CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 18Children's Rights and ParticipationYouth Development and Social SupportSchool Health and Nursing Education

Mandatory voice: Implementation of a district‐led student‐voice program in urban high schools

Giraldo‐García, Regina J., Voight, Adam, O'Malley, Meagan·2021·Psychology in the Schools
DOI 10.1002/pits.22436
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This qualitative case study explores how urban high schools implement a district‐initiated student‐voice program, referred to as Student Advisory Committees, intended to improve school climate. The study uses an implementation science framework to analyze interview data from principals and advisors in 22 urban high schools. An iterative, top–down thematic analytic procedure was used for analysis and interpretation of the data. The results suggest wide variation in how the program was implemented in terms of fidelity, dosage, quality, program reach, and adaptation, with contextual school factors—namely, principal and school characteristics—that help to explain this variation. In addition, the findings indicate that these contextual factors had a significant influence on how the school district implemented the student advisory committees. The authors discuss the implications for program implementation in the context of urban school districts and for school psychologists.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/pits.22436

Cites

57 of 57 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Giraldo-Garcia and colleagues (2020) found that another factor critical for effective program implementation is the institutional setting's level of receptivity; if the program is not well-received, this may result in poor implementation and interfere with desired educational outcomes.

    “In their study of a district-led student voice program, Giraldo-Garcia and colleagues (2020) found that “another factor that becomes critical for an effective program implementation is the institutional setting’s level of receptivity; if the program is not well-received, this may (and is likely to) result in poor implementation and will interfere with desired educational outcomes” (p. 54).”

    From How teachers’ student voice practices affect student engagement and achievement: exploring choice, receptivity, and responsiveness to student voice as moderators (2025) · cites this paper as Giraldo-Garcia et al. (2020)

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Giraldo‐García, R. J., Voight, A., & O'Malley, M.
Affiliations
  • Department of Curriculum and Foundations Cleveland State University Cleveland Ohio USA
  • Cleveland State University (US)
  • Graduate and Professional Studies California State University Sacramento California USA
ORCID
Venue
Psychology in the Schools
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2020-10-21
Volume
58
Issue
1
Pages
51-68
ISSN
  • 0033-3085 (ISSN-L)
  • 1520-6807
DOI
10.1002/pits.22436
OpenAlex
W3094051017
Cited by
18
References
57
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 1
FWCI
3.01
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor)
Locations
Psychology in the Schools (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Children's Rights and Participation
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Youth Development and Social Support
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Speech and Hearing › School Health and Nursing Education
Keywords
student voice, student advisory committee, program implementation, urban high schools, school climate, school district initiatives, implementation fidelity, program adaptation, school principals, school psychologists, student participation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review