ABSTRACT Marla Lynn Crowder Silversmith, REIMAGINING STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN DISTRICT DECISIONS: WITH STUDENT VOICE (Under the direction of Dr. Matthew Militello). Department of Educational Leadership, May 2023. Student voice is often missing when decisions are made in school districts. Culturally responsive researchers indicate that when students have voice in their daily schooling, they are more connected (Gay, 2018; Hammond, 2014; Ladson-Billings, 1994). Using Community Learning Exchange (CLE) methodology and Youth Participatory Action Research (YPAR), a district administrator and alumnus worked with students and staff to fortify student voice to influence decisions in a K-8 school district. Through the power of shared stories, the students became teachers, and the teachers became students. Three major findings resulted: (1) More I Had To Know You, which meant that adults had a great deal to learn about what youth really thought and experienced; (2) Leave Your Power at the Door, meaning that adults should leave their power at the door when interacting with youth but use it after meetings to support youth; and More Than a Checked Box, meaning that youth wanted to be fully engaged; instead of answering surveys, they wanted more authentic input. The CLE format provided space for shared stories and experiences that resulted in the findings and an expanded framework for supporting student voice in district level decision-making. The new framework has implications to ensure that students and their voices are supported as authentic educational partners. In terms of wider application of the process for incorporating student voice, student demographics should be considered when district decisions are made and when districts seek educational partner input for consideration. Student voice, student stories, and the richness of their identities have the power to inform staff professional learning on the role of student voice in decisions. REIMAGINING STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN DISTRICT DECISIONS: WITH STUDENT VOICE A Dissertation Presented to The Faculty of the Department of Educational Leadership East Carolina University In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Education in Educational Leadership by Marla Lynn Crowder Silversmith May, 2023 Director of Dissertation: Matthew Militello, PhD Dissertation Committee Members: Lawrence Hodgkins, EdD Roshaunda Breeden, PhD Lynda Tredway, MA Chris Janson, PhD ©Copyright 2023 Marla Lynn Crowder Silversmith DEDICATION Dad, Mom, Amber, and Erik, because of you, I have always known who I am and where I come from. With those powers, I knew I could do anything, for I stand on the shoulders of those that have come before me. Jeff, we have built a life knowing who we are, where we have come from and where we are going, we did this together. Ava, Peyton, and Rylan, because of you, I will always work for a better tomorrow, always remember the rules. To Eli, my forever faithful writing partner. Grandma, you now have a Doctor in the family. And to Aunt Penny for her knitted hug that wrapped me with love and strength for three years. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would not be here if it was not for a conversation with Dr. Mary Yung, ECU Cohort II. Thank you, for your time, thoughtfulness, and seeing me “doing the work.” That conversation led to a car conversation with Dr. Matt Militello, who talked about the power of CLEs! Right there on the San Mateo Bridge I knew I had to learn from him, and I signed on for the next three years. I am forever grateful for that conversation and the many that have taken place since. Abigail my co-facilitator throughout the YPAR project, thank you does not say enough. I cannot wait to see your future. My journey over the three years has brought many wonderful stories, experiences, and friendships all that have helped to complete my doctoral puzzle; however, the piece that is the largest is The Janson 5. Paul, Virgilio, Nicole, and Chris. I will not miss early Saturday mornings, or 5 am texts, “I’m writing are you?” But I will miss the belly laughs, side chats, all- for-one-one-for-all, attitudes. I have greatly appreciated the safe space to ask questions, grow, be vulnerable, question myself, and unpack conversations. I could not have nor would have wanted to do this without The Janson 5. Thank you for being a HUGE part of my puzzle. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TITLE…………………………………………………………………………………. i COPYRIGHT…………………………………………………………………………. ii DEDICATION………………………………………………………………………… iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS…………………………………………………………… iv LIST OF TABLES……………………………………………………………………. xi LIST OF FIGURES……………………………………………………………………. xii CHAPTER 1: NAMING AND FRAMING THE FOCUS OF PRACTICE………….. 1 Focus of Practice……………………………………………………………….. 5 Rationale……………………………………………………………………….. 5 Assets and Challenges to Focus of Practice…………………………………… 8 Micro Assets and Challenges …………………………………………. 8 Meso Assets and Challenges ………………………………………….. 11 Macro Assets and Challenges …………………………………………. 11 Challenges to Micro, Meso, and Macro Levels………………………………… 12 Significance of Focus of Practice………………………………………………. 12 Practice…………………………………………………………………. 13 Policy…………………………………………………………………… 13 Research…………………………………………………………........... 14 Connection to Equity…………………………………………………………… 14 Sociological Framework of the Focus of Practice……………………… 15 Psychological Framework of the Focus of Practice……………………… 15 Youth Participatory Action Research Design…………………………………... 16 Purpose Statement and Research Questions……………………………… 17 Theory of Action…………………………………….................................. 18 The Focus of Practice Description………………………………………... 18 Proposed Research Activities……………………………………............... 18 Conclusion………………………………………………………………………. 19 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW……………………………………………… 21 Culturally Responsive Teaching and Pedagogy………………………………… 21 Development of Culturally Relevant and Responsive Pedagogy………… 23 Practitioners in Leadership and Teaching……………………………….. 24 Awareness……………………………………................................. 26 Learning Partnerships……………………………………................ 27 Information Processing……………………………………............. 27 Community of Learners and Learning Environment……………… 27 Framework………………………………………………………………. 28 Student and Family Engagement……………………………………………….. 29 History of Student/Family Partnerships Within Educational Settings….. 29 Family Partnerships in Schools………………………………………….. 31 Type 1—Parenting……………………………………………….. 32 Type 2—Communicating………………………………………… 34 Type 3—Volunteering……………………………………………. 35 Type 4—Learning at Home………………………………………. 36 Type 5—Decision Making……………………………………….. 37 Type 6—Collaborating with Community………………………. 38 Student Voice………………………………………………………………….. 39 Professional Learning in Educational Settings…………………………………. 41 Professional Learning Standards………………………………………… 43 Conditions for Success………………………………………………….. 44 Transformational Process………………………………………………. 44 Rigorous and Inclusive Content…………………………………………. 45 Emerging Framework……………………………………………………. 46 Conclusion………………………………………………………………………. 49 CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY…………………………………………………….. 50 Context……….…………………………………………………………………. 50 Research Questions……………………………………………………………... 52 Qualitative Research Design……………………………………………………. 53 Activist Youth Participatory Action Research (YPAR) …………………. 53 Community Learning Exchange (CLE) …………………………………. 56 The Praxis of the Action Research Cycles……………………………….. 58 Participants, Data Collection, and Analysis……………………………………. 62 Participants……………………………………………………………….. 62 Data Collection and Analysis…………………………………………….. 63 Study Considerations…………………………………………………………… 63 Reflexivity Statement…………………………………………………….. 65 Validity and Trustworthiness……………………………………………. 65 External Validity…………………………………………………………. 66 Confidentiality and Ethical Considerations………………………………. 67 Conclusion………………………………………………………………………. 67 CHAPTER 4: YPAR CYCLE ONE…………………………………………………… 69 PAR Cycle One Process…………………………………………………………. 70 Community Learning Exchange (CLE) ………………………………….. 72 Gracious Space…………………………………………………….. 72 Appreciative Listening…………………………………………….. 73 Closing Circle……………………………………………………… 73 YPAR Meeting Post CLE…………………………………………. 73 Evidence…………………………………………………………………… 74 Emergent Categories……………………………………………………………. 75 Barriers to Eliciting Student Voice………………………………………... 75 Time………………………………………………………………… 75 Access……………………………………………………………….. 77 Reimagining Student Engagement………………………………………… 78 Leadership Reflection and Action Steps for YPAR Cycle Two……………….. 79 Conclusion………………………………………………………………………. 80 CHAPTER 5: PAR CYCLE TWO AND FINDINGS………………………………… 81 YPAR Cycle Two Process……………………………………………………… 84 YPAR Cycle Two: Emergent Themes………………………………………… 84 Reimagining Student Engagement………………………………………. 88 Professional Learning…………………………………………………….. 89 District Readiness for Change……………………………………………. 90 Study Findings/Results………………………………………………………….. 94 Finding 1: “I Had to KNOW You”………………………………………. 95 Making Connections………………………………………………. 96 Holding Space…………………………………………………….. 97 Crossing Borders………………………………………………….. 99 Sharing Stories……………………………………………………. 100 Summary………………………………………………………….. 104 Finding 2: Leave Your Power at the Door, But Pick it up When You Leave…………………………………………………………………….. 105 Crossing Borders………………………………………………….. 106 Student Agency…………………………………………………… 108 Summary………………………………………………………….. 112 Finding 3: More Than a Checked Box…………………………………… 113 Holding Space……………………………………………………. 114 Student Agency…………………………………………………… 116 Crossing Borders………………………………………………… 118 Summary………………………………………………………. 118 Conclusion……………………………………………………………………… 119 CHAPTER 6: DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS……………………………… 120 Discussion……………………………………………………………………… 124 More Than a Checked Box………………………………………………. 124 Leave Your Power at the Door, But Pick it up When You Leave………. 125 I Had to Know You……………………………………………………… 127 Framework……………………………………………………………… 129 Review of Research Questions…………………………………………… 131 Implications…………………………………………………………………….. 132 Practice: How Do We Get to Yes………………………………………… 133 Policy……………………………………………………………….…… 137 Research…………………………………………………………………. 138 Research Process: YPAR Process/CLE/Inspired Protocols………. 138 Future Research………………………………………………...…. 139 Limitations………………………………………...……………………. 140 Leadership Development…………………………………………………….... 141 Conclusion……………………………………………………………………… 144 REFERENCES………………………………………………………………………… 146 APPENDIX A: INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL……………….. 157 APPENDIX B: CITI CERTIFICATION……………………………………………… 159 APPENDIX C: CONSENT TO CONDUCT RESEARCH…………………………… 160 APPENDIX D: DISTRICT CONSENT TO CONDUCT RESEARCH………………. 168 APPENDIX E: SAMPLE CLE AGENDA……………………………………………. 169 APPENDIX F: CODEBOOK PROCESS…………………………………………….. 170 LIST OF TABLES 1. CLE Axioms………………………………………………………………………... 57 2. YPAR Full Cycle Timeline Fall 2021–Winter 2022……………………………….. 59 3. Research Questions…………………………………………………………………. 64 4. YPAR Cycle One Timeline, Fall 2021……………………………………………... 71 5. Barriers to Electing Student Voice…………………………………………………. 76 6. Timeline of Preparation for Board of Trustees Presentation……………………….. 83 7. YPAR Cycle Two Activity…………………………………………………………. 85 8. YPAR Cycle Two Themes…………………………………………………………. 87 LIST OF FIGURES 1. District student demographics…………………………………………………….. 7 2. Assets and challenges of study Focus of Practice……………………………........ 9 3. Literature bins…………………………………………………………………….. 22 4. Hammond’s “Ready for Rigor” framework for culturally responsive teaching….. 25 5. Epstein’s Framework of Six Types of Involvement for Family Partnerships …… 33 6. Abigail’s journey line…………………………………………………………….. 102 7. Expanded framework……………………………………………………………... 130 8. Student voice in hiring their school leadership………………………………........ 135 CHAPTER 1: NAMING AND FRAMING THE FOCUS OF PRACTICE Alone we can do so little; together we can do so much. –Helen Keller Michael Beck was his name. I was in kindergarten; he was in second grade with my brother, Erik. We were on the playground after school, specifically on the bars. He looked at me and said, “Your sister’s a retard.” I had no idea what that meant, but I knew from the looks on the faces of the close friends standing near me it was not a nice thing to say about my sister, Amber, who was three years older than me and attended a different school. I did what any baby in the family would do; I properly punched him as hard as I could in the stomach and then ran to find my mom to see what a “retard” even was. At five years old, on a playground, I was “informed” that my sibling was different. I remember sitting down at dinner with my family every night asking questions. “Why” was then, and still is, one of my favorite starters. My mom and dad answered some questions, some they did not, and, at that time, even scientists did not have full answers. My questions have sometimes led to me getting in trouble; my second-grade report card has one comment on it, just one: “Marla needs to learn that life is not fair,” to which my parents responded with “Marla had family members buried alive in the Holocaust. She has a sister living with Down Syndrome. She is aware life is not fair; however, we are raising her to use her voice in the daily fight to make life fair for each person.” It was not until I was meeting with my dissertation advisor for the second set of data collection that I realized the why behind researching the importance of elevating student voices from families of historically marginalized backgrounds in district decisions. After all, to me, it is personal. 2 The current trend of a top-down approach model for both student engagement and educational leadership often leaves little to no room for culturally responsive or inclusive practices regarding district decision-making (Auerbach, 2012). Further, school districts specializing in elementary and middle school students, preschool through eighth grade, tend not to have a strong outlet for student voice within the larger educational system. At the high school level, more abundant literature supports the importance of student voice within the classroom, school, and district-level systems (Mitra, 2008; Mitra & Sierrere, 2012; Stern et al., 2002); however, the literature contains few examples of similar research exploring students’ voices at the elementary school level. The one area where student voices are heard in elementary schools is at the classroom or site level (Angell, 1991, 2004; Beck, 2005; Ochoa-Becker et al., 2001; Paley, 1992; Yeager & Silva, 2002). Although it is clear that student voice can aid in teaching students life lessons around civic engagement, including showing elementary-level students that they can make a difference in their lives and the lives of others, students have limited opportunities to learn and practice the skills centered on civic engagement (Eccles & Gootman, 2002; Kirshner et al., 2005; Mitra, 2008). When student voices are invited and honored in educational systems, those voices often comprise only a small subset of students who were already engaged more fully with the school or district. In contrast, the voices of students from historically marginalized groups are often neglected. Effective targeted outreach to them seeking information that can inform district decision-making is often lacking. This demographic reality presents equity issues even when school leaders are committed to including student voices when making decisions. Although Latinx, African American, Asian American, and Native American students compose the majority of students being educated in the United States, many of the unwritten cultural, academic, and 3 behavioral expectations for students derive from a place of White, middle-class culture (Baquedaño-Lopez et al., 2013; Cefai & Cooper, 2010; Delpit, 1995). Thus, the unheard voices may hold the most potential to help assist school leaders design and enact more equitable and just policies and practices. As I examined the context in which I worked as the Assistant Superintendent, I developed a plan to institute a district-wide Student Interaction Council (SIAC) that could become a culturally responsive resource by using inclusive practices in engaging the voice of students in district decisions. The school district is a relatively small PK-8 district in northern California of 4,600 students in six elementary schools and one middle school. The district has been recognized for high achievement scores on state testing, low chronic absenteeism, restorative practices, and student connectedness to school. Due to the school foundation generosity and the voting community passing bond measures, all sites well-equipped with plentiful school supplies, recently purchased furniture, well-stocked classrooms, school libraries, and highly credentialed teachers. However, despite the abundance of resources and access to technology, students are not represented in district decision-making. One factor contributing to underrepresentation from students in historically marginalized groups is that our schools and district do not sufficiently engage these students or their families. In the district, we pride ourselves on our vision of “Challenging the leaders, thinkers, and creators of tomorrow,” while abiding by our mission to “Engage our community, to build resilient, curious, compassionate problem-solvers who are prepared for their futures.” Yet, we are demonstrating that when we “engage our community,” not all students and families are included. For example, all of our parent meetings are in English and are held during the school day, making informative meetings inaccessible to many of our educational partners. These 4 district practices are examples of how we are not being inclusive of non-English speakers, or families that do not have flexible employment during the day, or who have any other barrier to attend the meeting. Over the past few decades, the district has experienced a tremendous shift in student demographics. However, while 53% of the students are racially, ethnically, and economically diverse, only 8% of teachers in the district are teachers of color. Students – and families -- from historically marginalized groups do not just experience challenges such as bias, discrimination, and harmful stereotypes; they have distinct cultural strengths, assets, and gifts. To best support students of color and their families, the district is working to improve its ability to respond to diverse student cultural backgrounds and contexts. As the district strives to develop into a more culturally responsive district with more schools and classrooms that better support all students, we must seek out the views of the students and families as they hold great potential to use their gifts and strengths to help our school district reach its goals. As such, the core of this study’s Focus of Practice (FoP) is exploring how a district-wide leadership team can become more culturally responsive by using inclusive practices in engaging the voices of diverse students in district decisions. In this chapter, I describe the focus of practice (FoP) for the study, provide an overview of the study’s research design, discuss confidentiality and ethical considerations with the investigation, summarize the fundamental principles underlying this study, and preview the remaining five chapters. The description of the FoP for the research projecr and study includes a rationale; an analysis of the assets and challenges related to the FoP; the significance that the project and study might have for practice, policy, and research; and the FoP connection to issues of educational equity. I overview the study’s Youth Participatory Action Research (YPAR) 5 design and detail the study’s purpose statement and research questions, the theory of action, the study aim statement, and an overview of YPAR project activities. Focus of Practice (FoP) The FoP for the study concerns how I facilitated the development of a district-wide leadership team and designed a framework that is culturally responsive with inclusive approaches so that we, as a district, could engage the voices of students in district decisions. In particular, as the study unfolded and we were faced with the COVID 19 pandemic, on key shift was to examine how I worked closely with one young leader, a high school student at the time of this study, in a YPAR process that sought to better understand how to support students with district decisions. As a result, I believed that relationships with students who have often been ignored would be strengthened through the YPAR process. An important long-term goal of the project is the students would feel more connected and see themselves more accurately represented and better reflected in the daily life of our schools—in our activities, in the books in our libraries, and in our curricula—all ways that are authentic and free from a stereotype. Rationale Based on conversations with other district and school leaders about the limitations of listening to the same small group of parents at every meeting; I focused this project and study on raising up student voice in our decisions. Notably, the children of those highly engaged parents are often the ones who are more involved in student leadership roles, giving student input that mirrors what their parents provide during their meetings. In talking with school leaders, I discovered that most are seeking to include new voices but are unsure about how they might create spaces for them. 6 I was encouraged that we were having conversations regarding the lack of inclusivity of diverse parent and student voices; however, we still struggled with how to include the students who are too often not represented. I determined that we must seek out ways that our district-wide leadership team could better foster student participation in our district decision-making in ways that are more culturally responsive. The FoP and the research design were intended to address this oversight. For our district to improve our ability to better support students from historically marginalized groups, we needed to ensure seats at the table for those students. As I continued to notice those who were missing from the conversations, the long-term goal of the study became clear: A district-wide leadership team should co-develop and implement culturally responsive and inclusive practices to engage the voices of students in district decisions. In hearing from the students and inviting their perspectives and wisdom, and then acting on that input to improve our district, I developed processes to include the power of student stories, which would aid teachers and leaders to see and know their students better. As a result, we had some experiences during the project and study in which we generated a greater sense of student connectedness to our teachers, our schools, our district, and our community. The demographics of the district (see Figure 1) show that h the majority or 53% of students are students of color, including Asian, Latinx, and Black/African American; however this diversity is not reflected in parent advisory groups. Although White students are 46.3%, their parents/guardians make up the significant majority of the parent advisory groups. Representation and participation in the parent advisory groups are important because that is one organizational vehicle that we use to decide district and school procedures, policies, and curricula. In addition, no current district, school structures, or processes include student voices regarding the practices, policies, procedures, or curricula in their schools. Without representation, voices of color are not being heard. 7 Figure 1. District student demographics. 8 We used a process known as Youth Participatory Action Research (YPAR) to ground the project and study. I invited students from historically marginalized groups to engage in a participatory process with district and school leaders and classroom teachers who would help us improve our practices while building stronger connections to each other and the school community. The YPAR project was designed to hear the perspectives of these students, their needs and desires, and their assets and hopes. From this process and the sharing and relationship- building, district leaders worked with student members to begin to co-construct more culturally responsive practices and build greater feelings of connectedness and representation among students within the school community. In using the YPAR process, I invited and included student voices to examine the macro (district), meso (school sites), and micro (classrooms). Assets and Challenges to FoP As the YPAR process developed, I implemented culturally responsive and inclusive practices to engage the voices of students in district decisions, containing both assets and challenges. Understanding thee assets and challenges was vital to updating of policies. Next, I analyze the micro, meso, and macro assets and challenges (see Figure 2) that affected the FoP and the Youth Participatory Action Research (YPAR) project and study. In the micro-level, I explored the assists of classrooms and teachers. Teachers desire to connect with their students, and they are willing to do the work to communicate with students Micro Assets and Challenges Although teachers have the most direct time with students, many stated that the amount of essential curricular standards they are charged with meeting during the year often compromised their ability to teach “outside of the box.” The pressure to meet many standards often led them to teach through direct instruction and lecture, an approach termed the banking 9 Figure 2. Assets and challenges of study Focus of Practice. 10 method of education (Freire, 2000); “banking education resists dialogue,” making the teacher’s voice dominant and student perspectives and voices minimized (p. 83). Freire (2000) describes a problem-posing pedagogy can disrupt the banking method and offer a different approach that can empower all learners. “Problem-posing education regards dialogue indispensable to the act of cognition which unveils reality” (p. 84). At the classroom level, the one-way dialogue in classrooms suppresses the discussion and blocks the teacher from student feedback that could inform adjusting lessons. In addition to the micro-level challenge, the district has a similar issue at the district macro level – not listening to voices of parents and students. For example, during the three professional learning days in the district during YPAR Cycle One and YPAR Cycle Two, we focused on policies and procedures and boxed curriculums. Thus, teachers have no direct professional learning focused on connecting with students or their families. The absence of directly teaching teachers how to better connect with students and families presents a formidable challenge. Without more professional practices that can build connections with all students and families, the more socially empowered and privileged students and families maintain their outsized influence. If we, as a district, do not purposefully create space for students and families from historically marginalized groups to be heard, then, more vocal and generally more privileged students or members of parent groups that are aware of how to access and utilize a system for their advancement overshadow the voices of students and parents we need to hear so that we can make better informed decisions. A significant asset within the micro level is a small group of teachers known as the JEDIs (Justice, Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion) – with at least one teacher from each of our seven schools. The JEDIs represent elementary and middle schools; these teachers meet with me 11 regularly to seek out support for underrepresented students and families. The JEDIs expressed the desire to take a step closer to students and families who have been historically marginalized to ensure their feedback is represented in our classrooms. However, although the JEDIs are inclusive and welcome to anyone, three schools have one JEDI representative, which frequently makes a singular voice and advocacy for justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion a minority within the school. Meso Assets and Challenges At the meso level, seven principals lead school sites (six elementary schools and one middle school). Of these seven leaders, four are within their first three years of leading a school; another has been a principal in the district for over 15 years; and the other two have been principals for about ten years. Each site has a distinct culture with staff, students, and families. Some school sites are much more inclusive in their outreach to families and students by diversifying the mode and method of communication. One site has little student diversity, limiting opportunities for that administrator to grow in their JEDI skills. Professional learning for administrators has not been a focus in the district over the years. Consequently, the school site administrators do not always attend to the staff’s professional learning. Therefore, staff are often on their own to improve their knowledge and skills regarding pedagogy and processes. Two administrators committed to working with me and other district leaders. We are focused on enacting our commitment to bringing student voices forward to inform our classroom pedagogy and practices. Macro Assets and Challenges At the macro-level, there have leadership changes; two of three executive administrators and two of five of the Board of Trustees are new to their roles. After nine years of a 12 superintendency, we had a new superintendent stepping into the role for the first time at the start of the project and study. Secondly, a macro challenge that interrupted some of our efforts was the pandemic, which caused school closures to ensure student and staff safety. At the district level, administrators are responsible for the negotiations with the certificated and classified unions, which control the contractual amount of time for professional learning during the workday. Although being at the negotiation table can be an asset to advocate for more professional learning time, there is a finite amount of money to be negotiated. Due to a budget deficit, extra days are no longer a possibility. The biggest asset at the district level is the ability to propose an initiative and support it with the resources. In clearly defining the district’s goal to ensure student voices are reinforced and supported at the site and classroom level, we allocated limited resources to support our efforts to include the voices from historically underrepresented groups. A Challenge to Micro, Meso, and Macro Levels A significant challenge to the classroom (micro), school (meso), and district (macro) level throughout this project and study was the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. We did not have sufficient leader time to plan with lead time for many activities because of the local, county, and state regulations. Despite the challenges of COVID-19 and the unforeseen challenges to the research, multiple persons at the micro, meso, and macro level collaborated to move our efforts forward. Significance of Focus of Practice The district leadership team developed and implemented culturally responsive and inclusive practices to engage the voices of students in district decisions. As a result, we could build on those practices and have a significant impact on practice, district policy, and research 13 efforts beyond the YPAR. I discuss the implications for these areas more completely in the final chapter. Practice By bringing forward student voices, we altered practices by informing pedagogy, building connectedness and developing greater capacity to use culturally responsive tools for facilitation, our work in the project and study, and classroom teaching.. The district’s mission again states, “Engage our community, to build resilient, curious, compassionate problem-solvers who are prepared for their futures;” it does not state, “some of our community.” To rise to the mission set forth by the Board of Trustees, we took a step closer to including the students historically missing from the conversations. As a result, we re-imagined what it means to “engage our community” with students in district decisions. Policy During the YPAR project and study, we had a direct impact on the dress code policy. Further, we are using the results to see how other policies need to be altered to ensure each voice is represented when decisions are made. Historically in California with different kinds of school district configurations, elementary school districts or preschool-eighth grade districts do not have an area for active student voice as much as unified school districts. In reviewing policies, including curricula adoptions, board policy, and professional learning, we needed to ensure the representation of all educational partners, including students. In addition, the FoP could be significant to local and state policy by offering a process for including underrepresented groups in decisions that directly affect students and families. As a result of these efforts, we changed the processes for interviewing new principals and included students and families in the process. 14 Research Student representation is an essential factor in students feeling connected to their classrooms, schools, and the larger district communities. By bringing together students to listen to and record their stories, students were clear about how they were not fully represented or how we were perpetuating stereotype threats. As a result, they helped us understand how they feel connected and, in turn, have agency in their learning. Other school districts in other communities are experiencing the shifts in student and family demographics and the accompanying challenges. The approach we used, specifically the use of YPAR to engage diverse voices of historically suppressed or marginalized, may be helpful to other districts and schools and inform research efforts. By incorporating students and reviewing the district practices, policy, and research, within our system, we developed a baseline to look for opportunities for growth to ensure the voices of the historically marginalized are represented in district decisions. Connection to Equity The focus of practice, working directly with students who have been historically marginalized to develop and implement culturally responsive and inclusive practices to engage the voices of students in district decisions, is an equity issue and practice. Although administrators and teachers verbally support inclusive environments, many students do not often see themselves reflected in activities, libraries, or curricula. I sought input from students from historically underrepresented groups during the YPAR process by sharing and listening to individual stories. I worked collaboratively with students and other district and school leaders to leverage emergent understandings from personal narratives and experiences to design and evoke change within the district’s curricular and instructional practices. The two equity-based frames 15 that I utilized are sociological and psychological. For the sociological framework, I used Wilkerson’s (2020) work about the unwritten but present caste systems in our society. In reviewing individual stories of students, I explored the psychological effects implicated by these stories. For the psychological framework, I used Steele (2010), including his work with stereotype threats. Sociological Framework of the Focus of Practice The sociological frame of the caste system, as described by Wilkerson (2020), can be applied to how we treat students and families of color in our school district. We know from Wilkerson (2020), "When you live in an old house, you may not want to go into the basement after a storm to see what the rains have wrought. Choose not to look, however, at your peril" (Wilkerson, 2020, p. 15). The unwritten caste system in many school districts is represented by the disproportionate number of students of color in special education programs and the discipline system, and the underrepresentation of students of color in advanced courses. We reinforce that caste system using the equity trap of erasure when we do not go into the basement of the school system, where we hear statements from staff such as “I don’t see color,” “I treat everyone the same,” and “We don’t talk about seeing color at this school” (McKenzie & Schuerich, 2004). By hearing the stories of students and families in a system that often does not see students of historically marginalized groups, staff learned directly from students. In taking a step closer to students and families by seeking them out and hearing their stories firsthand, we took a closer look at our “basement” to ensure that we see the whole picture of our house to verify that each student is represented. Psychological Framework of the Focus of Practice The psychological frame as defined by Steele (2010) in Whistling Vivaldi as a 16 “[stereotype threat that] springs from our human powers of intersubjectivity—the fact that members of society have a pretty good idea of what other members of our society think about lots of things, including the significant groups and identities in society” (p. 5). He asserts that everyone comes with implicit bias; however, it is our work to recognize those biases and develop updated ideas and beliefs By bringing student stories to the forefront, I aimed to break down the historical oppressor/oppressed relationship between students and the teachers/administrators who interact daily. Allowing and promoting gracious space in Community Learning Exchanges (CLEs) for students to share openly, we began the process of supporting students to publicly self-identify and speak to the barriers and systemic racism they have faced while in our school communities. Through their stories, we supported students, especially minoritized students, to affirm their sense of self (Steele, 2010). The individual stories supported teachers and administrators in professional learning practices to listen to student voices and update policies and procedures to ensure each student’s inclusion in their classrooms, school, and district community. By engaging students in Community Learning Exchanges and curating their individual stories through interviews, we had baseline evidence to begin the process of reflection and change through the YPAR process. As I moved forward with the equity-based focus of practice, I was conscious ‘Nothing without us is for us’, which amplifies historically silenced voices and, in turn, using them as a catalyst for change (Charlton, 1998). Youth Participatory Action Research Design In the YPAR project and study, I examined and studied how we could incorporate student voices into the classrooms and professional learning cycles within the district. In this section, I reiterate the purpose of the project and study and detail the research questions. Then, I articulate 17 the theory of action if the YPAR approach. Finally, I describe the focus of practice in more detail and describe a set of activities I undertook to address the FoP. YPAR is a form of participatory research (Wallerstien et al., 2017) in which youth, specifically one particular student for the project and study, act in partnership as co-researchers to study equity issues and choose to take action on and advocate for changes based on the data and data analysis (Cammarota & Fine, 2008; Fine, 2008; Kidd et al., 2018; Levac et al., 2019; Mirra & Morrell, 2011; Frazquilho et al., 2018; Brown & Rodriguez, 2009). YPAR further supports the desire to work with local knowledge and directly with the students (Herr & Anderson, 2014). By working together with students, we engaged in a process of co-learning by proposing questions, reviewing research, and generating recommendations to support the development and implementation of a framework to aid in seeking out and hearing student voices in district decision-making (Hale, 2001). Purpose Statement and Research Questions The purpose of the YPAR project was to learn how I could work collaboratively with a high school student to develop culturally responsive and inclusive practices for engaging and learning from student voices in ways that might inform our district decisions and policies. We engaged other students in CLEs and used their input to inform decisions, particularly policy decisions. The overarching research question was: How can a YPAR process – co-facilitated by a district administrator with a youth leader, identify and generate culturally responsive and inclusive practices for engaging student voices in district decisions and policy? ● How and to what extent did the process, findings, and recommendations of the Youth Participatory Action Research impact district decision-making process? 18 ● How has the youth co-researcher for the study grown and changed as a student leader, particularly in terms of the agency she feels as an advocate for herself and others? ● How have I grown and changed as a leader and how have my leadership practices been informed through this Youth Participatory Action Research, particularly regarding how I engage student voice in district-level policy development? Theory of Action If the youth leader and I make invite and make space for students to share their stories and perceptions in collaboration with the district, school leaders, and teachers, then we will develop a more culturally responsive and inclusive district while increasing feelings of connectedness among our students from historically marginalized groups. The Focus of Practice Description In seeking voices and stories of students who have been historically marginalized, we became more culturally responsive and inclusive in our choices about practices and procedures at a district level. In doing so, we saw connections with students and families develop more robustly – particularly in groups that have often been disparaged. As a result of the student- facilitated processes, the youth leader, a high school junior and senior during the project and study, provided a bridge between the middle school student experiences and the adults who attended the CLEs. Proposed Research Activities To examine the focus of practice, we used a Youth Participatory Action Research (YPAR) design to engage other students and staff throughout this process. The proposed inclusive and participatory approach represented a substantial change in how district administrators and educators incorporate student voices in ways that inform our district and 19 activities, including how we choose our curricula and enact policies. One critical vehicle for the YPAR was using Community Learning Exchanges (CLEs) to engage and invite staff participants and targeted groups of students from historically marginalized communities in our schools. In doing so, I designed professional learning opportunities for teachers, administrators, and district officials to hear feedback and learn to seek out input from underrepresented groups and, in turn, alter our practices by informing pedagogy, building connectedness, developing greater capacity, and implementing tools to be culturally responsive. A second process that informed the research was student writing. Seeking out student voices in anonymous writings aided in shaping the students’ vision for the district over the next few years. Conclusion Increasing diversity in our district has not yet changed our teaching and learning practices. However, by bringing forward the stories of students of historically marginalized groups to teachers and administrators, we bridged a key gap – from perpetuating colorblindness to acknowledging race and the need to be more culturally responsive. Through critical conversations with the people directly involved, we uncovered precisely what is needed for students to feel a sense of belonging. Trustees of the School District formally made the request for “discussions on ways to include students in our board work in a developmentally appropriate manner” (Board Meeting, June 8, 2021). The Trustees were unsure as to how to include student voice and then what the next step would be once they had heard students’ ideas and were leaving that up to the educators; however, the desire to have student voice was the formal request. In this project and study, we provided the road map for our district to honor and actualize the board decision. 20 In Chapter 2, I complete a review of research regarding student voices of historically marginalized groups within school systems. In Chapter 3, I outline the research design as well as data and methodology. In Chapter 4, I discuss the place and participants. In Chapter 5, I review the two cycles of inquiry (YPAR Cycle One: Fall 2021and Spring 2022 and YPAR Cycle Two: Fall 2022). In Chapter 6, I discuss the claims and theory of action that emerged from the research project and study. CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW The purpose of the study was to see how district leaders can learn from students to implement changes needed at district level. Four areas of literature (see Figure 3) support the focus of practice and the YPAR youth participatory action research study: student voice, professional learning, student and family engagement; and culturally responsiveness and inclusive practices to engage and leverage student voice. I first reviewed literature on culturally relevant sustainable pedagogy to aid in understanding the significance of student voices within the educational setting. Next, I examined literature regarding student and family engagement throughout the history of public education. Then, I further explored student voice and the practices educators can enact in order to magnify student voices within schools and districts in order to inform change and reform efforts. Finally, as any school or district change and reform effort must finally manifest itself in the classroom, I reviewed professional learning within the educational setting and its impact on teaching and learning. Together, culturally relevant sustainable pedagogy, student voice, and professional learning round out the literature for the study as I identified culturally responsive and inclusive practices for engaging the voices of students in district decisions. Culturally Responsive Teaching and Pedagogy Culturally responsive pedagogy and teaching within classrooms is critical if teachers are to ensure the access and rigor for historically marginalized students (Gay, 2018; Hammond, 2014; Khalifa, 2018). Culturally responsive teaching is an instructional pedagogy combining learning theory with cognitive science to increase the connectedness and rigor of historically marginalized students (Hammond, 2015). I discuss the evolution of culturally responsive teaching and pedagogy and build on how practitioners can support students. 22 Figure 3. Literature bins. 23 Development of Culturally Relevant and Responsive Pedagogy Researchers and practitioners of culturally relevant/responsive pedagogy and teaching have developed a set of common collective agreements (Ladson-Billings, 1994; Gay, 2018, Hammond, 2015). Together, they formed and evolved a set of practices to ensure connectedness and increased rigor for students that, historically, educational societies have not seen, heard, nor celebrated. In her book, The Dreamkeepers: Successful Teachers of African-American Children, Gloria Ladson-Billings (1994) followed eight teachers who taught African American students at high levels of proficiency and coined the term culturally relevant pedagogy. The dreamkeeper teachers shared the following beliefs: Teaching is an art; we expect all students will succeed; we give back to the community in which we teach; and we should construct knowledge with students based on relationships. Ladson-Billings (1994) further noted that once teachers build an understanding of a student’s culture, family, and community, then effective teaching can take place. Ladson-Billings (1994) describes three main concepts that dreamkeepers use in working with students: Maintaining a strong focus on student learning, developing cultural competence, and cultivating sociopolitical awareness in students. Dreamkeepers developed the foundational beliefs of culturally responsive teaching within the classroom. Geneva Gay (2018) expanded on the work of Gloria Ladson-Billings in her book, Culturally Responsive Teaching: Theory, Research, and Practice. Through Gay’s (2018) stories of instruction within her teaching and learning classes, she adopts a stance of high teacher expectations, beliefs in students, core curriculum, and cultural discourse. These elements comprise culturally responsive teaching and improve student outcomes. Her strong belief in community-centered spaces allowed for her mantra of “know, think, feel, do, and reflect” to be 24 actively emulated by her students. Gay’s (2018) stance on a partnership in culturally responsive teaching leads to the core value of we are all better together. Administrators, teachers, and students play a role in teaching and learning from each other to aid educational collaboration. Zaretta Hammond’s (2015) work in Culturally Responsive Teaching and The Brain partners the concept of culturally responsive teaching practices with brain-based science. Hammond asserts that we are further able to comprehend culturally responsive practices with our students by combining brain-based science or neuroscience and culturally responsive practices. She describes the work as similar to a computer -- the brain is the hardware and information being fed to the brain, the software. When the hardware feels safe and open to learning, students can absorb the learning (software). When the brain feels safe, students can absorb the information. When students' brains feel safe, they remember information. Prior to teaching, teachers must first build safe environments for students. Hammond asserts that having culturally responsive classrooms provides safe environments for the brain to be able to absorb information. Practitioners in Leadership and Teaching Hammond (2015) further states that culturally responsive teaching is a tool to be used with brain-based science to aid in the development of self-directed learners. The “Ready for Rigor” framework for Culturally Responsive Teaching leans on four main areas for teachers to employ to support the development of independent, self-directed learners (Hammond, 2015). At the intersection of the quadrants on the “Ready for Rigor” framework are the students with four practices of awareness, learning partnerships, information processing, and community of learners & learning environment (see Figure 4). These four strategies provide affirmation and validation for students in order to have instructional conversations and provide wise feedback to teachers. 25 Figure 4. Hammond’s “Ready For Rigor” Framework for culturally responsive teaching. 26 Awareness To build awareness, Hammond asserts that teachers and leaders must first critically self- reflect on personal mental models, schema, and epistemological beliefs as a baseline to their sociopolitical lens. Freire (2000) explored these concepts in a reflection on faith, often called the Easter Experience. He further stated that… those who authentically commit themselves to the people must re-examine themselves constantly. This conversion is so radical as not to allow for ambivalent behavior … Conversion to the people requires a profound rebirth. Those who undergo it must take on a new form of existence; they can no longer remain as they were. (Freire, 2000, p. 60) Khalifa (2018) pushes school leaders, in particular, to be critical in self-reflection to identify systemic oppression and marginalization of students in his book, Culturally Responsive School Leadership. He affirms that principals or building leaders can make space for change within the organization to support school-level reforms. However, they must first reflect and acknowledge the need for the work. “The lack of self-reflection, unfortunately, leads to a muting of community voice” (Khalifa, 2020, p. 62). We must look back to look forward as a district. Through awareness, we must lead with the lens of no blame, no shame, no guilt. We are here to learn, to be better tomorrow because we are better together. Mitchell (2015) described using an exit ticket where each participant was asked to complete the following reflective statements: I will start…, I will stop…, I will continue… In being reflective and producing commitments in writing, educators could leave the safe space with a heightened awareness of what they would like to start doing, stop doing, and continue to do in partnership with their students. Allowing this safe space for reflection, growth, and written planned goals allows for staff to be vulnerable and share space to connect. 27 Learning Partnerships In learning partnerships, Hammond (2015) speaks to the fact that educators cannot do the work in isolation. Educators must work with students to develop a partnership that, in turn, supports students in greater personalized learning. In Ware’s (2006) study, she identified warm demander pedagogy as culturally responsive teaching that supports a culture of achievement for African American students. Similar to the dream keeper teachers of Ladson-Billings (1994), a warm demander is defined as a person who expects and believes a student can meet high expectations set by the educator; therefore, they often do meet the expectations. Through relationships and truly knowing each student, educators remove the barrier that Steele calls “stereotype threat” or perpetuating assumptions based on an epistemological schema. He asserts that stereotypes affect us and what we can do, and students can internalize that they are not capable based on stereotypical responses of teachers (Steele, 2010). Information Processing Culturally responsive teaching includes supporting students in using multiple processing paths while designing individualized routines to support students in independent learning. Cabrera and Colossi (2012) discuss the four main structures to increase metacognition, a key factor in information processing: the distinction between things, organization into systems, relating things to each other, and completing the first three from different perspectives. By fluidly being able to construct ideas differently, students develop higher-order thinking or depth of knowledge. Community of Learners and Learning Environment An educator’s role is to develop a safe space where students are comfortable being vulnerable and are willing to try new things. Prashant and Ramnayaran (2020) developed 10 28 maxims for instructional leaders to have within their spaces to develop safe learning environments: Maxim 1: Don’t Undervalue Relationship with Students Maxim 2: Don’t Use Fear, Threat, or Sarcasm to Establish Control Maxim 3: Don’t Show Off Knowledge: Show Them Concern Maxim 4: Don’t Reduce Students’ Understanding to Marks and Grades Maxim 5: Don’t Forget Students’ Diverse Talents and Ways of Learning Maxim 6: Don’t Make Classrooms Suffocating: Allow Ventilation of Ideas Maxim 7: Don’t Give Feedback That Evaluates and Expresses Secondary Feelings Maxim 8: Don’t Forget to Set High Expectations Maxim 9: Don’t Underrate the Value of Student Cohesiveness Maxim 10: Don’t Miss Teaching Students the Way They Learn Best The ten maxims support this construct: If students are to thrive in academic environments, they must first have a safe environment in which they have high, clear expectations, with relational trust. Framework The root of culturally responsive teaching is understanding how the brain learning and culturally responsive pedagogy interact. For students to fully access learning, teachers must provide a safe environment for student brains to be ready to learn and provide content that continues to support learning; if there are stereotype threats, anxiety interrupts brain function (Steele, 2010). We must continually work to improve our craft of teaching through our awareness, learning partnerships, information processing, and community of learners and learning environments. The Ready for Rigor framework provides the many facets needed to 29 support teachers in creating the space for students to feel safe, thus allowing knowledge to be absorbed. Student and Family Engagement Children enter our buildings as children and become students where they spend large hours of their days and years for 12+ years in PreK-12 schools. Students' success is tied to partnerships with targeted student and family engagement. The manner in which schools have incorporated students and family engagement over the years has evolved in some areas but remained stagnant in others. I review the history of student and family engagement in schools dating back to 1915 under the Home Teacher Act. Then, I describe Epstein’s Framework of Six Types of Involvement for Family Partnerships and use my family's personal story of family engagement as data to identify how partnerships based on these principles can impact all families – but particularly those families who support students with disabilities and/or students who are historically marginalized. Finally, I discuss why having student and family voices within the educational system improves professional learning through community learning exchanges. History of Student/Family Partnerships Within Educational Settings Throughout the history of public education, schools have cycled through going into homes, pulling parents/guardians into schools, and pushing them back home. One of the earliest teacher/family interactions can be found in the Home Teacher Act of 1915; teachers visited the homes of immigrant children to instruct parents/guardians, predominantly female family members, on political jurisdiction and hygiene (Sanchez, 1984). Although the Home Teacher Act appeared to partner with parents to support their children, in reality, the process operated as a one-way system of assimilation by telling mothers how to use proper hygiene for their children and how to navigate roles outside of the home. Fifty years later the government no longer 30 encourage home visits; instead, they began to invite families into schools through the War on Poverty program. Under President Lyndon B. Johnson and the War on Poverty Act of 1965, the government officials assumed that African American families would become welfare-dependent if males of the household lost their jobs (Moynihan, 1965). To counter this concern, the federal government developed programs under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965. ESEA provided grants directly to local education agencies to support students from vulnerable backgrounds with additional resources. Grants such as Title 1 and Head Start provided direct support to families to aid in educating their children. Head Start emphasized the need for early childhood education by supporting students from low-income families that historically did not receive early education. Family members could continue to work while their children were receiving early education and intervention services. Title 1 programs provided support to students from socially and economically disadvantaged backgrounds to help them meet the challenging academic standards within school systems. For a local education agency to receive Title 1 funds, they must partner directly with parents of targeted student groups to engage in an active conversation about how to use the funds to support the learning opportunities by expanding or reinforcing academics. Over half a century later, Title 1 funds and the mandatory partnership with parents/guardians is still a part of our educational system. Under President George W. Bush, the intention of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act was reauthorized by the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001. No Child Left Behind exposed achievement gaps between student groups and brought the issue into the national spotlight. No Child Left Behind’s downfall was the one-size-fits-all approach to closing the achievement gap between student groups. NCLB focused solely on test scores and a pass/fail 31 mark, ignoring areas of growth and concern. NCLB charged districts and schools to engage in outreach to families that had been historically marginalized in the education system by mandating a school-parent compact. The school-parent compact is a detailed plan to show the roles and responsibilities of the school and parents and how they will work together for student achievement. In December of 2015, President Obama signed the Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015 (ESSA); that is the current United States national education law (United States Department of Education, n.d.). Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015 became known to educators in the field as education from the cradle to the grave or early childhood through college and career. This new commitment to families emphasized that all decisions needed to support college and career-ready goals for each student to rise to their individual academic success in the educational system. Throughout the history of education, demand for partnerships with families is noted as an area required for funding and for the academic success of students. The required partnership of families and educational systems has historically been one-sided, with the system telling families how to support success for their children, not the system asking families or students how they can provide support to their children or themselves. In order to flip the relationship between the educational system and families into a reciprocal one, we must first build the relationship with each family or student and proceed to have open and honest conversations. Family Partnerships in Schools The most effective school-family-community partnerships have the greatest positive influence on a student’s social, emotional, cognitive, and educational development (Epstein, 1995). In building school-family partnerships, personal narratives will surface to aid in understanding students, families, and communities. Epstein (2002) emphasizes six areas of 32 involvement needed to develop a comprehensive partnership between schools and families; she provide scaffolding steps that can be individualized for the schools to engage in strong partnerships with families (see Figure 5). In reading Epstein’s six areas of involvement, I reflected on my upbringing in a family that fell into a category of historically marginalized. I explored how her six categories were represented in my life through my reflection and in interviews my mother, Heddy Chernow Crowder (February 12, 2021). Type 1—Parenting Educational systems support families in understanding age-appropriate development and review home conditions to ensure that they support student learning. Home visits allow families to educate the system on their students. Throughout my life, I have either been in a family receiving home visits or have been making them in my professional career. I am the youngest sibling to a sister, Amber, who was born with Down Syndrome in 1973. For as long as I can remember, professionals came to our house to make sure Amber was getting everything she needed to thrive. In interviewing my mom, I heard the story of my dad leaving her in the hospital after my sister’s birth to go find them help right then. My dad, in law school at the time, did just that—he found help for Amber and for our family. Amber immediately started receiving services including physical therapy, speech therapy, play development, and nutrition support. The support providers listened to my parents, asked questions, and sought to understand and support them as my parents learned a new life—not just one of parenthood, but one of parenthood of a child with special needs. Amber was born at a time where many like her were put in institutions and forgotten about by family; many being sent directly to the institution from the hospital, never going home. The reciprocal relationship between family and professionals that my family had allowed for 33 Figure 5. Epstein’s Framework of Six Types of Involvement for Family Partnerships. 34 space with trust to ensure Amber was set up for success as they navigated life. Amber was born into a post-college educated, middle class, White family that knew to ask for more services, more people, and more training from the moment she was born. Amber became the first student to be fully included in San Juan Unified School District, in Sacramento, California, in preschool, because she had a team of individuals, including my parents, who worked to ensure she was reaching the best version of herself at each marker; additionally, when she was not hitting the mark, they worked together until they could find a successful approach. Throughout the trials and tribulations, the one item that was essential for Amber’s success was communication. Type 2—Communicating Active family involvement occurs when educators, students, and families design effective forms of school-to-home and home-to-school communications. When Amber was young, teachers would pin letters to the back of her shirt for my parents, not trusting that important items would make it home in her backpack. As she aged, the documents made their way into her backpack, usually in a notebook in which the teacher or aide would write daily. Then my stay-at- home mom was expected to respond nightly. My parents received a weekly phone call to check in on how Amber was doing at home and discuss any happenings during the school week that might need further explanation. For my parents, these modes of communication worked well, both for serious concerns and, occasionally, humorous issues. For example, in late elementary school Amber received a citation on the bus. The driver handed it to my mom, apologizing for having to “write Amber up” as Amber was known for being such a “nice kid, but that language is not acceptable.” My mom was so excited to get the citation she photocopied it and sent it to Amber’s speech therapist the next day in that back-and-forth notebook, congratulating the speech therapist on teaching Amber 35 to effectively and clearly articulate the initial F sound in a generalized conversation, as stated by the bus driver in her formal bus citation. Fortunately, both our parents spoke the primary language of Amber’s support providers; they are both highly educated, literate, active in educational systems, and understand who and how to ask questions to seek clarity. When we talk about preferred forms of communication, we tend to focus on “translation services,” rather than the basic question of the media, be it email, phone call, face-to-face, Zoom, or another form. We lack a system to communicate with families about processing deficits or mental health support. Rather, we should be asking families to describe the preferred manner of communication. However, we need to think beyond a one-directional relationship in which we send them information and develop methods to support the families with the information in a meaningful way. If we are able to build an affinity with families within the educational systems, then a breakdown in communication can be breached, allowing us to better mediate and step-in before a misunderstanding becomes an irreparable wedge. Type 3—Volunteering Involvement occurs when educators, students, and families “recruit and organize parent help and support.” When Amber was born, my parents decided my mom would stay home and manage my sister’s needs while my dad continued with school and fulltime work. Of course, this decision did not come without sacrifices, especially with adding two more children within the next three years. My mom became involved in every aspect of our lives to ensure a connection between school and home. Her full-time activity became serving as a volunteer in the school district that my siblings and I attended. My mom is bilingual; therefore, she would make it a priority to seek out families that speak Spanish and invite them to volunteer in activities that they historically would not attend or, if they attended at all, would watch from a distance. She would 36 seek out other volunteers, knowing and understanding the power of numbers. She learned quickly through our co-op public school district preschool that volunteering can take on many forms, from carpooling, to making play-doh at home, to running centers in class. Volunteering can be a powerful way for families to give to the school, and for the school to get to know families and their stories; however, we must ensure that we are not stereotyping who, what, where, and how volunteering transpires. “Mija, sometimes people just want to be asked. Look them in the eye, say their name, and ask them if they can help you with a job. Everyone wants to be needed. Remember, volunteering is not the safe place for everyone, it is not equal, it is what one can do, not what one wants to do” (Heddy Chernow Crowder, February12, 2021). Yet, we definitely know that the working lives of many families are too complicated for volunteering time at school, and we need other forms of family engagement that comport with their lives and needs. Type 4—Learning at Home Involvement occurs when information, ideas, or training are provided to educate families about how they can help students at home with homework and other curriculum-related activities, decisions, and planning. Consistency was always important with Amber. Her speech [teacher] would show me something, and if I had her do it that way at home too, she would learn it a lot quicker. Erik [my brother] and you would also be models for her; when that happened, she would generalize the skill in no time, (Heddy Chernow Crowder, interview, February 12, 2021) With every Individualized Education Plan or Individualized Family Support Plan my sister had, my parents always secured direct consultation time for each specific service. They felt this time directly teaching them was important to ensure there was reinforcement between school and 37 home for any skill being taught. The open communication among all parties allowed for shared successes and discussions about barriers. Learning at home can provide many opportunities; however, understandings and expectations must be clear on both sides. Through clear communication, homework policies, and support for understanding, a partnership in each student’s education can be formed in working towards the common goal of student success and allow more room for practice and generalization in outside environments. During the COVID-19 pandemic. we clearly observed how learning can take place outside of the traditional classroom settings. We saw a craft flipped overnight and found that students could learn virtually -- their core subjects as well as new subjects. The reciprocity of education is evolving as the definition of teacher is evolving, allowing families to have access to support for their students in real-time in their primary language. Currently, our district honors any student request for a WiFi hotspot and a Chromebook to ensure each student is able to learn from home without barriers. Type 5—Decision Making Involvement occurs when schools include parents in school decisions and develop parent leaders and representatives. Because my mom served as a room parent, a Parent Teacher Student Association President, a Parent Teacher Association District President, a Parent Teacher Association State Leader, and many more positions, she kept the voices of students with special needs at the table in pivotal decision-making times. In these positions, she leveraged one voice of a historically marginalized student group into a powerful chorus when district decisions were being made. She was a visible, effective advocate at a time when students with special needs were fighting in courts for their right to be educated in a general education classroom. Through trust comes knowledge, through knowledge comes understanding, and through understanding 38 comes change. A parent with a lens that acknowledges diversity on a personal level ensures that you will have a parent that leads decision-making with a specific person or group in mind. Type 6—Collaborating with Community Involvement occurs when community services, resources, and partners are integrated into the educational process to strengthen school programs, family practices, and student learning and development. As the Nigerian Igbo culture states, Oran a azu nwa, which translates into English as, “It takes a village to raise a child.” Amber’s support community provided her with the tools to be successful. My parents knew they needed to find that village and sought the village out the day she was born. From therapists to doctors to teachers, along with our parents, Amber had a team fighting for her to succeed, a team that was needed in a world that expected her to fail. Throughout Amber’s life, who she has needed in her village has changed; however, she has always needed and always will need a village beyond her immediate family. It is necessary to support and advocate for not only her but all people with special needs who fit into this large, diverse group of historically marginalized group of individuals in our school systems and communities. Using Epstein's six areas of involvement to work with families to construct a reciprocal partnership builds relational trust. That trust frees families to share stories and schools to share expertise in learning across environments along with other supplemental aids to more fully support the academic, social-emotional, and behavioral health of the student. In leveraging partnerships with families, educators are able to interact with students and build that trust to encourage student voices in classrooms, at school sites, and at district levels. Educators who have developed relational partnerships with families are able to create safe spaces in which to share conversations about students’ learning styles, cultures, and beliefs. 39 Ladson-Billings (1994) describes the importance of hearing people’s narratives and stories to truly understand their experiences and how those experiences may represent confirmation to counter knowledge of the way society works. Stories are the vehicle families use to represent themselves to others (Gay, 2018; Kidd et al. (2012) state that by gathering and sharing student stories you are sharing windows into a family's culture and beliefs. Stories further provide insights into how culture and experiences contribute to the core values, beliefs, and practices of diverse families (Sanchez, 1999). The educational system acknowledged the need for partnerships between schools and families – even if sometimes they have enacted one-dimensional responses that do not foster a dialogue. Although partnerships have been named specifically for over a hundred years in laws and initiatives, authentic partnerships have not always occurred. By implementing Epstein's (2002) six areas of involvement to develop a comprehensive partnership and develop relational trust between school, family, and community, we are able to hear stories from the families and better understand our students’ needs, cultures, and beliefs to work towards the common goal of student voice to aid in district success. Student Voice The teacher is no longer merely the-the-one-who-teaches, but one who is himself taught in dialogue with the students, who in turn while being taught also teach. -Freire As I write this paper, my husband and my three teenage children are living in our home. The children have opinions on their daily schooling, including policies, textbooks, and anything that has to do with their learning; they discuss options to what time school starts to what they are serving for lunch. They do not feel heard or included; their opinions are not respected. Ava is a senior in high school and Peyton is a sophomore; like Abigail, the youth facilitator in the study, 40 they agree that when they go to school they are there to “take tests, get good grades, and make the school look good.” It is not their job to ask “Why?” or “Why not?” but to accept the “because I said so” (CLE, October, 2021). Freire (2000) describes the “culture of silence” as a control of an oppressor holding power over the oppressed by giving the illusion that some people's voices matter more than others. When we as an institution allow for this culture of silence to exist, we are allowing one group to dominate the voices of other groups. In perpetuating that culture, we are not supporting first person storytelling in their authentic voices. Does that mean that we, the leaders of an elementary school district in which student voice is often not heard at a district level, have agreed to the continuation of the culture of silence? Do we agree to continue to marginalize student voice? Cook-Sather (2002) called our attention to student voice as a cultural shift in which adults need to open spaces and minds to the presence and power of students. When power is shared with students and staff, we can break the culture of silence. Allowing students to share experiences and be the experts in their learning creates a stronger commitment to personalized learning and gives students a sense of identity as a learner (Flutter & Rudduck, 2004). However, beyond learning for self, the student voice is often neglected when developing district initiatives (de la Ossa, 2005; Levin, 2000; McGregor, 2011). Wolk (1998 as quoted in Duwe, 2017) states that every student has a voice, but “What do we do with it? And to what conscious degree have we developed it and continue to develop it?” From my children, I have heard, “You don’t listen so why did you ask my opinion?” (p. 86). Students reflect this same sentiment and stop talking if we, the adults, are not acknowledging their remarks. Fielding and Prieto (2002) confirmed this in their research, stating if students' 41 ideas and perceptions are not responded to, the students stop responding to questions and dialogue. Student voice has often been a missing educational partner in district decision-making within elementary districts and would thoughtfully be added in appropriate measure. The weight of a student voices should not supersede that of the other educational partners, or a “student voice district initiative” could become a potential source of criticism (Cook-Sather, 2002; MacBeath et al., 2003); instead, student voice should be balanced with existing partners in decision-making. Student voice must be inclusive among students providing feedback (Yeager & Silva, 2002) and should mirror the demographics of the larger population so as not to have a “consulted majority” (Pedder, 2009), a small demographic that does not reflect the larger whole. Often when we speak of demographics in educational settings, administrators think of ethnicity, socio- economics, or primary home language. In addition, we need to look beyond these data points and consider students with disabilities on Individualized Education Plans and 504s. Allowing space for student voice in schools improves relationships and has proven to create a culture of trust between students and staff (Fielding, 2001; Fullan, 2002). Student voice is only sustainable with the partnership of teachers in the development and learning process (Fielding & Bragg, 2003). As teachers and students become partners, they border cross wherein teachers become learners and learners become teachers (Giroux, 1992). Professional Learning in Educational Settings The fundamental purpose of school is learning, not teaching. –Richard DuFour The craft of teaching has been practiced for centuries and consists of a constantly evolving cycle of delivery to reflection to alteration to delivery. I have practiced this craft for over 20 years but only became aware of the larger community of professionals who wanted to 42 work together beyond my district community in my fifth year as an educator. I practice the following two mantras daily -- We are better together and I will be better tomorrow. Better Together reminds me I am not alone in this craft: I can seek information from known masters Ladson-Billings (1995), Hammond (2015), Epstein (2002), Dufour and Eaker (1998), my colleagues within the EdD program, my teacher next door, and many more. Or I can seek expertise from the research group, the Janson 5, or even a learning partner in town or through networks such as those on Twitter. Better Tomorrow is a constant reminder that I am learning; I take any knowledge that I gained today—the good, the bad, and the ugly—and use it as a professional learning experiences to improve my craft. When I lay my head down at night I whisper to myself “Better Tomorrow.” I know that when I rise it is a new day and my goal will be to do better than the previous day. These two mantras come with responsibility, responsibility to be present in my craft to aid others in their growth: to be vulnerable, to admit mistakes, to unlearn publicly, and learn again to be better, and to do better. My ongoing desire for formal and informal professional learning communities has allowed me to continue altering my daily craft which, in turn, pushes me to continue to connect and support students on a daily basis. Professional learning is an imperative component of the craft of education to ensure that each staff member is supporting each student in learning to the best of their abilities. On-going professional learning is critical to deepen the understanding of teaching. Many educators first entering the workforce are not prepared to teach our most vulnerable students and professional learning can guide them (Darling-Hammond, 2006). Professional learning in the educational system can take on different forms. Within the context of this dissertation, I used professional learning taking to aid in the development of the personalized craft of teaching students. Professional learning can take place in a group setting, individual setting, in-person, 43 virtual, or any mixture of modalities. In this literature review, I discuss two sets of professional learning standards, diving deeper into the professional learning standards developed by Learning Forward. Throughout the exploration of the professional learning standards, I provide evidence for the need for each component of the standard. In conclusion, I discuss the need for continued professional learning to support the ever-changing scope of education. Professional Learning Standards Zeichner and Liston (2013) state that ongoing professional learning comes with a deep sense of commitment and responsibility to a child’s learning. To be strong practitioners, teachers need to continue to learn, do, reflect, and alter approaches so as to respond to each learner. Two different sets of professional learning standards guide us. I briefly describe the California Department of Education Quality Professional Learning Standards from 2013 but focus on Learning Forward’s revised Professional Learning Standards (draft) from 2020 in greater detail because they reflect the most recent research-based updates in the area of professional learning. The California Department of Education (CDE) and the Commission on Teacher Credentialing (CTC) convened the California Educator Excellence Task Force, which published the report, Greatness by Design: Supporting Outstanding Teaching to Sustain a Golden State (GbD), in 2012 that called for the research and development of Quality Professional Learning Standards (California Department of Education, 2013). These standards were derived from known research practices and compiled by a combined task force of educators, teachers, and administrators who evaluated them by how well they could build educator capacity from the novice teacher to the expert educator. The Quality Professional Learning Standards focuses on seven areas of development for the teaching profession: Data; Content and Pedagogy; Equity; 44 Ongoing, Intensive, and Embedded; Collaboration with Shared Accountability; Resources; and Coherence and Alignment. In December 2020, just three short months before a massive pandemic took over our world, Learning Forward published a revised draft of their Standards of Professional Learning that was originally published in 2011. The three main areas of focus under the revised draft with Learning Forward were Conditions for Success, Transformational Process, and Rigorous and Inclusive Content. I have chosen to focus on the Learning Forward (2020) Standards of Professional Learning because of their more up to date information and reach beyond California, even though many districts in California use the CDE’s Quality Professional Learning Standards. Conditions for Success For professional learning to succeed in providing educators with the skills and knowledge to better support each learner, the standards should include an equity foundation, the culture of collaborative inquiry, leadership, and the appropriate resources to support the learning process. Conditions for success start with a group of people, or community of practice (CoP), who have a collaborative inquiry or a passion for something they do and a desire to learn how to do it better as they interact regularly (Wenger, 2011). Effective school leadership is a strong component of professional learning environments being successful (Leithwood et al., 2008; Stoll et al., 2006). Leadership support for educators learning to teach well takes resources including time and monetary backing to allow for the opportunity to learn (Feiman-Nemser, 2001; National Commission on Teaching America’s Future, 1996). Transformational Process For successful professional learning, the baseline needs to be measured in multiple areas including self, colleagues, and students. Self-reflection is a key component to success. Once 45 teachers have a baseline of the student’s opportunity for growth, they can set a learning target that is data-driven with a specific definition, measurable, and realistic. The ongoing monitoring of the data aids in assessing whether professional learning has improved support for the student. For school leader, in particular, Khalifa (2018) speaks to critical self-reflection in his work of locating and resisting racism, but all educators must reflect on the implicit biases that they bring to the environment as they cannot transform teaching and learning without examining the equity barriers that confound efforts for change. Rigorous and Inclusive Content Strong teaching and learning require a base support of curriculum which includes core, supplemental, and supplanted materials that encompass the standards being taught (Short & Hirsh, 2020; Steiner et al., 2018). Professional learning for staff on the use of core instructional materials is just as important as the materials themselves (Wiener & Pimentel, 2017). Educators who develop an area of expertise and deliver a well-paced, strong curriculum can provide their students a strong set of essential, accessible tools for learning. However, professional learning for educators must go beyond the curriculum and support each student's access to the standards. The imperative goal of every professional learning opportunity is to increase the ability of teachers to teach more effectively, especially the students who have historically been marginalized within our school settings (Darling-Hammond, 2010). It is an educator's job, even a moral imperative, to support each student in learning. One way of supporting each student in being successful in the classroom is by providing flexible lesson plans based on the framework of the Universal Design for Learning (CAST, 1998; Spooner et al., 2007). Universal Design for learning is a framework that supports many different ways to access the curriculum by removing the potential hurdles to learning, deepening the educational https://www-tandfonline-com.jproxy.lib.ecu.edu/doi/full/10.1080/1034912X.2020.1812539 https://www-tandfonline-com.jproxy.lib.ecu.edu/doi/full/10.1080/1034912X.2020.1812539 https://www-tandfonline-com.jproxy.lib.ecu.edu/doi/full/10.1080/1034912X.2020.1812539 https://www-tandfonline-com.jproxy.lib.ecu.edu/doi/full/10.1080/1034912X.2020.1812539 https://www-tandfonline-com.jproxy.lib.ecu.edu/doi/full/10.1080/1034912X.2020.1812539 46 opportunities for each student, and offering more than one type of summative assessment to measure mastery of a skill (Coyne et al., 2012). Emerging Framework The Community Learning Exchange (CLE) process offers a professional learning process for gathering diverse people together for engaged, deep learning about challenges and questions of equity. The CLE theory of change is built around the interrelationships and transformational possibilities among relationships, assets, stories, place, politics, and action. As each of these elements are central to this study, the emerging framework starts with the CLEs. However, just as Guajardo et al. (2016) described, CLEs are not a prescription or formula to be followed wholesale, but rather a robust and malleable process, a theory of knowing in action, built on axioms that support and inform change efforts toward greater equity. Thus, I began the study with CLEs as the foundation of its conceptual framework, which I believed would inform our work. The CLE process and its deeply relational approach connects directly to YPAR process the young adult co-researcher, and the other participants we engaged throughout this study. However, as long as we used the five axioms of the CLE to ground us, we had a compass for our work. As such, the CLE axioms (Guajardo et al., 2016) informed the literature review and the research design, as well as guided the project data collection and analysis processes. The axioms are: 1. Learning and leadership are dynamic social processes. The diverse participants have something to share and something to learn. From stories shared, conversations, questions asked, and through play within the group, powerful opportunities to contribute, learn, and unlearn take space within the CLE. Guajardo et al. (2016) state https://www-tandfonline-com.jproxy.lib.ecu.edu/doi/full/10.1080/1034912X.2020.1812539 https://www-tandfonline-com.jproxy.lib.ecu.edu/doi/full/10.1080/1034912X.2020.1812539 47 that “teaching and learning are interdependent” (p. 78), further explaining that the labeled student and teacher are by definition both a student. 2. Conversations are critical and central pedagogical processes. Relationships are the core of social learning theory; creating a safe space to share is crucial. Building relationships, in turn, builds an area of safe space. This safe space allows for challenging conversations and storytelling to be encouraged. By supporting vulnerable conversation, the CLE is developing support using storytelling towards action. 3. The people closest to the issues are best situated to discover answers to local concerns. Organizing a CLE with the idea “Nothing about us without us” is placing the power of conversation and change onto the CLE members. In working with directly involved community members this axiom shifts from a power dynamic to collective action. 4. Crossing boundaries enriches the development and educational process. Border crossing is defined in CLE as geographic, age, economic, culture, racial, gender, faith, and ability. CLE celebrates and welcomes the individual that joins the CLE group. By inviting people with diverse backgrounds, the conversation and stories become learned experiences. 5. Hope and change are built on the assets and dreams of locals and their communities. When CLE members tell their stories they are describing their gifts, ideas, hopes, and wishes. Allowing participants to reframe from a deficit lens to an asset will help to build hope and possibilities (Guajardo et al., 2016). 48 In keeping with the CLE axioms, I co-developed CLEs within the YPAR study with the youth co-researcher in order to engage participant students and families, listen to and learn from their stories, have conversations regarding their personal space within historically marginalized groups, and generate meaning and findings from these and other study data sources. CLEs provide opportunities for students from historically marginalized communities to come together to develop and explore issues they were close to in our district, specifically the district’s dress- code policy. Ultimately, the hope of this study was that working closely with students in ways that elevated and strengthened their voices would generate equitable change. In so doing, the district could draw from that process to then systematically implement the use of culturally responsive and inclusive practices to inform both practice and policy. Finally, I utilized CLEs as a starting framework for this study because we place importance on implementing pedagogies within the classrooms that honor, uplift, and magnify student voice. Teaching is a craft, as is learning. Crafts must be practiced, adapted, reviewed, practiced again. On-going professional learning supports growth in an educator's craft. However, that professional learning needs to be targeted and high quality. Professional learning is not only for classroom educators; it is imperative that building leaders and executive leaders are accessing up-to-date information to support the growth of adult-learners in supporting each student. We in our district learned the importance of student voice within the school walls. This CLE framework assisted me in developing this research project that might ultimately generate a culturally responsive inclusive framework that could elevate and magnify student voices so that they might inform district de