[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":3,"doc-seo-593855-105":59,"doc-detail-593855-en":130},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,13,18,23,28,33,38,43,48,51,55],{"id":8,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":10,"show_sort_weight":11,"slug":12},1,"Document","Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":14,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":15,"show_sort_weight":16,"slug":17},2,"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":19,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":20,"show_sort_weight":21,"slug":22},4,"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":24,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":25,"show_sort_weight":26,"slug":27},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":29,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":30,"show_sort_weight":31,"slug":32},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":34,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":35,"show_sort_weight":36,"slug":37},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":39,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":40,"show_sort_weight":41,"slug":42},8,"Research & Report",30,"research-report",{"id":44,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":45,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":47},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":46,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":49,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":50},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":52,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":53,"show_sort_weight":52,"slug":54},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":56,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":57,"show_sort_weight":24,"slug":58},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":60,"data":61},"ok",{"site_id":62,"language":63,"slug":64,"title":65,"keywords":66,"description":67,"schema_data":68,"social_meta":123,"head_meta":125,"extra_data":127,"updated_unix":129},105,"en","australian-journal-of-teacher-education-vol-44-issue-6-article-1","Australian Journal of Teacher Education - Vol 44 - Issue 6 - Article 1","","The article reviews typologies that frame and critique different approaches to student voice, then maps dominant discourses shaping the field in recent years. It addresses which discourses are most prevalent and what pathways can balance systemic quality assurance with genuinely democratic student participation. The discussion examines themes such as governmentality, accountability, learner agency, decolonising voice, radical collegiality, and refusal, while warning that student voice projects may position learners as consumers or resources rather than democratic partners. It argues for sustained and initial teacher education focused on voice politics tied to quality assurance, decolonisation, and democracy.",{"@graph":69,"@context":122},[70,84,105],{"@type":71,"itemListElement":72},"BreadcrumbList",[73,77,79,82],{"item":74,"name":75,"@type":76,"position":8},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":78,"name":9,"@type":76,"position":14},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/",{"item":80,"name":40,"@type":76,"position":81},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/",3,{"item":83,"name":65,"@type":76,"position":19},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/australian-journal-of-teacher-education-vol-44-issue-6-article-1/593855/",{"url":83,"name":65,"@type":85,"image":86,"author":91,"headline":65,"publisher":94,"fileFormat":97,"inLanguage":63,"description":67,"dateModified":98,"datePublished":99,"encodingFormat":97,"isAccessibleForFree":100,"interactionStatistic":101},"DigitalDocument",{"url":87,"@type":88,"width":89,"height":90},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/australian-journal-of-teacher-education-vol-44-issue-6-article-1/593855.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":92,"@type":93},"4398046744996","Person",{"url":74,"name":95,"@type":96},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-11-01","2026-10-15",true,{"@type":102,"interactionType":103,"userInteractionCount":44},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":104},"ViewAction",{"@type":106,"mainEntity":107},"FAQPage",[108,114,118],{"name":109,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":111},"What central questions does the article address about student voice?","Question",{"text":112,"@type":113},"It asks which dominant discourses characterize student voice literature and what future directions ensure both systemic quality assurance and democratic (or even radical) student participation.","Answer",{"name":115,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":116},"Which discourses does the article name and interrogate?",{"text":117,"@type":113},"It examines discourses including governmentality, accountability, institutional transformation and reform, learner agency, personalising learning, radical collegiality, socially critical voice, decolonising voice, and refusal.",{"name":119,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":120},"Why does the article critique some student voice projects?",{"text":121,"@type":113},"It raises concern that student voice initiatives can frame students as consumers or resources for quality control and may miss opportunities to reconfigure students’ status within democratic schooling partnerships.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":83,"og:type":124,"og:title":65,"og:site_name":95,"og:description":67},"article",{"robots":126,"canonical":83},"index,follow",{"doc_id":128,"site_id":62},593855,1792192703,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":131},{"doc_id":128,"user_id":132,"nickname":92,"user_avatar":66,"doc_module":4,"category_id":39,"category_name":40,"doc_title":65,"doc_description":67,"doc_content":133,"file_id":134,"file_url":135,"file_type":136,"file_size":137,"view_count":44,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":8,"is_downloadable":8,"audit_status":8,"page_count":56,"language":138,"language_code":63,"site_id":62,"html_lang":63,"table_of_contents":139,"faqs":140,"seo_title":141,"seo_description":67,"update_tm":142,"read_time":143,"preview_page_count":4},4398046744996,"Australian Journal of Teacher Education  \n\n| Volume 44 | Issue 6 | Article 1 |\n| --- | --- |\n| 2019\u003Cbr>Democratic contribution or information for reform? Prevailing and emerging discourses of student voice\u003Cbr>Jennifer Charteris\u003Cbr>Univeristy of New England, Armidale, Australia, [jcharte5@une.edu.au](jcharte5@une.edu.au)\u003Cbr>Dianne Smardon\u003Cbr>[diannesmardon@gmail.com](diannesmardon@gmail.com) |  |\n\nRecommended Citation  \nCharteris, J., & Smardon, D. (2019). Democratic contribution or information for reform? Prevailing and emerging discourses of student voice. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 44 (6).  \nRetrieved from [https://ro.ecu.edu.au/ajte/vol44/iss6/1](https://ro.ecu.edu.au/ajte/vol44/iss6/1)  \nThis Journal Article is posted at Research Online.  \n[https://ro.ecu.edu.au/ajte/vol44/iss6/1](https://ro.ecu.edu.au/ajte/vol44/iss6/1)  \nAustralian Journal of Teacher Education  \nDemocratic Contribution or Information for Reform? Prevailing and Emerging Discourses of Student Voice  \nJennifer Charteris  \nDianne Smardon  \nUniversity of New England  \nAbstract: While a range of typologies frame and critique the scope,  \npurpose and power relations of different student voice approaches, it is timely to look at the direction that student voice literature has taken  \nin recent years and map dominant discourses in the field. In the  \narticle the following questions are addressed: (a) What are the  \ndominant discourses in student voice literature? (b) What are the  \nways forward, to ensure there is both systemic quality assurance and  \ndemocratic (if not radical) student participation? The discourses  \nnamed and interrogated in this article include: governmentality;  \naccountability; institutional transformation and reform; learner  \nagency; personalising learning; radical collegiality; socially critical voice; decolonising voice; and refusal. Consideration is given to the ongoing impetus to position students as consumers and resources for  \nquality control. It is an ongoing concern that student voice projects  \ncan miss opportunities for reconfiguring the status of students within  \ndemocratic schooling partnerships. There is an important role for  \nongoing and initial teacher education that addresses a politics of  \nvoice associated with systemic quality assurance, decolonisation and  \ndemocracy.  \nIntroduction  \nThe title of this paper is a debate that has been well propagated in student voice literature (Pearce & Woods, 2019) . It is acknowledged that an engagement with student contributions around what is good or problematic in schooling is still not commonplace, even after over 30 decades of research in the field (Cook-Sather & Curl, 2016) . Historically there has been a pervasive conception that young people, as immature adults, are unable to articulate and advocate for their own interests and, as a result, have been excluded from schooling “debate, design and decision-making”(Nelson, 2015, p. 286) . Taking the position that student voice is an ongoing and evolving concern for ongoing and initial teacher education, we view that a review of discourses in student voice literature is warranted.  \nOver the last few decades there has been increased recognition that teachers can improve current educational practices by acknowledging student perspectives (Rudduck & Flutter, 2004, Nelson, 2014). Yet problematically, the models of voicework that focus on the improvement of provision of services to children can still imply that young people are deficient and adults are best placed to make decisions on their behalf (Mannion, 2007) . There has been growing critique of voicework that fails to enhance the status and positioning of students in schooling power relations (Mayes et al., 2017, Nelson, 2017), practices that locate students as data sources (Fielding, 2012) and quality control for teaching practices (Herriot, 2013; Lodge 2005) . As teacher educators, who have worked with teachers in a coaching role  \nVol 44, 6, June 2019 1  \nAustra","cbCaikhic0srB5ZB","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaikhic0srB5ZB","pdf",389520,"English","# Introduction\n# Student Voice and Power","[{\"question\":\"What central questions does the article address about student voice?\",\"answer\":\"It asks which dominant discourses characterize student voice literature and what future directions ensure both systemic quality assurance and democratic (or even radical) student participation.\"},{\"question\":\"Which discourses does the article name and interrogate?\",\"answer\":\"It examines discourses including governmentality, accountability, institutional transformation and reform, learner agency, personalising learning, radical collegiality, socially critical voice, decolonising voice, and refusal.\"},{\"question\":\"Why does the article critique some student voice projects?\",\"answer\":\"It raises concern that student voice initiatives can frame students as consumers or resources for quality control and may miss opportunities to reconfigure students’ status within democratic schooling partnerships.\"}]","Australian Journal of Teacher Education - Vol 44 - Issue 6 - Article 1 | PDF",1792078047,48]