Tomlinson et al., 2003). These three aspects
are interrelated. The first involves the active deconstruction of conservative teacher and
student identities, where the former possess the valid knowledge, and the latter (the
dispossessed) receives it without questioning. Such redefinition of roles occurs through a
deliberative practice which allows active student participation in knowledge construction.
Both, deliberation and the deconstruction of the dichotomy educator-educand, presuppose
a welcoming climate open to controversy and debate (even in the less controversial areas
of knowledge). Yet, controversy, debate and deliberation tend to favour outgoing students,
or those with a better development of certain communication skills. A differentiated
pedagogy, then, appears as the approach that opens opportunities for every student to
interact and debate with the teacher, other school authorities and his/her peers, according
to his/her readiness to learn, interests, style of learning, his/her experiences and life
circumstances (Tomlinson, 2000).
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
Resolution of community problems. Student participation in school is not only a discursive

or linguistic practice (Jager & Maier, 2009; Van Leeuwen, 2008). It is more than a
deliberative exercise of decision-making, conflict resolution or knowledge construction; it
also involves taking action. A participatory school is a place where young people do things
and get involved in the resolution of problems in the school community and other
communities to which they belong (Apple & Beane, 2007a). Once students have
participated in the definition of these problems, they can organise and decide a course of
action. Adolescents can participate in a wide scope of actions, from improving school
grounds (Rickinson & Sanders, 2005) to health campaigns in their neighbourhoods (Apple
& Beane, 2007a).
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
Identity construction. This domain of participation seems particularly relevant for

adolescents. It is about students identity disclosure and construction within the school.
Even contesting perspectives on adolescence recognise this stage as highly vibrant in
terms of identity definition and disclosure (Crocetti, Jahromi, & Meeus, 2012; Lesko,
2013). Adolescence appears as a period of discovering the power of self-definition.
However, adults usually restrict the scope of identity exploration and expression in
adolescents. School is not an exception. Teachers, parents and head teachers frequently
constrain students identity by classifying them according to their own categories (e.g.
immature, eccentric, superfluous or dangerous), sanctioning adolescents identity
expressions (e.g. body appearance) or imposing right identity models (Raby, 2012).
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
Therefore, this domain has to do with students showing who are they, what do they like or
dislike, what do they think and feel, what do they want to be and what they are searching
for. It is about displaying their identifications and discovering their own subjectivity. This
can be done through a myriad of ways, from body appearance, artistic expressions in the
school and drama performances (OBrien, 2006), to formal debates about their identity
with adults in the school.
I have briefly explained five core domains of student participation in the school.
These are not restricted to a particular space. For instance, while participation in
knowledge construction is more likely to occur in classroom, it also takes place in
extra -curricular activities outside the school. The five domains of participation, then,
are not mutually exclusive. Their separation facilitates a better analytical description,
but I acknowledge that in the schools dynamics they are likely to overlap in the same
practice. For instance, student participation in a school-based youth court can be
oriented to the domain of conflict resolution between school actors, since most of the
cases in these courts relate to disciplinary offenses (Vickers, 2004). However, as
adolescents participate playing the role of judges, lawyers or juries, trying to solve a
particular conflict, they also make decisions that might have a binding character.
Therefore, the domains of conflict resolution and binding decision-making overlap in
the same activity.
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
Agencies for student participation in school

Student participation in school can be channelled through a variety of agencies: school
councils (Whitty & Wisby, 2007), student councils, student assemblies, student clubs,
youth courts (OBrien, 2006), community organisations (Annette, 2006), non-stable and
spontaneous student organisations (Mejias, 2012) and individual participation. In my
approach, agencies for student participation can be differentiated at least through two
dimensions: a) organised/non-organised body and (b) Composition. The first is related to
whether student participation occurs through an organised agency and its degree of
formality. Adolescents can influence decision-making in the school through the school
council, or participate in the resolution of community problems through a student club, but
they can also get involved in knowledge construction in classroom by enacting their
individual or collective agency with no need of an organised body. The degree of formality
refers to whether the agency has a legal or predefined regulation, an institutionalised
structure and functioning, and pre-established roles for its members. In this regard, the
school council and the student club represent different degrees of formality. School
councils usually have a legal or predefined regulation regarding its composition,
functioning and participants roles. Their structure and division of labour are independent
of current members, who disregarding their individual characteristics have a preestablished role and position. In contrast, a student club is more likely to have a horizontal
and flexible organisation, without a legal or predefined regulation: its composition,
functioning and the roles of its members can be constantly redefined depending on the
characteristics of current participants.
The second dimension in the concept of agency refers to its composition. It includes
two relevant aspects: (1) whether the agency comprises individual or collective actors, and
(2) to what extent these are homogenous or heterogeneous in terms of typical school
categories: students, teachers, head teachers or parents. For example, youth courts for
student participation in conflict resolution include individual actors playing different roles;
however, all of them are students. In contrast, a meeting of the school assembly for solving
6
246
247
248
249
250
L. Perez-Exposito
conflicts between students and teachers comprises at least two collective actors. A third
variation occurs in those agencies such as school councils, which are constituted by
individual participants who frequently play a representational role; they are the voice of
a collective actor.
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
Repertoires
Regarding the repertoires of student participation in school, diversity prevails. For
instance, in school councils, adults usually guide student participation, and reach decisionmaking through voting; whereas in youth courts, students organise participation, and
debate leads to decision-making. Sometimes, students seek to influence school and
classroom rules through an organised participation in student councils, or by an individual
and more informal negotiation (Huddleston, 2007; Raby, 2012). Adolescents can
communicate their points of view about school problems through the use of the Internet
and social networks, through drama performances and other artistic expressions
(Goldman, Booker, & McDermott, 2008; OBrien, 2006), by a demonstration outside the
principals office (Mejias, 2012) or on the streets (Nunez, 2011; TvPTS, 2010). Students
can also have a voice in the school through alternative roles, such as evaluators (Campbell,
Edgar, & Halsted, 1994) or researchers (Fielding, 2001; Osler, 2010).
As noticed, there are several dimensions in which repertoires change. For example: Is
participation organised or spontaneous? Who is leading the action (Leadership)? How do
actors make decisions (e.g. voting, deliberation, deliberation voting or consensus)? What
is the form of participation, and how it is performed (e.g. protest, debate, dialogue, artistic
expressions and body appearance)? How actions are coordinated, and how do students
communicate to each other (e.g. face to face, mobile technologies using social networks,
voice and text messages)? And, to what extent participation is violent, contentious, nonviolent, legal or illegal?
I have shown how the concepts of domains of participation, agencies and repertoires
can be used for distinguishing different components of student participation in school.
The multiple arrangements between them constitute an array of configurations of
potential participatory practices in school. Table 1 presents in a synthetic way the scope
of such potential configurations across these three categories. Nonetheless, the actual
characteristics of student involvement depend deeply on particular sociocultural, political
and economic contexts; on the specific features of national and local education systems,
and on administrative and pedagogical orientations and practices in every school.
As other actors involved in social or political participation, students draw on forms of
participation historically established in their society, communities and schools, over
which they can make variations and innovations (Perez Exposito et al., 2012; Tarrow,
2011). Because of this, it is difficult to determine the most common pattern in the
configuration of adolescents participation in school. While there is a growing
participation in school and pupil councils in the UK oriented to the domain of decisionmaking (Cross, Hulme, & McKinney, 2014; Whitty & Wisby, 2007), recently in Chilean
and Argentinian schools, adolescents have been able to participate through their own
organisations and displaying rather contentious repertoires (Chovanec & Benitez, 2008;
Nunez, 2011). In Mexico City, in contrast, adolescents mostly participate through
spontaneous agencies or outside organised bodies; although by law there must be a
student society in every secondary school (a representational agency), the repertoires of
participation in these agencies tend to be led by teachers and school authorities (Perez
Exposito, 2014a; Sandoval, 2000).
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
OR
U
U
Student clubs
OR
Student
assembly
Student parties
Student
societies
School
assembly
U
Representational
Student council
U
U
U
U
305
295
296
(Continued)
Organised Participation (OP). Lead by

authorities (LA). Decision Making
through Deliberation (DMD), and
Decision Making through Voting
(DMV). Dialogue (DI) and Debate
(DE). Face-to-Face Coordination and
Communication (FF). Non-Violent
(NV). Legal (L).
OP. Lead by Students (LS). DMD and
DMV. DI and DE. FF. NV. L.
OP and Spontaneous Participation (SP).
LA or LS. DMD, DMV or Decision
Making through Consensus (DMC).
DI and DE. FF. NV. L.
OP and SP. LS. DMD, DMV or DMC.
OP. LS. DMV. DI and DE. FF. NV. L.
OP and SP. LS. DMV, DMC, or DMD.
DI, DE, Protest (PT), Body
Appearance (BA), or Artistic
Expressions (AE). FF, ICT and
Mobile Technologies (MT). NV,
Contentious (C). L.
DI, DE, PT, BA, or AE. FF, ICT and
MT. NV. L
Repertoires (some characteristics)
304
Representational
Mixed
303
Single
302
Collective
301
Individual
300
Informal
298
299
School council
Formal
Actors composition
297
Binding
decisionmaking
Domains of
participation
Agencies
Table 1. Potential configurations of student participation in school: domains of participation, agencies and repertoires.
306
307
[AQ29]
7
387
388
389
390
391
392
375
376
378
379
380
382
383
384
385
386
Intra-class
organised
groups
Class
Outside any
organisation
374
Classroom
climate and
knowledge
construction
373
Outside any
organisation
370
368
OR
369
OR
OR
OR
U
OR
OR
OR
(See above)
U
OR
(See above)
361
Student assembly
School assembly
Student council
School council
Class
367
366
U
360
365
OR
362
359
355
356
Youth courts
377
OR
354
353
OP through specialised programs for

promoting controversy and debate,
SP. Lead by Teacher (LT) or LS.
DMD. DI and DE. FF, ICT and
MT. NV. L.
OP, Lead by Teacher (LT) or LS, DMD,

DI and DE, FF, NV, L
OP through Peer mediator programs,
Circle processes, or Inter-group
contact encounters. SP. DMD and
DMV. DI, DE, or AE. FF, ICT and
MT. NV, L
OP. Lead by Teacher (LT) or LS. DMD.

DI, DE, PT, BA, or AE. FF, ICT
and MT. NV, C or Violent (V).
L or Illegal (IL)
OP and SP, LS, DMD, DI and DE,
FF, NV, L

DI, DE, PT, BA, or AE. FF, ICT and
MT. NV. L.
Repertoires (some characteristics)
352
Conflict
resolution
381
Other student
groups,
committees and
organisations
outside any
organisation
358
Mixed
351
Single
350
Collective
349
Individual
347
348
Informal
363
364
Actors composition
346
Formal
371
372
Agencies
Domains of
participation
Table 1. (Continued)
L. Perez-Exposito
344
345
357
427
428
429
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
Student clubs
Other student
groups,
committees and
organisations
Outside any
organisation
426
Artistic groups
420
421
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
OP and SP. LS. DMV, DMC, or DMD, DI, DE,

PT, BA, or AE, FF, ICT and MT. NV or
Violent (V). L or Illegal (IL)
394
OR
393
(See above)
409
Identity
construction
(subjectivization)
419
408
Outside any
organisation
418
417
OR
404
405
403
Representational
402
OP and SP, Lead by Adult Community

Members (LACM), DMD, DMV or
DMC, DI and DE, FF, NV, L
OP, LACM, DMD, DMV or DMC, DI
and DE, FF, NV, L
OP and SP, LACM or LS. DMD, DMV
or DMC, DI and DE, FF, ICT and MT.
NV, L
OP and SP, LACM or LS. DMD, or
DMC, DI and DE, FF, ICT and
MT. NV, L
OP and SP. Lead by Teacher (LT) or LS.
DMD, or Unilateral
(DMU). DI and DE, PT. FF, ICT
and MT. NV, L
401
415
U
400
OR
416
OR
399
422
U
398
Community
councils
Community
groups
425
U
396
397
OR
395
412
413
(See above)
411
Student societies
Student clubs
Other student
groups,
committees
and organisations
Community
assemblies
410
Resolution of
common
problems
406
407
414
423
424
430
10
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
[AQ2]
450
451
452
[AQ3]
453
454
455
456
457
458
L. Perez-Exposito
Quality: authenticity, autonomy and efficacy in student participation in school

I have described a broad scope of configurations for student participation in school.
However, widening the possibilities of student involvement does not guarantee the quality
of participation. The growing authority of a positive discourse on student involvement has
a common effect in different schools: authorities, teachers or parents consider it sufficient
if they provide participation through tokenistic, manipulative and decorative forms of
student participation (Fielding, 2004), or by restricting students voice and actions to a few
aspects of the schools life, usually the ones that do not modify schools mechanisms
of decision-making, power distribution and power relations (Whitty & Wisby, 2007).
Assuming a literal definition of participation as the action of taking part in something
(Oxford dictionaries, 2013), these would be considered as forms of student participation in
school, but with a very poor quality. I am using quality in regard to the following
questions: how authentic students involvement is? To what extent it allows autonomous
action? And, how efficacious it is? The analysis of student participation urges us to
consider not only the scope of adolescents involvement in school (first dimension), but
also to what extent such participation is authentic, autonomous and efficacious (second
dimension: quality).
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
[AQ4]
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
Authenticity and autonomy

Recovering Gramscis reflections on political action, Kiros points out that one can
participate either foolishly and ignorantly, or wisely and knowledgeably (Kiros, 1985,
p. 147). Following this idea, authenticity in student participation in school is related to how
knowledgeable and aware students are in regard to the content, purpose, realisation, and
consequences of participation. This idea is closely related to the degree of control that they
have over different stages within the participatory process, and how this process, as a
whole, responds to their own interests (autonomy).
A way of analysing these two interrelated dimensions (authenticity & autonomy)
is through Harts ladder of participation. It establishes different levels, from nonparticipation processes such as manipulation and tokenism,2 extending through five
degrees of participation (Hart, 1992). The highest step involves that children and
adolescents initiate the process and invite adults to joint them in decision-making. Other
authors have drawn on Harts work and proposed different arrangements: simplified and
hierarchised models (Bruun Jensen & Simovska, 2005; Lansdown, 2005b; OBrien, 2006;
Shier, 2001), and a non-hierarchical typology (Simovska & Jensen, 2009). Among them,
Lansdown (2005b) and OBrien (2006) consider as the highest level of participation when
children and adolescents act as the main or exclusive decision-maker during the whole
process. Based on Lansdowns work, I identify four different levels for analysing how
authentic and autonomous student participation is in school: (1) no involvement or
simulated forms of participation (i.e. manipulation or tokenism); (2) students are consulted
and informed, (3) adolescents take part in the process with voice and initiative and
(4) participation is led and controlled by the students.
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
Efficacy
The degree of authenticity and autonomy is related to the efficacy of student participation.
This concept comes from the political science literature (Campbell, Gurin, & Miller, 1954)
and includes two dimensions: internal and external efficacy. The former refers to the
beliefs about ones own competence to understand, and to participate effectively in
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
11
politics (Niemi, Craig, & Mattei, 1991, p. 1407), whereas the latter relates to beliefs
about the responsiveness of government authorities and institutions to citizen demands
(p. 1408). If we apply these concepts to student participation in school, a high internal
efficacy would mean that they strongly believe in their capacity to participate in order to
produce a significant change in school. A low external efficacy would mean that even
when they believe in their own capacity of effective participation, students do not feel that
school authorities will respond positively to their demands. Therefore, the expected
changes will not occur.
Internal efficacy is cyclically related to authenticity and autonomy in students
participation. As they get more autonomous and knowledgeable in the participatory
process, it is more likely to expect a stronger belief in their competence for promoting
a change in school (internal efficacy). Likewise, internal efficacy increases the odds of
undertaking authentic and autonomous actions.
External efficacy, however, depends on two additional factors: (a) the proportion
within a given domain of participation in which students are allowed to participate and
(b) the extent to which students have symmetrical access to valuable resources and
powerful agencies for participation in school, in comparison to other school actors.
In regard to (a), each domain of participation has different sub-domains or potential spaces
where students can have a voice or take action. It is expected that adolescents feeling
about the schools responsiveness to their demands will positively increase as they get
more opportunities to participate in a greater proportion within each domain. In regard to
(b), it is more likely that this feeling increases as students get access to similar valuable
resources for participation, and equal or similar agencies. For instance, if students are
allowed to participate in the school council with the same prerogatives as any other
member, and accessing to the same information about the school, it is reasonable to expect
a more positive feeling about the schools responsiveness to their demands, than if they are
only consulted and informed about the councils decisions.
518
519
520
Understanding and evaluating student participation: an empirical analysis
521
I have described two dimensions of an analytical framework of adolescents participation

in school. The first focuses on the scope, and the second on the quality of students
participation (Figure 1). Both were presented as analytical dimensions of inquiry, which,
522
523
524
525
Domains of
participation
t;
526
527
SCOPE
528
o
on urRepertoires
M lo
o
C
529
530
531
532
in in
O
r l
PAgencies
n
Student
participation
533
534
535
536
Authenticity &
Autonomy
QUALITY
Efficacy
537
538
539
Figure 1. Fundamental dimensions of inquiry in the study and evaluation of student participation
in school.
12
540
541
542
543
544
545
L. Perez-Exposito
however, establish a normative horizon: the desirability of students participation

increases as it expands in scope and quality. Thus, the two fundamental dimensions of
inquiry previously presented can be applied to the analysis of student participation in
school, but also to its evaluation. As an illustration of their empirical applicability, in the
following I use both dimensions for examining student participation in the secondary
schools from two areas of Mexico City.
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
[AQ5]
569
[AQ6]
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
[AQ7]
588
Data and methods

The data in the analysis come from a broader research about students representations of
political participation and their implications for citizenship education in Mexico Citys
secondary schools. I worked with students, teachers and principals from secondary schools
located within two contrasting municipalities (delegaciones) of Mexico City. One of them
is the municipality with the highest level of human development (HD) in the city,3 and
highly urbanised. The latter is among the municipalities with the lowest levels of HD in the
city and it is considered as mostly rural.4
The research followed a sequential mixed-methods strategy (Greene, Caracelli, &
Graham, 1989; Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2009), with three stages. The first was based on a
concurrent embedded strategy (Creswell, 2009) in which a documentary analysis of the
legal framework for Mexico Citys secondary schools was treated from both qualitative
and quantitative approaches. The second was a qualitative stage comprising three
workshops with a group of third-grade students in two schools (one per municipality)5 four
semi-structured interviews with teachers of Civic and Ethical Formation in the same
schools (two per school); and two semi-structured interviews with schools principals (one
per school). The third stage was a quantitative phase in which a self-administrated
questionnaire was applied to a representative sample of third-grade students from all the
general secondary schools in these two areas. The total number of students in the sample
was 828 (n 828). The sampling frame for the survey comprised 2984 students in 17
schools: 1964 adolescents in 12 schools in the urban area, and 1020 in 5 schools within the
rural one (SEP, 2012). It was a probabilistic, stratified and clustered sample with unequal
probabilities.6
The questionnaire was especially designed to gather information about two main
aspects: (1) students representations of political participation; and (2) students
representations of their participation in family, school, local, national and global
communities. According to these interests, I divided the questionnaire in five sections:
(A) Demographics, (B) Participation in family, (C) Participation in school,
(D) Representations of PP and (E) Participation in communities. The data used in the
following analysis comes exclusively from section (C) concerned with participation in
school. This section comprised four requests for an answer (Saris & Gallhofer, 2007).
Requests 1 and 3 were aimed to measure students participation in the domain of decisionmaking; request 4 was focused on the domain of knowledge construction in classroom, and
request 2 was designed to measure the degree of authenticity and autonomy in students
participation in school. All the requests comprised items in battery. Requests 1 and 4 had
seven items, request 2 eight and request 3 five. Requests 1 and 4 were taken from the
student questionnaire of the International Civic and Citizenship Education Study 2009,
developed by the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational
Achievement (ICCS 2009), whereas requests 2 and 3 were originally designed for this
research. In the following section, the requests referred in the analysis are presented as
they appeared in the questionnaire.
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
13
The questionnaire was tested and evaluated through a pilot study with 87 third grade
students from one urban secondary school, who answered the questionnaire in a session of
45 minutes. Among the various methods for testing the quality and functioning of the
questionnaire (Presser et al., 2004), I used two: (1) statistical analysis (multiple item
correlation, factor analysis and computation of Cronbachs a coefficients) and (2)
cognitive interviews (Beatty, 2004; Willis, 2004) with 10 students. The questionnaire was
tested in some usual problems with questionnaires pointed out by Forsyth, Rothgeb, and
Willis (2004), but particularly in: (a) Comprehension, (b) Keeping interest and motivation,
(c) Adequacy of response alternatives, (d) Social desirability, (e) Construct Validity and
(f) Reliability.7
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
Scope and quality of student participation in the domain of

binding decision-making in school
Using the qualitative and quantitative data from the research design summarised earlier, in
this section I analyse students representations of their participation in school, exclusively
related to the domain of Binding decision-making. Due to space reasons, it is not possible
here to apply the model to the analysis of student participation in the five domains
previously outlined. I rather present an in-depth analysis of the scope and quality of
adolescents participation in the domain of binding decision-making, which due to its
centrality and constitutive sub-domains, clearly illustrates the importance of examining
both the scope of participatory practices, and their quality, in order to provide a more
integral understanding and evaluation of student participation in school.
612
613
614
Scope of participation in the domain of binding decision-making
615
As a first examination of students participation in this domain, I present their responses to

request 1 from Section C of the questionnaire: In your school, to what extent students
opinion is considered in decision-making on the following issues?
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
The way in which courses are taught.

Courses content.
Learning materials and resources.
Courses timetable.
Classroom rules.
School rules.
Extracurricular activities (for instance, visiting a museum).8
Participants were asked to respond each of these seven items in a four-point Likert
scale: Much Somewhat Not Really Not at All.9 As shown in Graph 1, the percentage
of students who think that their opinion is Much considered is the lowest in every item,
excepting participation in Classroom rules. Accordingly, this is the only item in which the
majority of students are located within the proportion comprising the Much and
Somewhat responses.
In order to have a global insight on students perception of their participation in
decision-making regarding the aspects of the school indicated in the items, I present the
results of students scores within a summative average index (Langbein, 2012). It was
developed by assigning a numeric value to each of the four response categories (Not at
All 0, Not Really 1, Somewhat 2, Much 3). The lower limit of the index is 0,
and, to establish the upper limit, the higher value (3) was multiplied by the number of
L. Perez-Exposito
14
638
100
639
90
17.0
20.5
17.6
18.8
640
641
642
643
36.3
38.4
80
70
25.2
34.8
36.6
60
34.0
644
645
646
647
50
651
652
653
31.5
34.1
36.3
648
649
650
21.9
23.9
40
30
29.8
30.1
34.7
22.4
20.8
27.0
20
10
23.1
16.9
12.0
12.8
12.5
a) The way in
which courses
are taught
b) Courses
content
c) Learning
materials and
resources
19.4
11.7
0
d) Courses
timetable
e) Classroom
rules
f) School rules g) Extracurricular

activities
654
655
Much
Somewhat
Not really
Not at all
656
657
658
659
Graph 1. Students responses to the question: to what extent students opinion is considered in
decision-making on the following issues? (Valid percent). *Items (a) and (b) n 820, (c) n 820,
(d) n 815, (e) n 818, (f) n 808, and (g) n 815.
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
items in the battery (7). Therefore, the index ranges from 0 to 21. Students scores were
computed by adding the value that corresponds to the category selected by the
respondent in each of the seven items. If a student scores 21, it means that in every
single indicator (item), he or she answered the category Much ( 3). In order to
improve and clarify the interpretation of scores, I rescaled the index by dividing the
maximum limit (21) between the number of items (7). The final index, then, ranges from
0 to 3, and the individual respondents scores can be interpreted using the original
response categories (Langbein, 2012): 0 Not at All, 1 Not Really, 2 Somewhat
and 3 Much.10
The Mean of students score across the index is 1.17 (SD .68) and the Mode is .86,
the maximum score was 2.57, but only 12% of respondents scored between 2 and 2.57;
whereas 46% scored 1 or less.11 According to this distribution and the value of the Mean,
it is possible to say that students perceive that their opinion is not really considered in
decision-making at school, at least in regard to the aspects presented in the seven items
earlier.
The qualitative results reinforce this finding. As I have explained, the domain of
binding decision-making includes at least the following sub-domains of student
participation: school governance, curricular and pedagogical decisions, and the definition
of community problems. When I asked students in the urban municipality about their
participation in decisions about the school, one of them (Luca12) answered that before the
current principal:
there was one meeting with the principal and the deputy head teacher, and some teachers
asked us our point of view, and all together made a decision. For instance, the school needed
an equipped facility for the French course, [ . . . ] So, all of us reached an agreement and made
decisions.
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
It is important to emphasise that at the time of my fieldwork, participants had been in that
school for two years and a half, and Luca could only recall one meeting related to
decision-making for school governance. The lack of students involvement in binding
decision-making related to school governance turns evident in the definition of school and
classrooms rules. Students and teachers share the idea that most of rules have already
been established by government entities outside of the school, for instance, the SEP, and
by the schools authorities, mainly the principal. The following three excerpts, the first
from the rural school and the next two from the urban one, illustrate this view.
Facilitator/interviewer: How are the rules and norms [ . . . ] in the school or classroom decided?
Ana: Through agreements among the authorities with the highest responsibility, in this case
the principal, the deputy head teacher, and other authorities that make the schools regulations
that we have to comply.
700
______________
701
Interviewer: How do you perceive the school environment for students participation in
decision-making, and the possibility of being listened in relation to things that affect them?
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
Teacher Rose: I think it is very difficult, because of the regulation from the Secretariat of
Public Education.
_______________
Facilitator/interviewer: How do you decide the rules and norms in the school?
Pedro: The principal, I think. Because [ . . . ] in the first [week] the regulations are given to us,
and those are the valid ones for the whole school year.
Facilitator/interviewer: And who decide those regulations?
712
Moises: The SEP [Secretariat of Public Education], I think.
713
Pedro: Yes
714
715
716
717
Due to the centralised and hierarchical school regulation, the classroom becomes a slightly
more flexible space for student participation in decision-making about the rules to be
followed:
719
Facilitator/interviewer: In classroom, what other rules do you have? [ . . . ] How are they
decided?
720
Moises: As a group
721
Mario: Between all of us, it is the only occasion where we interact [ . . . ].
718
722
723
724
725
Facilitator/interviewer: And which rules...?

Mario: Normally they are always the same: no trash . . .
726
Carmen: No food
727
Pedro: No food, no water . . .
728
Moises: No cell phones, no yelling . . .
729
730
731
732
733
Facilitator/interviewer: But, do you decide as a group?

Carmen: Some of them . . .
Pedro: Or, for example, some teachers bring their rules, we read them, and they tell us: would
you like to add something else?
734
735
15
Mario: But it never really happens
16
736
737
738
739
740
741
742
743
744
745
746
747
748
749
750
751
752
753
L. Perez-Exposito
The excerpt shows different opinions among the students about the opportunities to
participate in the definition of rules in the classroom. Yet, it seems that their involvement
depends on the teacher, and normally the teacher has already decided most of the rules and
the process through which these are established. As Teacher Ivan from the same school says:
I give them the rules, but I explain them, and if there is any problem, if there is any
inconformity, we talk about it. But I give the reasons. It is not that we do what I say, but look
boys this is the reason . . .
To a great extent, the limited involvement in the domain of binding decision-making is

explained by the lack of regular practices and effective mechanisms for students inclusion
in decisions related to school governance and the definition of common problems. When
I asked the principal from the urban school about whether there were real opportunities for
students to have influence in decisions about the school, she said:
I think we are not used to it. [ . . . ] We dont even have in mind that they take a decision
through a sort of survey, to see what is the most important decision we should make in the
school? How do we want to approach a given problem? How we would like that the school
shows itself to the community? What are the things that make us uncomfortable? [ . . . ] We are
not willing to participate. This participation doesnt happen.
Similarly, it seems that students rarely participate in curricular and pedagogical decisions:
754
755
756
757
758
Facilitator/interviewer: How opened are teachers to your contributions to what should be

taught? Have you ever proposed any topic that you want to learn?
Pedro: Just one teacher. Well, in my class, with the teacher of chemistry, we told him what we
want to work with [ . . . ] and he allowed us to do that. But it is just one.
759
760
761
762
763
764
765
766
767
768
769
770
771
772
773
774
775
776
777
778
779
780
781
782
Agencies and repertoires of student participation in school

The lack of students involvement in binding decision-making is largely a consequence of
their exclusion from powerful and efficacious agencies for participation in school.
Adolescents are not formally included in the two main bodies for collective decisionmaking in the Mexican secondary school: the School Technical Council (STC) and the
School Council of Social Participation (SCSP).13 However, principals, students and
teachers concur in representing two main agencies for student participation in school: the
Student Society (SS) and the chiefs of class.
The SS is a formal organisation, legally regulated, and with a pre-established
hierarchised composition, whose positions and roles are stable over time, independently of
the individual characteristics of its temporal members. All secondary schools in Mexico
have to form a Student Society (SS) each academic year. However, students tend to
discredit both the SS and the process for electing the student representatives who chair it.
They seem rather sceptical about the efficacy of this organ, to which they refer as
planillas.14 I present the following excerpts from the urban and the rural schools,
respectively, as an illustration of students incredulity on this agency:
Facilitator/interviewer: So, what are the planillas for?
Pedro: Supposedly they are for improving the school
Moses: but it doesnt work
Facilitator/interviewer [ . . . ] why?
783
Moses: they did nothing; they said there would be mirrors in the toilets, but it didnt happen
784
All: Yes, nothing.
785
_____________
786
787
Facilitator/interviewer: So, if we think about the schools problems, have you done something
to solve them?
788
789
Miriam and Ana: We? Nothing.
790
Adrian: Supposedly thats why we vote for the planilla
791
Karina: But they do nothing
17
792
793
Ana: Yes they do nothing. Well two years ago I think we have more control
794
[...]
795
796
797
798
799
Adrian: Yes, if we noticed something wrong we left it to the planilla and they tried to fix it.
But now the planilla sucks, they do nothing, simply nothing.
Facilitator/interviewer: And . . . two years ago the planilla was better, they tried to solve some
problems?
800
All: Yes
801
Facilitator/interviewer: And how did they try to solve the problem?
802
803
804
805
806
807
808
809
810
811
812
813
814
815
816
817
818
819
820
821
822
823
824
825
Some students: with the principal

Ana: they talked to the principal
Laura: they were like our intermediaries. There were some requests like . . . obviously
impossible [to be realised] [ . . . ] but anyway; they tried to solve things, to look after us.
These two examples show how the SS hardly represent a reliable and efficacious body for
student voice. In the case of the rural school, students acknowledge that its efficacy is
highly dependent on who the representatives are, and how seriously they play that role.
It reveals a lack of the objective mechanisms that formal agencies should have in order
to guarantee a certain level of efficacy in a more durable way. Instead, adolescents
participation through their representatives relies on the possibility of having a talk with the
principal. On the one hand, this repertoire is not formally regulated and depends strongly
on individual wills (the principals and the representatives), and on the other hand, it
confines student participation into a highly asymmetrical power relation. Formal agencies
should provide opportunities for reducing this asymmetry, like a regulated process for
listening and attending adolescents opinion, the inclusion of their representatives in the
main school councils (the STC and SCSP), recognised influence in certain domains of the
school life according to students concerns, the opportunity of recurring to a mediator or
appealing to certain pre-established prerogatives in case of conflict. But the SS lacks these
attributes.
The SS, then, is highly vulnerable. Due to this fact, it is prone to be treated as a game,
as a parody of the national political realm, as a formative exercise or as a regulatory
requirement that has to be accomplished:
826
Facilitator/interviewer: Have you ever taken part in an election?
827
828
829
Miriam: Yes, to elect some students [ . . . ] We had to elect the representatives in the Student
Society [ . . . ] they gather together and count the votes . . . and supposedly theres democracy
[...]
830
Facilitator/interviewer: And why did you say supposedly?
831
832
833
Miriam: [raising her shoulders] because its like a game.

_________________
18
840
Teacher Ivan: [ . . . ] no matter how much you explain to them that it [the elections for the
student representatives] has to be an electoral process, and what generates the votes are the
proposals, they [the student candidates] do the same [as in politics]: they give a candy [to
the students], promises that are unrealistic [ . . . ], illogical things. Then, the exercise can
be good [ . . . ] if they understand [ . . . ] the power they have to pick up someone who
represents them [ . . . ] it is a good exercise. But we always fall in the absurd. At the end, this
[thing] they do here is what happens outside, isnt it? [ . . . ] a [political] party convince us
but it give us proposals that sometimes are unrealistic.
841
________________
842
843
Principal in the urban school: I say that it is . . . a simulacrum.
844
Interviewer: . . . a mock . . .
845
846
Principal: A simulacrum of teaching them to make democracy. Teach them to choose who
is your representative. [ . . . ] However, we give us the task of doing so in order to meet . . . to
comply with the requirement. If this Student society would truly work, if we really wish that
students would have participation, they should be present in all the decisions at the school,
isnt it? [ . . . ] But havent been able to do so.
834
835
836
837
838
839
847
848
849
850
851
852
853
854
855
856
857
858
859
860
861
862
863
864
865
866
867
868
869
870
871
872
873
874
[AQ9]
[AQ8]
[AQ11]
[AQ10]
L. Perez-Exposito
875
876
877
878
879
880
881
882
As the principal acknowledges, the SS is a requirement. According to the current

regulations, every general secondary school must have one. Article 50 in the Agreement
98 (see Note 9) states that the SS will have the following goals:
. To exercise among its members the practice of democratic life, as a way to
contribute to their formation.
. To promote the realisation of activities that contribute to construct in the educands a
responsible personality, with a clear sense of their obligations and rights.
. To strength the relations of solidarity among the students.
. To promote whatever it estimate necessary and useful for the physical, moral, social
and cultural improvement of its members.
. To promote to the school authorities the initiatives that advance the progress and
improvement of the school
. Instead of being entitled with prerogatives, attributions or functions, the SS has
goals. While other agencies for participation in school are mainly envisaged as organs
for decision-making and consultation, the SS is primarily conceived as a pedagogical
space. The first three goals reflect this emphasis. Additionally, its capacity for influencing
school decisions is restricted to the level of suggestions or initiatives. This body does not
have a clear prerogative for having a voice in decisions affecting the school. It is visualised
more as a place for learning, than an agency for effective participation in school. This view
confines the role of students: they go to school to learn something, not to participate in the
decisions that affect their school.
Paradoxically, according to participants testimonies, it seems that the SS is not a place
for a meaningful learning. As the research on situated learning has shown, in such processes,
the learners motivation is oriented to having an authentic participation in the doing
(Chaiklin & Lave, 1996; Daniel Schugurensky, 2006; Lave & Wenger, 1991; Rogoff, 1990).
It means that once the SS becomes an attractive and authentic channel for students
participation, then the expected learning will be more likely to emerge. In this logic, students
should first be seen as adolescents entitled to the right of participation, then as learners.
In regard to its composition, the SS only comprises a single collective actor: the
students. In contrast with the Parents Association, which also has a single-actor
composition, the members of the SS are not included in the agencies constituted with
mixed individual and collective participants, like the STC or the SCSP. Therefore,
883
884
885
886
887
888
889
890
891
892
893
894
895
896
897
898
899
900
901
902
903
904
905
906
907
908
909
910
911
912
913
914
915
916
917
918
919
920
19
decisions made in the SS that affect other school actors will have to be treated through
informal channels, which highly depend on the authorities criteria. Thus, the lack of legal
prerogatives aimed at reducing the power asymmetry between students and schools
authorities within the process of binding decision-making, its conception as a pedagogical
space and its single-actor composition make the SS the weakest formal agency for
participation in school.
In contrast to the SS, the chiefs of class constitute a rather informal representational
agency. Their role is not considered in the regulations. There are usually two chiefs of
class per group who work jointly without a pre-established hierarchy or division of labour
between them. According to participants testimonies, the chiefs of class should serve as a
channel between students and the principal, through which the former can have a voice in
decision-making, or effectively communicate some of their demands. However,
sometimes the chiefs of class appear as the representatives of the principal before the
students. This shift originates in their election. The chiefs are chosen by collective
decision, but highly oriented by teachers and principals interests:
Principal: They [the students] choose them. In the classroom we make a meeting with the
tutor, the [teacher that] accompanies them throughout the year in all their subjects. [ . . . ] You,
as an adult lead, and the teacher leads the group towards choosing a particular person
that meets some characteristics [ . . . ]. [ . . . ] they decide who is the Chief and Deputy Chief
and they are our monitors for all the activities. They decide it through that open way within
the group.
As I have previously shown, some experiences of participation in the domain of binding

decision-making take place because students exercise their individual or collective agency
without any organised body. However, as noticed in the sub-domains of school governance
and curricular and pedagogical decisions, usually these cases occur as a response to
teachers or principals initiative. In other words, participation without an organised body
tends to be dominated by repertoires led by schools authorities. Nevertheless, the analysis
of the SS and the chiefs of class, reveals two main repertoires of student participation in the
domain of binding decision-making: the elections and the personal dialogue with the
principal. The first is an organised form of participation apparently led by adolescents, but
many times, significantly oriented by teachers and principals. In the elections, decisions are
reached through voting after a brief period of debate on candidates proposals. The second
(personal communication) can be led by the principal or by students. It is performed
through dialogue and debate, and decisions can be reached by deliberation or unilaterally.
It is a rather spontaneous form of participation. Although socially structured, the procedure
to be followed varies significantly depending on who the principal is, who the student
representatives are and the issue to be treated. Based on these specific characteristics, its
character may also change from a friendly conversation to a contentious encounter.
921
922
923
924
925
926
927
928
929
930
931
Quality in student participation within the domain of binding decision-making:

authenticity, autonomy and efficacy
The previous analysis of the scope of student participation in the domain of binding
decision-making shows different elements that reveal a minimum quality in the practices
represented by the participants. These tend to be characterised by simulated forms of
participation like manipulation or tokenism, or by teachers and head teachers
intervention in order to lead students involvement according to their own interests. I have
shown, for example, that in regard to the definition of classroom rules, students are
encouraged to participate while the teacher has already established most of the regulations.
20
932
933
934
935
936
937
938
939
940
941
942
943
944
945
946
947
948
L. Perez-Exposito
Similarly, in the case of the election of the chief of class in the urban school, adolescents
get involved while the principal and teachers conduct the process according to their own
judgement.
In order to explore more carefully the first two components of the dimension of quality,
I present the results of one request in the survey questionnaire, especially designed for
capturing the four levels of authenticity and autonomy in student participation according to
the theoretical classification presented in the first section of the article: (1) no involvement
or simulated forms of participation (i.e. manipulation or tokenism); (2) students are
consulted and informed, (3) adolescents take part in the process with voice and initiative
and (4) participation is led and controlled by the students. The request comprised a battery
with eight statements representing the different degrees of authenticity and autonomy (see
Table 2), and students were asked, how often do the following forms of participation take
place in your school? They had to answer in a four-point Likert scale comprising the
categories Very frequently Frequently Rarely Never.15
In order to compare students responses through the four different degrees of
authenticity & autonomy, I developed a summative average index per degree by following
the same procedure explained in the previous section related to participants responses to
949
950
951
952
953
954
955
956
957
958
959
960
Table 2. Statements in the survey questionnaire representing different levels of authenticity and
autonomy in student participation in school.
Degree of
authenticity and
autonomy
1. No involvement
or simulated
forms of
participation
(i.e. manipulation
or tokenism)
961
962
963
964
965
2. Students are
informed and
consulted
Statements in the survey questionnaire

(a) In my school, only teachers and the principal
participate, believing that they represent our
interests.
(b) I participate in my school by doing what teachers
and the principal decide, but it is not important
to me
(c) When I participate in my school, teachers or the
principal tell me what to do and how to do it.
I do not understand what is the purpose of it
(d) I participate in my school when teachers or the
principal decide what do I have to do, but I
understand why, and I agree with them
966
967
968
969
970
971
972
973
974
975
976
977
978
979
980
3. Adolescents take
part in the
process with
voice and
initiative
4. Participation is
led and
controlled by the
students
Mean of students
responses (0 3)
Mean of responses
to summative
average index 1:
x 1:29
sx :696
Mean of responses
to summative
average index 2:
x :827
sx :478
(e) When teachers do something that has

consequences for students, they ask our opinion,
consider it and inform us about what they did
(f) I participate in my school by joining teachers or x :800
the principal in what they propose, and together
we decide how to do it
sx :786
(g) I participate in my school by doing what
students propose and, along with teachers or
the principal, we decide how to do it
(h) I participate in my school by doing what
students propose, and we carrying it out in our
own way. Others (teachers, principal or parents)
help us
Mean of responses
to summative
average index 3:
x :689
sx :500
981
982
983
984
985
986
987
988
989
990
991
992
993
994
995
996
997
998
999
1000
1001
1002
1003
1004
1005
1006
1007
1008
1009
21
request 1 in Section E of the questionnaire. Each index ranges from 0 to 3, and the
individual respondents scores can be interpreted using the original response categories
(Langbein, 2012): 0 Never, 1 Rarely, 2 Frequently and 3 Very frequently.
Because there is only one statement in the battery representing degree 3 of authenticity &
autonomy, in this case students scores were obtained by assigning a numeric value to the
original ordinal category selected by them (0, 1, 2 or 3).16
The third column in Table 2 shows the mean and standard deviation for each degree of
authenticity and autonomy according to students responses to the summative average
indexes, as well as the statement representing degree 3. One-way repeated-measures
ANOVA was employed to test the differences between the four means. The results showed
that students opinion significantly changed through the four degrees of authenticity and
autonomy, F(2.05, 1660.7) 187.3, p , .000. Table 3 presents the Pairwise Comparisons
between the means, showing that the differences are significant, with the exception of the
short distance between degrees 2 and 3.
As given in Table 2, the mean from degree 1 is just above 1, whereas the means for
degrees 2, 3 and 4 are below 1. Thus, the results reveal, first, that all the forms of
participation in the statements occur rarely or never in the schools studied. Second, the
highest mean corresponds to degree 1 of authenticity and autonomy. It signifies that
students perceive that no participation or simulated forms of participation are the most
frequent practices in the school, compared to those with a higher degree of authenticity
and autonomy. Third, the value of the means decreases as the degree of authenticity and
autonomy in participation increases. These results, then, show how students perceived that
participation rarely or never takes places in their schools and, when it happens, simulated
forms of student participation (like manipulation or tokenism) prevail over more authentic
and autonomous ones.
According to the previous results, it would be unlikely to expect experiences of
efficacious student participation. As mentioned in the first section, efficacy as the third
component within the dimension of quality is related to (a) the degrees of authenticity and
1010
1011
1012
Table 3. Pairwise comparisons from one-way repeated measures ANOVA between the means of
students scores in the four degrees of authenticity and autonomy in participation in school.a
1013
1014
1015
1016
1017
(I) Degree
of authenticity
and autonomy
Degree 1
1018
1019
Degree 2
1020
1021
1022
Degree 3
1023
1024
1025
1026
1027
1028
1029
Degree 4
95% Confidence interval for

differencea
(J) Degree
of authenticity
and autonomy
Mean difference
(I 2 J)
SE
Lower bound
Upper bound
D2
D3
D4
D1
D3
D4
D1
D2
D4
D1
D2
D3
.466*
.499*
.608*
2.466*
.033
.141*
2.499*
2.033
.108*
2.608*
2.141*
2.108*
.029
.038
.031
.029
.025
.017
.038
.025
.022
.031
.017
.022
0.39
0.4
0.525
20.543
20.032
0.096
20.599
20.098
0.049
20.691
20.187
20.168
0.543
0.599
0.691
2 0.39
0.098
0.187
2 0.4
0.032
0.168
2 0.525
2 0.096
2 0.049
Note: Based on estimated marginal means.

*The mean difference is significant at the .05 level.
a
Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Bonferroni.
22
1030
1031
1032
1033
1034
1035
1036
1037
1038
1039
1040
1041
1042
1043
1044
1045
1046
1047
1048
1049
1050
1051
1052
1053
1054
1055
L. Perez-Exposito
autonomy (internal efficacy), (b) the proportion opened to student involvement within
each domain of participation and (c) the extent to which, in comparison to other school
actors, students have symmetrical access to valuable resources and agencies for
participation (external efficacy). In regard to (a), I have shown how poor student
participation is in terms of authenticity and autonomy. Regarding (b), I have argued that
adolescents involvement in all the sub-domains of binding decision-making in schools is
limited, and therefore the proportion opened to student participation within the domain is
small. And, in relation to (c), the analysis of the agencies for students participation shows,
on the one hand, that compared to other school actors, adolescents are excluded from the
main bodies for collective decision-making in the school (the STC and the SCSP). On the
other hand, their main formal agency (the SS) does not provide the resources that are
available in the agencies opened to other school actors for influencing binding decisions,
like clear prerogatives for being consulted and informed.
Other actors, like teacher Ivan and teacher Rose, perceive the lack of efficacy in
student participation:
Teacher Ivan: I think that [students] dont take it [the elections for the Student Society]
seriously because the power they have is very little.
__________________
Teacher Rose: They [students] realise that sometimes what boys ask for is impossible. For
example, [...] they make their proposals about having toilet paper and soap in the bathrooms,
but they already know that it is impossible, because they already know that the Secretariat
does not send enough to school.
How and why having toilet paper and soap in schools has become something impossible to
achieve? Certainly, it reveals some problems in the use of resources in the Mexican
education system, but it also shows the lack of internal efficacy in student participation.
1056
1057
1058
1059
1060
1061
1062
1063
1064
1065
1066
1067
1068
1069
1070
1071
1072
1073
1074
1075
1076
1077
1078
Discussion and final considerations

I have presented an empirical analysis of students participation in the domain of binding
decision-making in the general secondary schools from two contrasting areas of Mexico
City. It was based on the analytical framework developed in the first section of the article, in
order to show its capacity for mapping, understanding and evaluating student participation
in school. On the one hand, it allowed identifying the extent to which students take part in
the sub-domains of binding decision-making in the school, the main agencies through
which such participation is channelled, and the repertoires that students display in these
practices, as well as to understand their characteristics. It also allowed classifying students
experiences of participation according to their quality, in terms of their degree of
authenticity and autonomy, and the characteristics that constrain or maximise their
efficacy. On the other hand, the framework used in the analysis enables the evaluation of
students participation, in so far it allows to establish how extensive or narrow the scope of
participatory practices within the domain of binding decision-making, and how
autonomous, authentic and efficacious it is. In this case, the analysis has shown that the
scope of student participation is rather narrow, because the main subdomains of school
governance, curricular and pedagogical decisions and the definition of community
problems are significantly closed to adolescents involvement. To a great extent, such
limited involvement responds to the lack of agencies for student participation in school and
the weakness and poor efficacy of the ones that are formally established in the Mexican
secondary school, such as the Student Society. Furthermore, adolescent participation in
1079
1080
1081
1082
1083
1084
1085
1086
1087
1088
1089
1090
1091
1092
1093
1094
1095
1096
23
school is poor in terms of its quality, in so far that simulated forms of participation, such as
manipulation or tokenism, prevail over more authentic and autonomous practices, and the
efficacy of students voice and actions is considerably limited.
Limitations of the study
There are two main limitations in the study. First, the empirical analysis focuses only on
one of the five domains of participation proposed in the analytical model. It is necessary to
expand the empirical examination to the other four domains, in order to test how the
analytical framework proposed, expands our understanding of, and helps to evaluate,
students participation in the areas of conflict resolution, knowledge construction,
resolution of community problems and identity construction. Second, it is important to
acknowledge that the analytical framework suggested in this article is exclusively
concerned with the intrinsic aspects of student participation. More research is needed to
integrate a dimension of inquiry related to the systemic, structural or other determinants of
such participation. This can significantly improve the model for its application in practice
and education policy, because in order to enhance student participation in school, it is
necessary to know the state of it (scope and quality), but also its associated factors.
1097
1098
1099
1100
1101
1102
1103
1104
1105
1106
1107
1108
1109
1110
1111
Implications for policy and practice

As I argued in the introduction, student participation in school is relevant mainly because
in most countries it is a right of adolescents, and therefore, it has to be guaranteed. But
also, adolescents participation in this setting seems necessary for the education of active
citizens, and has been positively associated with the development of knowledge, attitudes
and skills, also relevant in other domains (like the labour market), and with the reduction
of violence in school and dropping out rates. Enhancing adolescent participation in school,
then, should be part of the strategy oriented to tackle these problems. Before the rather
fragmented state of the art in the study of student participation in school, this article
provides an integral analytical framework, effective for empirical analysis that informs
policy-makers and practitioners about the state of adolescent participation in their schools,
and identify the specific areas that need practical intervention, both in terms of scope
(domains, agencies and repertoires) and quality (authenticity, autonomy and efficacy).
1112
1113
Disclosure statement
1114
1115
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.
1116
1117
1118
Notes
1.
1119
1120
1121
1122
1123
1124
1125
1126
1127
2.
The normative age in secondary school in Mexico is 12 15 years old. It is part of the basic
education phase and it is located between primary education (6 12 years old) and medium
education (15 18 years old). The Mexican secondary school system offers different types of
services: general (academic), technical (vocational), tele secundaria (schools were courses are
directed through television and other technologies, principally in distant rural communities),
communitarian (created for attending marginalised rural and urban communities, as well as
camps of migrant rural workers) and secondary school for workers over 15 years old (INEE,
2012). The general secondary school is the most common service; half of all secondary
students in the Mexican system (public and private) attend these schools (INEE, 2012).
Hart uses this term to describe those instances in which children are apparently given a voice,
but in fact have little or no choice about the subject or the style of communicating it, and little
or no opportunity to formulate their own opinions (Hart, 1992, p. 9).
24
1128
3.
1129
1130
1131
1132
1133
4.
5.
6.
1134
1135
1136
1137
1138
1139
1140
7.
8.
1141
1142
1143
9.
10.
1144
1145
1146
1147
1148
1149
1150
11.
12.
13.
1151
1152
1153
1154
1155
1156
1157
1158
1159
1160
1161
1162
1163
1164
1165
1166
14.
15.
16.
L. Perez-Exposito
According to the human development index used by the annual human development report,
carried out by the United Nations (Klugman, 2011). In order to protect the anonymity of the
participants in this research, I do not to provide the specific levels of HD of both areas.
According to the ministry of environment of Mexico City (see www.sma.df.gob.mx)
In the urban school, the group comprised eight pupils: four boys and four girls. In the rural one
there were four girls and three boys. In both cases, their age ranged between 14 and 16 years old.
Following these strategies, the questionnaire was administrated to a sample of 850 students in
six different schools, four in the urban area and two in the rural. The sample size was calculated
considering a z value of 1.96 for 95% of confidence level, a value of 0.5 as percentage of the
population, and a confidence interval of ^2.84. The response rate was 94%. The qualitative
fieldwork took place during the academic year 2010 1011. The quantitative stage was
undertaken in the academic year 2011 2012.
Cronbachs a coefficients are presented for the batteries used in the empirical analysis.
Participants were asked to respond to every option in a four-point Likert scale: Very Much
Somewhat Not Really Not at All. The index was constructed by assigning a value to each of
these categories from 0 (Not at All) to 3 (Very Much), adding participants score to each of the
seven items in the battery, and rescaling the range into a 0 1 interval.
Cronbachs a .87 (This value derives from students responses to the 7 items in the battery).
The construction of the index, by treating a categorical ordinal variable (each single indicator/
item in the battery) as a numerical one, assumes that the former has an underlying continuous
scale. As such, the categories can be regarded as only crude measurements of an unobserved
variable that, in truth, has a continuous scale (Joreskog & Sorbom, 1993), with each pair of
thresholds (or initial scale points) representing a portion of the continuous scale (Byrne, 2010,
p. 149).
n(valid) 792, missing 36.
In order to guarantee the anonymity of my informants, no real names are used in this article.
The Agreement 98 is the legal document that regulates the organization and functioning of
general secondary schools in Mexico. According to Article 31 in this Agreement, the main
function of the STC will be to support the principal in the planning, development and
evaluation of the educational activities and in the resolution of the schools transcendental
problems. The same Article, Fraction I, says that the STC will have a president, who
invariably will be the principal. In Fraction III, it states that the president of the Student
Society will be one of the members of the Council. However, in the General Guidelines for the
Organisation and Functioning of Initial, Basic, Special and Adult Education Services in the
Federal District (Mexico City) (GG), which is the regulatory document that has to be
physically in every school and revised every year, some representatives are removed, among
them, the president of the Student Society and the President of the Parents Association. This
legal divergence leaves student inclusion in the Council to the principals discretion. While the
STC is regularly more concerned with pedagogical and curricular decisions, the Council of
Social Participation tends to be focused on school governance. Nonetheless, according to the
GG are also excluded as members form this council.
They usually refer to the student society as planillas or planilla, because these planillas
play the role of parties in the elections. However, even when the elections are finished they still
refer to the student representatives in the society as the planilla.
Cronbachs a .63 (This value derives from students responses to the 8 items in the battery).
See Note 10 for an explanation of the assumption made in the treatment of an ordinal variable
as a numerical one.
1167
1168
[AQ30]
1169
Notes on contributor
1170
[AQ12]
1171
1172
1173
1174
1175
1176
References
Annette, J. (2004). Community, politics, and citizenship education. In A. Lockyer, B. Crick, &
J. Annette (Eds.), Education for democratic citizenship: Issues of theory and practice. London:
Ashgate.
Annette, J. (2006). Education for democratic citizenship and community involvement. London:
Citized.
1177
1178
1179
1180
1181
1182
1183
1184
1185
1186
1187
1188
1189
1190
1191
[AQ13]
1192
1193
1194
1195
1196
1197
1198
1199
1200
1201
1202
1203
1204
1205
1206
1207
1208
1209
1210
[AQ14]
[AQ15]
1211
1212
1213
1214
1215
1216
1217
1218
1219
1220
1221
1222
1223
1224
1225
25
Annette, J. (2009). Active learning for active citizenship: Democratic citizenship and lifelong
learning. Education, Citizenship and Social Justice, 4, 149 160. doi:10.1177/
1746197909103934
Apple, M. W., & Beane, J. A. (2007a). Democratic schools: Lessons in powerful education (2nd ed.).
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Apple, M. W., & Beane, J. A. (2007b). Schooling for democracy. Principal Leadership, 8, 34 38.
Ausubel, D. P., Novak, J. D., & Hanesian, H. (1968). Educational psychology: A cognitive view.
New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Balarin, M., Brammer, S., James, C., & McCormack, M. (2008). Governing our schools. A research
study commissioned by business in the community. Bath: Business in the Community.
Beatty, P. (2004). The dynamics of cognitive interviewing. In S. Presser, J. M. Rothgeb,
M. P. Couper, J. T. Lessler, E. Martin, J. Martin, & E. Singer (Eds.), Methods for testing and
evaluating survey questionnaires (pp. xvi, 606p). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Bickmore, K. (2004). Discipline for democracy? School districts management of conflict and social
exclusion. Theory & Research in Social Education, 32, 75 97. doi:10.1080/00933104.2004.
10473244
Bickmore, K. (2008). Peace and conflict education. In J. Arthur, I. Davies, & C. Hahn (Eds.), Sage
handbook of education for citizenship and democracy. London: Sage.
Byrne, B. M. (2010). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and
programming (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
Campbell, A., Gurin, G., & Miller, W. E. (1954). The voter decides. Evanston, IL: Row.
Campbell, P., Edgar, S., & Halsted, A. (1994). Students as evaluators. Phi Delta Kappan, 76,
160 165.
Chovanec, D. M., & Benitez, A. (2008). The Penguin revolution in Chile: Exploring
intergenerational learning in social movements. Journal of Contemporary Issues in Education,
3, 39 57.
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches
(3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Crocetti, E., Jahromi, P., & Meeus, W. (2012). Identity and civic engagement in adolescence.
Journal of Adolescence, 35, 521 532. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2011.08.003
Cross, B., Hulme, M., & McKinney, S. (2014). The last place to look: The place of pupil councils
within citizen participation in Scottish schools. Oxford Review of Education, 40, 628648.
doi:10.1080/03054985.2014.963039
Education Commission of the States. (2000). Every student a citizen: Creating the democratic self.
Executive summary. Washington, DC: Author.
Fielding, M. (2001). Students as radical agents of change. Journal of Educational Change, 2,
123 141. doi:doi:10.1023/A:1017949213447
Fierro, C. (2011). Convivencia democratica e inclusiva. Una perspectiva para gestionar la
seguridad escolar. Congreso Nacional de Gestion de la Seguridad Escolar. Identificacion y
transferencia de Buenas Practicas, Mexico DF.
Fierro, C., Carbajal, P., & Martnez-Parente, R. (2010). Ojos que s ven. Casos para reflexionar sobre
la convivencia en la escuela. Mexico DF: Somos maestros.
Finn, J. D., & Cox, D. (1992). Participation and withdrawal among fourth-grade pupils. American
Educational Research Journal, 29, 141 162. doi:10.3102/00028312029001141
Finn, J. D., & Rock, D. A. (1997). Academic success among students at risk for school failure.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 221 234. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.82.2.221
Forsyth, B., Rothgeb, J. M., & Willis, G. B. (2004). Does pretesting make a difference? An
experimental test. In S. Presser, J. M. Rothgeb, M. P. Couper, J. T. Lessler, E. Martin, J. Martin,
& E. Singer (Eds.), Methods for testing and evaluating survey questionnaires (pp. xvi, 606 p).
Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Goldman, S., Booker, A., & McDermott, M. (2008). Mixing the digital, social, and cultural:
Learning, identity, and agency in youth participation. In D. Buckingham (Ed.), Youth, identity,
and digital media (pp. 185206). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Goodenow, C. (1993). Classroom belonging among early adolescent students: Relationships to
motivation and achievement. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 13, 21 43. doi:10.1177/
0272431693013001002
26
1226
1227
1228
1229
1230
1231
[AQ16]
1232
1233
1234
1235
1236
[AQ17]
1237
1238
1239
1240
1241
1242
1243
1244
[AQ18]
1245
1246
1247
1248
1249
1250
1251
1252
1253
1254
1255
1256
1257
[AQ19]
1258
1259
1260
1261
1262
1263
1264
1265
1266
1267
1268
1269
1270
1271
1272
1273
1274
L. Perez-Exposito
Great Britain. (1998). Education for citizenship and the teaching of democracy in schools (Final
report of the Advisory Group on Citizenship, Qualifications and Curriculum Authority).
London: Qualifications and Curriculum Authority.
Greene, J. C., Caracelli, V. J., & Graham, W. F. (1989). Toward a conceptual framework for mixedmethod evaluation designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11, 255 274. 10.3102/
01623737011003255
Greenhouse, S. W., & Geisser, S. (1959). On methods in the analysis of profile data. Psychometrika,
24, 95 112. doi:10.1007/BF02289823
Hart, R. A. (1992). Childrens participation: From tokenism to citizenship (Rep. No. 4). Florence:
UNICEF ICDC.
Hess, D., & Avery, P. (2008). Discussion of controversial issues as a form and goal of democratic
education. In J. Arthur, I. Davies, & C. Hahn (Eds.), The Sage handbook of education for
citizenship and democracy. London: Sage.
Hess, D. E. (2009). Controversy in the classroom: The democratic power of discussion (Vol. 4),
Routledge.
Huddleston, T. (2007). From student voice to shared responsibility. London: Citizenship
Foundation.
Illeris, K. (2003). Towards a contemporary and comprehensive theory of learning. International
Journal of Lifelong Education, 22, 396406. doi:10.1080/02601370304837
Illeris, K. (2008). A comprehensive understanding of human learning. In K. Illeris (Ed.),
Contemporary theories of learning: Learning theorists . . . in their own words. New York, NY:
Routledge.
INEE. (2012). Panorama Educativo de Mexico 2011. Indicadores del Sistema Educativo Nacional.
Educacion Basica y Media Superior. Mexico: Author.
Jager, S., & Maier, F. (2009). Theoretical and methodological aspects of Foucauldian critical
discourse analysis and dispositive analysis. In R. Wodak & M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods of critical
discourse analysis (2nd ed.). London: Sage.
Jensen, B. B., & Simovska, V. (2005). Involving students in learning and health promotion processes
Clarifying why? what? and how? Promotion & Education, 12, 150 156. doi:10.1177/
10253823050120030114
Joreskog, K. G., & Sorbom, D. (1993). LISREL 8: Structural equation modeling with the SIMPLIS
command language. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International.
Kiros, T. (1985). Toward the construction of a history of political action: Antonio Gramsci. New
York, NY: University Press of America.
Klugman, J. (2011). Human development report 2011. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Langbein, L. I. (2012). Public program evaluation: A statistical guide. New York, NY: ME Sharpe.
Lansdown, G. (1998). La creacion de escuelas centradas en el nino. In UNICEF (Ed.), La
participacion de ninos y adolescentes en el contexto de la Convencion sobre los derechos del
nino: visiones y perspectivas. Florence: UNICEF.
Lansdown, G. (2001). Promoting childrens particiation in democratic decision-making. Florence:
UNICEF.
Lansdown, G. (2005a). Can you hear me? The right of young children to participate in decisions
affecting them. Working paper 36. The Hague: Bernard van Leer Foundation.
Lansdown, G. (2005b). The evolving capacities of the child. Florence: UNICEF.
Lesko, N. (2013). Act your age!: A cultural construction of adolescence. New York, NY: Routledge.
Lundy, L. (2007). Voice is not enough: Conceptualising article 12 of the united nations convention
on the rights of the child. British Educational Research Journal, 33, 927 942. doi:10.1080/
01411920701657033
Mager, U., & Nowak, P. (2012). Effects of student participation in decision making at school.
A systematic review and synthesis of empirical research. Educational Research Review, 7,
38 61. doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2011.11.001
Mejias, S. (2012). NGOs and Human Rights Education in the neoliberal age: A case study of an
NGO-secondary school partnership in London. (PhD in Education), Institute of Education,
University of London, London.
Ministerio de Educacion Nacional. (2004). Estandares basicos de competencias ciudadanas:
Formar para la ciudadana S es posible! Lo que necesitamos saber y saber hacer. Bogota
D.C. MEN.
1275
1276
1277
1278
1279
1280
1281
1282
1283
1284
1285
1286
1287
1288
1289
1290
1291
1292
1293
1294
1295
1296
1297
[AQ20]
1298
1299
1300
1301
1302
1303
1304
[AQ21]
1305
1306
1307
1308
1309
1310
1311
1312
1313
1314
1315
[AQ22]
1316
[AQ23]
1317
1318
1319
1320
[AQ24]
1321
1322
1323
27
Mitra, D. (2003). Student voice in school reform: Reframing student-teacher relationships. McGill
Journal of Education, 38, 289 304.
Mitra, D. (2008). Student voice in school reform: Building youth-adult partnerships that strengthen
schools and empower youth. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Mitra, D. (2009). Collaborating with students: building youth-adult partnerships in schools.
American Journal of Education, 115, 407 436. doi:10.1086/597488
Mitra, D. L. (2004). The significance of students: Can increasing student voice in schools lead to
gains in youth development?. Teachers College Record, 106, 651 688. doi:10.1111/j.14679620.2004.00354.x
Mitra, D. L., & Serriere, S. C. (2012). Student voice in elementary school reform: Examining youth
development in fifth graders. American Educational Research Journal, 49, 743774. doi:10.
3102/0002831212443079
Niemi, R. G., Craig, S. C., & Mattei, F. (1991). Measuring internal political efficacy in the 1988
National Election Study. The American Political Science Review, 85, 1407 1413. doi:10.2307/
1963953
Norris, P. (2002). Democratic Phoenix: Reinventing political activism. New York, NY: Cambridge
University Press.
Nunez, P. (2011). Comportamientos polticos juveniles desde la transicion democratica hasta la
toma de escuelas. Ciclo de conferencias. Juventudes en America Latina: Abordajes
multidisciplinares sobre identidades, culturas y polticas, del siglo XX al siglo XXI, Buenos
Aires.
OBrien, E. L. (2006). The many ways of student voice. An examination of student participation in
decision-making in United States Schools. (Master of Advanced Studies in Childrens Rights).
University of Fribourg, Fribourg.
Osler, A. (2010). Students perspectives on schooling. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill International.
Osler, A., & Starkey, H. (2005). Changing citizenship: Democracy and inclusion in education.
Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Perez Exposito, L. (2014a). La participacion adolescente en la escuela secundaria: explorando lo
deseable, lo potencial y lo permisible. Argumentos, 23, 47 73.
Perez Exposito, L. (2014b). Rethinking political participation: A pedagogical approach for
citizenship education. Theory and Research in Education, 12, 229 251. doi:10.1177/
1477878514530713
Perez Exposito, L., Ortiz Tirado, A., Gonzalez, M. A., & Gordillo, A. (2012). Aprendizaje y
participacion poltica. Practicas de formacion ciudadana en los colectivos estudiantiles
contemporaneos. In A. Acevedo Rodrigo & P. Lopez Caballero (Eds.), Ciudadanos Inesperados.
Espacios de formacion de la ciudadana ayer y hoy. Mexico DF: El Colegio de Mexico/DIECINVESTAV.
Perrenoud, P. (2008). La evaluacion de los alumnos. Buenos Aires: Ediciones Colihue SRL.
Potgieter, J., Visser, P., Van der Bank, A., Mothata, M., & Squelch, J. (1997). Understanding the
South African Schools Act: What public school governors need to know. Cape Town:
Department of Education.
Presser, S., Rothgeb, J. M., Couper, M. P., Lessler, J. T., Martin, E., Martin, J., & Singer, E. (2004).
Methods for testing and evaluating survey questions. In S. Presser, J. M. Rothgeb, M. P. Couper,
J. T. Lessler, E. Martin, J. Martin, & E. Singer (Eds.), Methods for testing and evaluating survey
questionnaires (pp. xvi, 606 p). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Raby, R. (2012). School rules: Obedience, discipline and elusive democracy. Toronto: University of
Toronto Press.
Rickinson, M., & Sanders, D. (2005). Secondary school students participation in school grounds
improvement: Emerging findings from a study in England. Canadian Journal of Environmental
Education, 256 272.
Rumberger, R. W. (2001). Why students drop out of school and what can be done. UCLA.
Ryan, R. M., & Powelson, C. L. (1991). Autonomy and relatedness as fundamental to motivation and
education. The Journal of Experimental Education, 60, 49 66. doi:10.1080/00220973.1991.
10806579
Sandoval, E. (2000). La trama de la escuela secundaria: institucion, relaciones y saberes. Mexico:
Universidad Pedagogica Nacional y Plaza y Valdes.
Saris, W. E., & Gallhofer, I. N. (2007). Design, evaluation, and analysis of questionnaires for survey
research. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Interscience.
28
1324
[AQ25]
1325
1326
1327
1328
1329
1330
1331
1332
[AQ26]
1333
1334
1335
1336
1337
[AQ27]
1338
1339
1340
1341
1342
1343
1344
[AQ28]
1345
1346
1347
1348
1349
1350
1351
1352
1353
1354
1355
1356
1357
1358
1359
1360
1361
1362
1363
1364
1365
1366
1367
1368
1369
1370
1371
1372
L. Perez-Exposito
Secretariat of Public Education. (2007). Formacion Cvica y Etica. Programa de estudios. Mexico:
Author.
Secretariat of Public Education. (2011). Plan de estudios 2011. Educacion Basica. Mexico DF:
Author.
Shier, H. (2001). Pathways to participation: Openings, opportunities and obligations. Children &
Society, 15, 107 117. doi:10.1002/chi.617
Simovska, V., & Jensen, B. B. (2009). Conceptualizing participation The health of children and
young people. Copenhagen: World Health Organization.
Sousa, D. A., & Tomlinson, C. A. (2011). Differentiation and the brain. Bloomington: Solution Tree
Press.
Stevens, J. (2002). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences (4th ed.). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Tarrow, S. (2011). Power in movement: Social movements and contentious politics. New York, NY:
Cambridge University Press.
Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2009). Foundations of mixed methods research: Integrating
quantitative and qualitative approaches in the social and behavioral sciences. London: Sage.
Tomlinson, C. A. (1999). The differentiated classroom: Responding to the needs of all learners.
Ascd.
Tomlinson, C. A. (2000). Reconcilable differences: Standards-based teaching and differentiation.
Educational Leadership, 58, 6 13.
Tomlinson, C. A., Brighton, C., Hertberg, H., Callahan, C. M., Moon, T. R., Brimijoin, K., . . .
Reynolds, T. (2003). Differentiating instruction in response to student readiness, interest, and
learning profile in academically diverse classrooms: A review of literature. Journal for the
Education of the Gifted, 27, 119145.
TvPTS (Producer). (2010). Toma generalizada de colegios en capital no pasaran [Video].
Retrieved February 5, 2013, from http://www.youtube.com/watch?vkjeM9NSoIH4
Van Leeuwen, T. (2008). Discourse and practice: New tools for critical discourse analysis. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Vickers, M. (2004). An overview of youth court school-based design options. In T. Mullins (Ed.),
Selected topics on youth courts. A monograph. Washington, DC: U.S. Office of Juvenile Justice
Delinquency Prevention.
Whitty, G., & Wisby, E. (2007). Real decision making? School councils in action. London: Institute
of Education, University of London.
Willis, G. B. (2004). Cognitive interviewing revisited: A useful technique, in theory? In S. Presser,
J. M. Rothgeb, M. P. Couper, J. T. Lessler, E. Martin, J. Martin, & E. Singer (Eds.), Methods for
testing and evaluating survey questionnaires (pp. xvi, 606 p). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Scope and Quality of Student Participation

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Scope and Quality of Student Participation

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

5/3/2015

Scope and quality of student participation in school: towards an

Unidad Xochimilco, Universidad Autonoma Metropolitana, Mexico DF, Mexico

There is growing support for the relevance of adolescents participation in school, as a

There is growing empirical evidence, as well as theoretical and normative arguments, to

q 2015 The Author(s). Published by Taylor & Francis.

development through participation is significant for an active citizenship, but also to

Student participation in school: scope and quality

these practices as different configurations between targets or domains of participation

Conflict resolution. Teachers, school counsellors or head teachers commonly solve

(3) Peacebuilding: adolescents participate in the construction of long-term policies and

Resolution of community problems. Student participation in school is not only a discursive

Identity construction. This domain of participation seems particularly relevant for

Agencies for student participation in school

Organised Participation (OP). Lead by

Repertoires (some characteristics)

OP through specialised programs for

OP, Lead by Teacher (LT) or LS, DMD,

OP and SP. LS. DMV, DMC, or DMD.

OP and SP. LS. DMV, DMC, or DMD.

Repertoires (some characteristics)

OP and SP. LS. DMV, DMC, or DMD, DI, DE,

OP and SP, Lead by Adult Community

Quality: authenticity, autonomy and efficacy in student participation in school

Authenticity and autonomy

Understanding and evaluating student participation: an empirical analysis

I have described two dimensions of an analytical framework of adolescents participation

however, establish a normative horizon: the desirability of students participation

Data and methods

Scope and quality of student participation in the domain of

Scope of participation in the domain of binding decision-making

As a first examination of students participation in this domain, I present their responses to

The way in which courses are taught.

f) School rules g) Extracurricular

Moises: The SEP [Secretariat of Public Education], I think.

Mario: Between all of us, it is the only occasion where we interact [ . . . ].

Facilitator/interviewer: And which rules...?

Pedro: No food, no water . . .

Moises: No cell phones, no yelling . . .

Facilitator/interviewer: But, do you decide as a group?

Mario: But it never really happens

To a great extent, the limited involvement in the domain of binding decision-making is

Facilitator/interviewer: How opened are teachers to your contributions to what should be

Agencies and repertoires of student participation in school

All: Yes, nothing.

Miriam and Ana: We? Nothing.

Adrian: Supposedly thats why we vote for the planilla

Karina: But they do nothing

Facilitator/interviewer: And how did they try to solve the problem?

Some students: with the principal

Facilitator/interviewer: Have you ever taken part in an election?

Facilitator/interviewer: And why did you say supposedly?

Miriam: [raising her shoulders] because its like a game.

Principal in the urban school: I say that it is . . . a simulacrum.

As the principal acknowledges, the SS is a requirement. According to the current

As I have previously shown, some experiences of participation in the domain of binding

Quality in student participation within the domain of binding decision-making:

Statements in the survey questionnaire

(e) When teachers do something that has

95% Confidence interval for

Note: Based on estimated marginal means.

Discussion and final considerations

Implications for policy and practice