Lessons learned: student voice at a school for pupils experiencing social, emotional and behavioural difficulties

Abstract

Student voice and pupil empowerment projects are common in many mainstream schools. However, such initiatives are more challenging to implement in provision for students experiencing (social), emotional and behavioural difficulties (SEBD). As a consequence, they are less frequently attempted. This article reports one such attempt at an SEBD special school, where a student research group was formed to evaluate the school's behaviour policy. The students' views remind professionals of the need for consistency, positive relationships and communication underpinning behaviour management strategies. The article also reflects on a number of issues to consider when implementing such projects in special education contexts.

Keywords:

• student voice
• students as researchers
• SEBD
• communication
• power
• relationships
• physical restraint
• reward systems

The student right to express their voice and challenges for schools

The United Nation's Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), ratified by the UK government in 1991, has enshrined a number of important rights for children (see Alderson 2008, and Taylor 2000 for overviews). Of specific relevance to this article, children have the right to express their views on all matters affecting them (article 12); to maximum participation regardless of disability (article 23); an entitlement to discipline in schools which is administered with due respect for their human rights (article 28); and an education that prepares them for a responsible life in a free society (article 29).

Somewhat influenced by this treaty, various guidance from England's central government (DfES 2001a) as well as other organisations (e.g. Specialist Schools and Academies Trust, National College of School Leaders) now encourages schools to either consult their pupils about, or better still involve them with, organisational and pedagogic decision making. The updated Special Educational Needs Code of Practice (DfES 2001b) also recommends but does not oblige schools to involve children with special needs in decision making, in either or both of these ways, and this is reflected to some degree in criteria for Ofsted inspections (Davies 2005). According to Fielding and Bragg (2003), the benefits of such forms of involvement can include:

	improved academic, communication and civic skills amongst students, as well as an increased sense of agency, motivation and engagement with school affairs;
	insights for teachers, which can lead to improved practice and relationships with students for teachers;
	important feedback for schools, which can help improve teaching and learning.

Additionally, MacBeath et al. (2003) add that such projects can help foster a strong sense of inclusive membership, tolerance of diversity and mutual respect within schools. Such outcomes have clear merit and are very attractive to policymakers and school leaders within the current educational climate. However, the processes via which pupils are meaningfully involved in such ways are not well understood in mainstream schools, let alone specialist provision for children experiencing SEBD. Davies (2005) highlights that there have been many studies about mainstream children's voice and agency but relatively few specifically about or with pupils from schools or other provision for students with SEBD.

It is important at the outset to differentiate between pupil empowerment initiatives that simply seek to give students opportunities to be heard and genuine involvement in truly democratic schools. The latter is rarer than the former for at least two reasons, the first reason being that many schools construct students as objects of education/research (Christensen and James 2008). As a result, issues concerning voice and active citizenship are often resigned to the curriculum alone or the rather tokenistic ‘litter picking rotas’ of periodic school councils. Secondly, initiatives that offer pupils genuine empowerment frequently underestimate the degree and complexity of cultural transformation required. Opportunities for pupil empowerment are often compromised within existing structures, determined by adults (Wyness 2006). The case discussed in this article is one further example.

Such challenges are somewhat magnified in provision for children experiencing SEBD (Davies 2005). Provision is often founded upon published good practice advocating firm boundaries, well‐organised structures and routines controlled by adults (Cole, Visser, and Upton 1998; Daniels et al. 1998). Whereas there has been a strong tradition within SEBD provision to encourage students to reflect on their behaviour and contribute ideas to community living, e.g. the legacies of A.S. Neil, David Wills (see Bridgeland 1971) and the more recent work of Paul Cooper (e.g. Cooper 1993), current SEBD provision is frequently subjected to the same quality assurance criteria as their mainstream counterparts and can thus become equally narrowly defined. Many mainstream teachers overtly or covertly resist pupil empowerment initiatives as they are uneasy about conceding power and control to pupils (Lewis and Burman 2008; MacBeath 2006; Sellman 2003; Tyrell 2002). Yet when given such opportunities students often surprise adults by repaying trust with fair and realistic feedback (e.g. MacBeath 2006). These concerns are likely to be exacerbated by teachers working with students who are more challenging to manage. According to Davies (2005) this is little wonder:

The subjects are often resentful, defensive, alienated and, in some cases, disturbed. Their educational careers have invariably involved individual and family stress, and invitations to discuss them are not always welcomed. This is unfortunate, since a failure to find out what these pupils really think is likely to perpetuate their negative experiences of school. (Davies 2005, 300)

It is therefore quite likely that students with SEBD are less likely to experience democratic schooling in comparison to others. Nevertheless, Cooper (1993, 2006) makes the case for all young people, particularly those with SEBD, to be heard both as an issue of entitlement but also because they have very important things to say. It is especially important that students with SEBD are listened to for at least two reasons. First, teaching and learning are transactional processes and this often ignored group has both useful and challenging messages about what constitutes a relevant curriculum and effective teaching style. Second, the little research that has been done on pupils' perspectives within this group suggests they easily (and inaccurately) reproduce the dominant cultural voice that their difficulties (e.g. ADHD) are solely innate biological conditions, perhaps even beyond their easy control (e.g. Cooper and Shea 1998). Such a ‘mis‐education’ needs an arena in which it can be safely reconceptualised. This requires a shift from viewing children as the objects of education/research to partners in the process, however difficult this may be to implement (Christensen and James 2008).

Of course, it can be reasonably argued that students experiencing SEBD have expressed their voice in other ways and continue to do so. They constitute the most significant group, almost by definition, represented in the figures reporting exclusion from school (Harris et al. 2000) and their emotional and behavioural difficulties represent a frequent challenge to daily management and teaching in certain contexts. A functional analysis of the behaviour of children experiencing SEBD (e.g. Faupel 2003) would suggest that externalised behaviours form a means of communicating goals and needs to their teachers or parents/carers in the absence of the linguistic capacity to articulate their (often hidden) intentions and feelings. Researchers interested in the relationship between race, gender and/or class (from Willis 1977 to Wright, Weekes, and McGlaughlin 2000) have often employed the concept of ‘resistance’ to convey how various groups of students contest both curriculum and teaching methods they perceive as irrelevant, disaffecting and/or patronising. However, only a limited amount of research has been conducted in recent years that utilises the ideas and energy students experiencing SEBD possess to influence school culture positively through pupil participation projects.

It is also important to be realistic about what student voice projects in schools can actually achieve and the nature of the ‘voice(s)’ they represent. It could be argued that when student voice projects are planned in schools they often reproduce models from the adult world (e.g. councils, focus groups, forums, etc) and use linguistic devices with similar origins (agendas, meeting notes, minutes, actions reports) (Jones 2004). Subject to a critical eye, this is far from empowering pupils. Such initiatives could be viewed as a Trojan horse, a surreptitious means of inserting adult middle‐class values and preferred means of communication into provision catering for high numbers of disaffected students in the name of pupil empowerment. Perhaps pupils in general, but particularly those with linguistic difficulties and/or experiencing SEBD, may find such forms of communication exclusive, difficult to engage with or another stimulus for resistance.

Putting these critical concerns aside, this article reports a generally positive experience concerning one group of pupils who were given the opportunity to form a ‘Students as Researchers’ group at a special school specifically catering for children and young people experiencing SEBD. Like Hamill and Boyd (2002), given the chance, the members of this group could be extremely articulate about their experiences and raised a number of critical issues and questions pertinent to practice.

Background – the school and the project

The location for the project reported in this article was a school offering non‐residential education for up to approximately 50 boys experiencing SEBD in the Midlands of England. The school is thought to enjoy a good academic reputation. In an interview prior to the project, the headteacher was keen to position the school as ‘learning centred’, emphasising his philosophy that behaviour is a means to an end in the pursuit of learning and self‐advancement. The curriculum offered was thus viewed as its therapeutic provision. Leaving school with accredited skills and qualifications was seen by the headteacher as the best way of protecting students against the kinds of difficulties they had experienced prior to joining the school.

The school was approached to become a case study for a project funded by a small grant from the University of Nottingham. The focus of this project was to investigate the processes involved in student voice projects at provision for children with special needs. After an initial meeting, the school expressed its willingness to be involved. The likely process was explained to the headteacher and he suggested that the group focus on the review of the behaviour policy for its first brief. The same policy would be reviewed concurrently by the staff.

An assembly about the project was given by the headteacher and students invited to volunteer for the research group. The selection of participants for such a group is key as a number of issues need to be considered (Morgan 1997). Unfortunately, the writer is unable to comment precisely about how the project was originally presented and the process of recruitment as, due to a miscommunication, this happened prior to my first meeting with the group. There were six volunteers all together, aged 13–16. Given the nature of the school this actually represented approximately one seventh of the total number of registered pupils. As the participants were volunteers, the group could have included the more articulate pupils from the school. In a subsequent interview, this observation was shared by the headteacher, who was eager to add, however, that this did not necessarily correlate with the most ‘co‐operative’. Meetings were arranged to take place for 45 minutes at the beginning of Friday mornings for a small but indefinite number of weeks. Seven meetings took place in all. The headteacher's meeting room was used for each meeting, giving the project some status. Each meeting was well attended but not every member was there at every meeting due to absence or other circumstances. The researcher was the only adult present for each meeting. The names attached to the quotations below are not the real names of the members of the group.

The presence of an adult, and a stranger in this case, in any student voice ‘forum’ may limit the contributions children/young people are able to make. For this reason, Jones (2004) advocates a number of key steps that such projects should adhere to. These include clarity and transparency about the project's purpose, remit, boundaries and scope. For this purpose, a briefing meeting was organised before the project commenced to gain informed oral consent. At this opportunity, the purpose of the project was outlined in greater detail. They were told that the group would meet regularly and receive some research training to investigate the existing policies and systems for behaviour management, and that they would also be given the opportunity to consult other students and write a final report to contribute to policy review. All six volunteers gave their consent and the school sent letters to each student's parents/carers to obtain their consent also. No parents registered any objection and hence no‐one was prevented from attending the group.

An agenda was set for the first meeting and then co‐planned with the participants for all subsequent meetings. The issue of confidentiality was discussed at the beginning. It was made clear to the group that, other than disclosures of illegal behaviour and/or child protection concerns, confidentiality would be assured. It was also made clear that if circumstances arose in which confidentiality became an issue, any discussion would be halted and options thoroughly explained. No such incidents occurred.

At the first meeting, a group contract was drawn up. Each member was invited to share their views about how they would like the group to be run and how they would like each person in the group to be treated. Their suggestions included: to respect one another, secondly to talk in turns and listen attentively, and thirdly to be prepared to learn. It was interesting to note a strong homophobic tone to their discourse. After some discussion, a suggested fourth rule about ‘no gay touching’ was reframed as ‘respecting each other's personal space’.

In many respects, the sessions were run like a focus group or forum, where the participants helped set the agenda/questions (Morgan 1997). This allowed pupils not only to share their views but to respond to other people's contributions as well. This raises a number of issues concerning group dynamics. Research by Wright (1994) discovered that boys interviewed about their attitudes to sex were more overtly ‘macho’ when interviewed in groups than when interviewed individually. It is difficult to know whether such a dynamic affected this group, as a ‘control’ was neither possible nor desirable. Additionally, the research on dynamics during group interviews is somewhat limited and contradictory. Morgan (1997) reports other cases where group dynamics lead to inhibited comments, for example. Nonetheless it is important to reflect on dynamics during the process as this can clearly have an impact on the type of data collected.

Each meeting of the student research group reported in this article went smoothly and the group was reasonably cohesive. The group appeared to bond well, which helped proceedings. It is important to note that although I acted as the researcher/facilitator in this case, I also have a background of working with children experiencing SEBD. This is relevant because the research group would normally be educated in classes no larger than six, with two adults in the room. Hence, this previous experience was valuable in terms of managing group dynamics as well as reassuring the headteacher prior to the project commencing.

Warren (2000) asserts that it is important for the participants to build their own identity as researchers in such projects. I was therefore keen to position myself in the role of facilitator and not as a manager of their behaviour. Morgan (1997) advocates the researcher's role in a focus group type approach is not to interview the participants but to help the discussion along. To this end, the researcher used his role to encourage equity of contributions and provide an active listening service, reflecting back what was said in a distilled form for them to refute/accept and/or comment on further. However, there were two occasions in six meetings when arguments erupted. On one occasion the students arrived already aggravated by an incident that had happened previously and two members continued to argue throughout the beginning of the meeting. This was handled by reminding them of the group task at hand, the group contract and the choices they had available to them. Given this choice, they opted to return to their separate classrooms as neither reported being in the mood for the meeting. Given the circumstances, this seemed to be a quite mature means of dealing with the situation. On a second occasion, an argument about personal space occurred during the middle of a meeting and two of the students started insulting each other. Again, they were reminded of the task and contract and on this occasion chose to refocus their attention without reprisal, which was successful.

The sessions thus proceeded with two initial aims: to explore the student research group's own perspectives on the behaviour management policy; and to then research the perspectives of other students, informed by questions and themes they would identify themselves. Hence, the project started by drawing a group contract and then examining their own experience. They then began to think about questions to ask other pupils and received some training in interview techniques. Unfortunately, for reasons to be discussed after the analysis, they did not get the opportunity to do this. However, the group did meet to write up and review their identified themes for a final report, which was shared with the staff at the school.

Analysis

Each meeting was fully transcribed from a digital recording. The writer also kept a reflective journal, updated after each meeting. This was very informative as the journal included entries about group dynamics, the atmosphere of the school when the researcher arrived and any other extenuating circumstances that may have been affecting the group on any given day, none of which are easily decipherable from transcriptions.

France, Bendelow, and Williams (2000) and Roberts (2008) highlight the important of adopting a grounded theory approach to both the process and analysis of data collected with children/young people about their perceptions. After all, such a method is best chosen for data collection procedures that acknowledge expertise on this particular topic resides with the participants and the researcher may not be able to easily anticipate their comments or the direction in which discussion may lead.

Both the journal entries and transcriptions were read to identify themes. This was actually quite straightforward as a number of themes (e.g. comments about the use of restraint) were very dominant. However, the data were also read carefully to identify factors important to the analysis of focus group type research, such as minority opinions, subtexts, jokes, put downs and so on (Kitzinger 1995). The purpose of this project was not to generate reams of data for coding and comparison, but to elucidate on process and empower pupils at this particular school to inform a policy. Hence the best form of interpretation/analysis, and that most consistent with the philosophy underpinning student voice projects, is to engage the help of the participants with this task (Morgan 1997). The beginning of each session commenced with a review of my notes from the previous meeting, a process which was repeated for the content and wording of the final report. Here follows a presentation of the themes identified from this analysis. These themes were re‐represented back to the group for further scrutiny as part of the process of writing the final report together. Subject to some minor alterations and additions, they fully endorsed the selection of themes and supporting data presented forthwith.

Findings

Positive regard for the school

There is a tendency in focus group type enquiry to concentrate on the negative or problematic (Morgan 1997). Although a significant proportion of the time spent during discussion was spent on aspects of schooling that were perceived to be problematic, the students were also keen to stress the positive aspects of their school. This is consistent with the research undertaken by Polat and Farrell (2002) and Jahnukainen (2001), who also report positive regard for school/education amongst similar participants. In this case, the student research group reported feeling valued. Like a large number of children and young people in specialist SEBD provision, these students had experienced permanent exclusion from two or more previous settings. These students particularly welcomed the structure, regularity and consistency the provision brought to their lives. They felt that the more favourable staff–student ratios and activities in place offered some order in their lives, conceding that otherwise life would be less interesting and perhaps less fun also. In fact, one student reported that if he did not attend school he would spend the day, at best, in bed, at worst, engaged in activities that may get him into trouble.

Restraint

If it wasn't people restraining, the school wouldn't be here…It'd be smashed up and everything, there'd be people in hospital. (Robert)

I think a lot of teachers prefer not to use physical intervention but I think there's some of them that really can't cope without…. (Paul)

I would make a comment about some teachers were inappropriate with their use of restraints. That is extremely true…sometimes they go overboard. I have had one time when I was being restrained and they were shouting at me, screaming at me and started tightening up the restraint even when I was shouting cos I was hurting. That's why I felt that they sometimes go overboard with their restraints. (Simon)

The issue most commonly discussed by the students was physical restraint, which was regarded as an inseparable issue from the behaviour management policy. The issue accounted for approximately half of their discussions. At the time of review, the school had two separate policies, one concerning behaviour management and another concerning the use of physical interventions, although there were some clear links between the two. The message from the students here was very clear; such matters are interconnected and there is a need for a more joined up approach.

As the quotations elucidate, the students were extremely candid in their analysis of the use of physical interventions in school. However, their discussion started with an acceptance of the need for such an approach, given the context (Robert's quotation for example). In this sense, the students were quite pragmatic in exploring the issues. The students conceded that the use of physical interventions was sometimes warranted in order to protect individuals (both students and staff members) from harm and also to protect the school building and environment. There is some consistency here with the views of these students and those interviewed for a report by Morgan (2004) on the same topic. The report suggested that students in SEBD provision and children's homes were accepting of the ‘need’ for restraint but more concerned that it was done safely, fairly and by trained adults.

The writer notes that when legitimating the use of restraint, the students clearly objectified and problematised the issues in a manner that was slightly detached. They would use derogative terms to describe the school and other students in elements of this discussion, referring to the school as a mad house or other terms identifying a boundary between this provision and other ‘normal’ forms of provision. In doing so they recognised the need for extreme approaches to make things work. It was apparent that students had reproduced a discourse, now deeply entrenched, that they and others were so different that certain interventions were considered normal. (See Cooper and Shea 1998 for similar ‘internalising’ accounts.)

The students' acceptance of the right to restrain is reminiscent of the observations of Davie and Galloway (1996) and Daniels et al. (2003) that referrals, exclusions and other disciplinary actions are perceived by young people as the exercise of adult power over them. Like Morgan (2004), the major concern of this student research group was that power was used consistently and appropriately by adults. They felt that restraint was sometimes used inappropriately and that guidance in place to protect both students and staff members was not always followed. By this they meant that restraint was used too readily and there was not always an extra member of staff there to oversee any intervention when there should have been. They also thought that restraint was used inconsistently. Some teachers were much more dependent on the use of restraint than others as a management strategy, suggesting that others were also much more successful in managing risk and employing de‐escalation strategies so that restraint was only used as a last resort. This was clearly an issue for staff training and professional development across the school.

They were also particularly critical of the language used either side of a physical intervention, and in some cases they also felt this was inappropriate. They felt that prior to an intervention, some teachers used antagonistic language and there was far greater need for a consistent approach to volatile incidents that used the language of de‐escalation. Similarly, they felt there was inconsistent opportunity to reflect post‐incident and repair and restore potentially damaged relationships. This raises an issue of training here. There are several providers of restraint training and these vary in the emphasis placed on prevention and follow up. The approach used by this school perhaps neglected this aspect, whereas other training providers may place a greater emphasis on such matters.

The use of scripts by some training providers would be helpful to this school so that non‐confrontational language is consistently employed pre‐ and post‐intervention. The predictability of such language also helps students know where they stand. Scripts also help professionals record and report what was said to a student during an incident, safeguarding all parties.

Rewards

Yeah, pretty much. The detention and the catch up's always the same, you don't do a lesson or you don't work in a lesson you either catch up or then you get detention… (Paul)

I don't like it cos it's just a way the teacher can start on you. For instance Mr Wright was marking me for a lesson, he counted my points, he deliberately found out how many I needed to make it, not for me for Jayden cos he hates Jayden, found out how many he needed to make it and made it so it added up to 99! [i.e. one short of the threshold for a reward]. (Dean)

And it also could affect the points as well cos if the teacher has a bad relationship with the student, therefore they pick on anything they say… (Martin)

The students were asked to review the behaviour policy and discuss the use of rewards to promote good behaviour throughout the school. Such focus was not easy to achieve as, at least initially, the students were more eager to discuss restraint. Nonetheless, when the topic was discussed they reported that the system was clear and understood by all students. They were able to accurately report the details of two systems in place. One system existed to ensure students caught up on any work they had missed for whatever reason. Another system existed to sanction any transgressions. A ‘token economy’ existed where enough points had to be earned to enjoy a period of reward (structured play) at the end of the day. The students knew which behaviours were expected of them in relation to these sanctions and incentives. This is clearly important when trying to implement such a behaviourist system (Freiberg 1999), as reliability and consistency are important for such a system to work effectively.

The students acknowledged that the system was superficially effective and motivating (i.e. most students behaved as deemed appropriate most of the time) but it was also the source of major irritation. In fact, they didn't like the system but couldn't think of any alternatives. They were resigned to its existence and suggestions were focused on changes of reward or other similar minor alterations.

The use of such systems is acknowledged in the literature as being successful (e.g. Roderick, Pitchford, and Miller 1997) for providing a consistent, easy to administer system that provides highly situated short‐term impact. Such systems are also critiqued for the same reasons. They can be inflexible, even if circumstances warrant, and engender extrinsic motivation. This sometimes leads to reward fatigue and can be counter‐productive if rewards are not inflated. The students reported some difficulty with the rewards offered by the school; they were only motivating in terms of what they substituted (classroom‐based work), not what they actually offered. Faupel (2003) is even more critical, suggesting they are ‘anti‐educational’ – they teach students a fundamental lie: good things will happen to you if you commit good deeds. In his view, this is often not the reality. The system in place may be effective in encouraging highly contextualised behaviour conducive to learning at this school but is unlikely to teach transferable behaviours that students reapply in their spare time or future life.

The student research group once again raised the issue of consistency and this proved to be a catalyst for discussion. As Martin's comment illustrates, they felt that the system was not fairly implemented by all staff. In fact, they suggested that a judgement would be made about an individual student's day before the allocation of points rather than making a judgement about the day based on points accumulated against the targets they had been set. They also suggested that such a system, indeed any system, could be affected by the quality of the relationship(s) between staff and students. Systems and routines should indeed be predictable but, more importantly, they need to be underpinned by warm and trusting relationships (MacGrath 1998; Webster‐Stratton 1999). This proved to be a major theme and will be discussed in more detail in the next section.

Relationships

Its doesn't really matter what's used, if things are not good between the teacher and that person, it can be abused…its the relationship that really matters…. (Robert)

The main conclusion of the group was outstandingly philosophical. They argued that both the systems of reward and ultimately restraint were underpinned by the quality of relationships. This is in contrast to the staff review of policy occurring at the same time, which only indicated the need for minor grammatical changes. Such contrasting analyses underline the value of student voice projects in SEBD contexts, no matter how problematic to undertake.

The students' key point was that it does not matter what ‘tool’ (their word) a teacher has at their disposal (reward, sanction, restraint), if the relationship is poor this tool can be misused. Hence, it was less important to modify the reward system/behaviour policy and much more important to address the issue of relationships. These findings are consistent with the few studies done in this area (e.g., Garner 1993; Harris et al. 2006; Jahnukainen 2001; Pear 1997; Pear and Garner 1996; Pomeroy 2000; Wise 1999, 2000 as well as some earlier studies, e.g., Willis 1977), which highlight the importance pupils place on relationships as factors in their engagement with school and its curriculum. The views expressed in these studies refer to dissatisfaction with large schools and class sizes, and this was also the case here. Like these studies, the student research group's attitude was not anti‐educational or even anti‐discipline. In fact, they request clarity, consistency, inclusivity and good quality relationships. Such are common findings from mainstream projects and resonate with policy and professional development agendas (Cooper 2006; Davies 2005).

There were three aspects to the student research group's perceptions/comments on relationships at their school. The first was that despite their general positive regard for their school, there was some mistrust of the teachers. They felt that the teachers' relationships with each other were more important than their relationships with their pupils. In fact, they anticipated that if a problem occurred, teachers would be more likely to stick together rather than support a student.

Secondly, they felt that most relationships between teachers and students were fine or better most of the time. However, they were aware of poor relationships between a small number of students and their teachers. As previously discussed, they felt that teachers could implement systems inconsistently as a result of their relationships.

Thirdly, they suggested that some students experienced greater voice/power when they exhibited more challenging behaviour. Students who followed the systems in place were more likely to raise expectations and have to produce a higher standard of behaviour to enjoy the same reward. Despite their co‐operation with these systems, they felt they had less power to influence school affairs. They suggested those pupils who were directly challenging enjoyed lower expectations and thus disproportionate rewards for their behaviour. The student research group also felt that these pupils were more likely to enforce readjustment of boundaries, rules and routines almost by intimidation, although this perspective was challenged by the headteacher in a subsequent interview. The pupils equated ‘voice’ with physical power rather than articulation.

Perhaps issues of power raised by the participants should not be surprising. Jones (2004) positions the method of involving children/young people as researchers within a political and social context, a method which is inherently challenging both to the systems that organise, classify and often marginalise individuals, and the traditional‐scientific paradigm that positions children as objects of research. Given the context of this project, it is also not surprising that power was equated with physicality. Pupils in SEBD provision may have learned in the past that overt challenging behaviour results in the power to distract or subvert a classroom environment but ultimately leads to rejection and exclusion by adults. In an attempt to include/contain a whole group of students with challenging behaviour, this school, like much SEBD provision, implements a tight, authoritarian and when needed physical system to control pupils' actions. It is interesting to note that the pupils' comments observe the reproduction of a hierarchy amongst students that also existed across the school. This hierarchy was, by the headteacher's own admission, somewhat encouraged by staff; positioning himself at the top, then teachers, then older students and finally new students. In such a context, it is not surprising that the view that empowerment is commensurate with the legitimacy and ability to physically overpower another was entrenched.

Other themes

When reporting data of the nature gathered in this project, researchers are urged to be sensitive to other themes: minority views, group dynamics and meaning communicated via jokes (Kitzinger 1995; Morgan 1997). In order to be fair to the students, the writer should also disclose the only other issue to be discussed by the group: school dinners. This was introduced as a theme in one session only and was suggested by one group member only. The researcher's own interpretation of this suggestion was that it was an attempt by this particular student to subvert the agenda and enjoy some attention from the rest of the group. The issue was suggested rather flippantly but the contributor stood his ground and kept the item on the agenda for a while. His point was that the drive for healthy school dinners had made the lunchtime menu less appetising. Hence, students were choosing to eat less, were consequently hungrier in the afternoon and therefore more likely to be less well behaved. This is of course an interesting observation, in which there may well be some validity. However, his view was not widely shared by the others and was not discussed again.

Sexualisation of the word ‘relationship(s)’ also occurred a few times and was a source of some joviality. At the mention of the word ‘relationship’ during discussion, it was necessary to clarify that the relationships being discussed referred to professional relationships between teachers and either each other or students, and/or dynamics between students. Once initial joking had subsided the students used the word themselves with some frequency.

Issues

The process as a whole did not always run smoothly and there were a few issues that warrant brief discussion. As previously discussed, the students involved in this research group were volunteers. They were articulate and keen to be involved. Despite the data reported here, they were very positive about the school. Like many such projects undertaken at mainstream schools (Flutter and Rudduck 2004), it seems apparent that the students who selected themselves for this project would have come from the most literate, mature and pro‐democratic section of the school community. One could then pose the question, ‘whose voice’ are we actually listening to? If such projects only recruit those most engaged with the process of schooling it will certainly skew the type of data collected. The reproduction of tools from the adult world (agendas, minutes, action points, reports, etc.) can only further skew this effect and may even exclude or deter those voices that should be the most listened to (i.e. the extremely disaffected). Clearly, to obtain more authentic perspectives about school life, such projects need to engage a broader cross‐section of the community and include data collection techniques that are more inclusive (Thomson 2008). The data reported here have to be seen in light of these limitations.

Both the researcher as facilitator and the student group were aware, however, of the need to consult pupils from outside of the group to inform the group's final report. The students were very keen to examine their own perceptions against those of others to see if their observations were replicated across the school. To this end, we planned a phase into the project where the research group would interview other pupils. They chose this approach rather than using a questionnaire to gain greater depth of data but also because it might be more fun. There was also the added advantage that it may have required longer outside the classroom to collect such data. To support them with this phase of the project, we dedicated one of the sessions to practising interview skills, including scripts for obtaining consent and ensuring confidentiality (and what to do if a topic was introduced that compromised their ability to ensure confidentiality). Another session had previously been dedicated to writing questions to ask other students and they were given some support as to how to ask open‐ended questions.

Unfortunately, this phase of the project did not take place. There was a long gap between the penultimate and last meeting, which resulted in a loss of momentum. This gap was caused by communication problems with the school that were attributed by the school to the school entering a difficult term. A number of issues had arisen resulting in a period of crisis management and such projects were temporarily put on hold. Being privy to the actual events, which are inappropriate to report here, this seems a fair appraisal. However, during earlier visits, the writer was aware of some resistance to the project from staff members. Teachers appeared to be concerned about the time students were spending outside the class and how long the whole project was taking. Whereas this probably was not sufficient to thwart the project, it meant that the project was certainly not perceived as a priority.

The writer was initially concerned that the abandonment of this phase of the project would have had a motivational impact upon the group. He therefore asked them how they felt about this during our last meeting. They reported that although they had been disappointed not to finish the project properly, in reality they had not noticed the lack of contact and felt there had been little or no impact upon them. Two students from the group had encountered some difficulties at school during this period but again they felt these were unrelated to the sudden halt of our meetings. Nonetheless, such issues highlight the need to thoroughly prepare such projects and to ensure that staff awareness, clarity of communication and commitment to the project are incorporated into the process.

It is also worth bearing in mind that the data reported here are perceptual and such a project in a school needs to know how to handle and interpret such information. For example, if students perceive inconsistent practice, this is important feedback but it does not necessarily mean that inconsistency actually takes place. In this project, neither the staff nor students had an opportunity to respond to each other's views until the separate review processes had been completed. This is a difficult problem. On one hand, a forum attended by multiple stakeholders might promote discussion and alternative viewpoints to be explored. However, power enters such an arena and would surely inhibit the students' voices.

A process for sharing data and some clarity regarding what will happen as a result of any data collected needs to be included within the early stages of planning such projects (Jones 2004). In this project, the group wrote a final report for the staff. The school has communicated its intention to listen and respond to the points contained within the report but this now resides in the hands of those adults challenged directly by its content. It is pleasing to report some positive outcomes of the report in the next section, though it should be noted such action was not guaranteed by the process itself.

Outcomes and conclusions

Alderson (2008) and Cooper (2006) warn that the process of consulting students, or empowering them to undertake their own research, may yield surprising, challenging and even contradictory findings. Nonetheless, Cooper (2006) states that such processes need to be prepared for unanticipated (and sometimes unwanted) messages. However, such projects need to be realistically framed and planned (Mitra 2008) so that they have a genuine opportunity to have an impact. Unfortunately, this is often neglected from planning (Alderson 2008), resulting in either outcomes that are difficult to implement or the prospect of seriously harming morale.

Regarding the case reported in this article, the project was seen as both challenging and worthwhile by students and teachers. Despite a number of shortcomings already discussed, the project resulted in a final report that was thoughtful and useful to the process of policy review at the school. In fact, it was far more illuminating than the comparable process undertaken by the staff. The school has committed itself to incorporate the key points from the report into the school improvement plan for the following academic year and its relevant policies. Perhaps most importantly, given the students' own concerns, the school plans to review and revise its immediate staff training priorities in light of the urgent and critical comments about the use of restraint. Credit should then be given to the school for both its initial willingness to listen and furthermore for its commitment to act upon the findings of the students' report.

Clearly as a single case study, and one with mixed success, it is difficult to generalise from these data (Morgan 1997). Whereas many of these findings and the issues raised will be relevant to many schools/services, this is not the main point. The key point to take from this study is that students who perhaps would not normally be given the opportunity to engage in pupil empowerment and student voice projects have demonstrated their capability to engage with such processes, and when asked have extremely important messages. Given that the environments in which pupils experiencing SEBD are educated often employ physical interventions, there is a clear ethical basis for making such consultation standard practice. In doing so, schools need to be prepared for feedback that may often be difficult to implement as well as challenging to hear. Such feedback may well raise critical questions to which schools should respond. The feedback may also contain simple messages and timely reminders, with notable similarity to Visser's (2005) ‘eternal verities’, in this case the need for high quality relationships combined with consistent and positive communication at the heart of SEBD provision.

Acknowledgements

Thanks to Belinda Harris and Frances Toynbee for reading and commenting on earlier drafts of this article.