How Policy Positionality Helps Explain Policy That Does Not Fit Students
Saved in:
| Title: | How Policy Positionality Helps Explain Policy That Does Not Fit Students |
|---|---|
| Language: | English |
| Authors: | Kate Phillippo, Caitlin Power, Matt Leo, Peter Piazza |
| Source: | American Journal of Education. 2025 131(3):303-330. |
| Availability: | University of Chicago Press. Journals Division, P.O. Box 37005, Chicago, IL 60637. Tel: 877-705-1878; Tel: 773-753-3347; Fax: 877-705-1879; Fax: 773-753-0811; e-mail: subscriptions@press.uchicago.edu; Web site: http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/journals/aje/about |
| Peer Reviewed: | Y |
| Page Count: | 28 |
| Publication Date: | 2025 |
| Document Type: | Journal Articles Reports - Research |
| Descriptors: | Educational Policy, Policy Formation, Public Schools, Admission (School), Policy Analysis, Student Needs, Student Participation |
| DOI: | 10.1086/734908 |
| ISSN: | 0195-6744 1549-6511 |
| Abstract: | Purpose: By comparing concurrent youth and adult engagement in the same policy change process, we sought to inform efforts to substantively and productively involve youth policy actors in education policy formation. This study extends upon a robust research base centered on youth-specific policy activity. Research Methods/Approach: Using comparative case study methods, we identified and analyzed youth and adult engagement in selective public schools (SPS) admissions policy change in "Metropolis School District." Members of our diverse research team--students spanning from high school through doctoral levels, an active policy professional, and a university professor--interviewed student and adult policy actors and analyzed public documents. Findings: Gulfs between actors' experience positionality and policy formation positionality contributed to the adoption of policy that failed to match student-framed policy needs. Youth policy actors more directly experienced the policy in question and advocated for changes that would shape their schooling experiences. Yet they were structurally distanced from, marginalized within, and at times excluded by district policy formation structures and processes. Conversely, although adults had more distant SPS admissions experience positionality, their policy formation positionality was one of far more direct influence amid policy discourse that centered on adults. Implications: These findings inform the discussion of pathways toward fuller student policy engagement. We provide evidence of the powerful impact that relative policy positionalities have on policy formation. We also contribute data that distinguish forms of youth policy activity from district-sanctioned, adult-centered policy activity. Informed by these findings, we suggest ways for policy makers to authentically incorporate youth voice. |
| Abstractor: | As Provided |
| Entry Date: | 2025 |
| Accession Number: | EJ1472533 |
| Database: | ERIC |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| Abstract: | Purpose: By comparing concurrent youth and adult engagement in the same policy change process, we sought to inform efforts to substantively and productively involve youth policy actors in education policy formation. This study extends upon a robust research base centered on youth-specific policy activity. Research Methods/Approach: Using comparative case study methods, we identified and analyzed youth and adult engagement in selective public schools (SPS) admissions policy change in "Metropolis School District." Members of our diverse research team--students spanning from high school through doctoral levels, an active policy professional, and a university professor--interviewed student and adult policy actors and analyzed public documents. Findings: Gulfs between actors' experience positionality and policy formation positionality contributed to the adoption of policy that failed to match student-framed policy needs. Youth policy actors more directly experienced the policy in question and advocated for changes that would shape their schooling experiences. Yet they were structurally distanced from, marginalized within, and at times excluded by district policy formation structures and processes. Conversely, although adults had more distant SPS admissions experience positionality, their policy formation positionality was one of far more direct influence amid policy discourse that centered on adults. Implications: These findings inform the discussion of pathways toward fuller student policy engagement. We provide evidence of the powerful impact that relative policy positionalities have on policy formation. We also contribute data that distinguish forms of youth policy activity from district-sanctioned, adult-centered policy activity. Informed by these findings, we suggest ways for policy makers to authentically incorporate youth voice. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 0195-6744 1549-6511 |
| DOI: | 10.1086/734908 |
