Challenging behavior at students is highly correlated to increased rates of poor school achievement and school dropout throughout the Western world. These youth are at high risk of later unemployment, social problems, criminality and to the development of psychiatric diagnoses (Baker, Grant, & Morlock, 2008; Barriga et al., 2002; Ek, Westerlund, & Furmark, C. & Fernell, E., 2012; Greene, Ablon, & Goring, 2003; O'Connor, Dearing, & Collins, 2011). Schools fail to teach these students all over Europe, a fact that strongly contributes to extended demands for exclusive solutions in education (Lindqvist & Nilholm, 2011).

Two contradictive ways to understand challenging behavior (often referred to as “behavior problems” or behavior disorders) are commonly seen; within a medical, or categorical, perspective challenging behavior is perceived as caused by “in-child-reasons”, and in family-oriented perspectives challenging behavior instead has been associated with weak training or other within-family problems. In both paradigms schools may regard the problem as external, as something they can´t influence and something exterior of school responsibility (Greene, 2011).

In an emerging third perspective, an “ecological special educational perspective”, researchers and educators include the whole system of individual-school-family, and its interaction with the social and cultural environments to which it belongs, in their analyses of student´s challenging behavior (Conroy, Sutherland, Haydon, Stormont, & Harmon, 2009; Farrell, Dyson, Polat, Hutcheson, & Gallannaugh, 2007) . All the interactions, relations and expectations (social as well as curricular) that our students meet at school are highly relevant factors of concern for the understanding of students behavior trajectories, alongside with knowledge of individual characteristics and the varieties in family resources (O'Connor et al., 2011).

Allover Europe there’s a lack of evaluated interventions towards schools´ work with challenging behaviors in educational practice and there is an extended research asking for models that extend abilities at schools to teach all students, and that such models must incorporate an inclusive perspective (Ainscow, Dyson, Goldrick & West, 2012; Giota, Lundborg, & Emanuelsson, 2009; Ruijs, Van, & Peetsma, 2010).

In the present ongoing Swedish school development project one model to approach challenging behavior, at teacher-team level, that combines knowledge about compensation of individual special needs and disabilities (the categorical perspective) with a systemic and relational set of interventions is performed in inclusive school settings and evaluated.

The research questions, framed within a mixed design, concern to one part qualitative aspects of the school development process; the development process in the participating teacher-teams, and the teachers´ and students´ appreciations of the implemented collaborative teacher-student talks (see below) are explored. Another area of interest is whether the students who belong to the participating teacher-teams benefit from the ongoing school development work, in measurable ways? (quantitative aspect)

Ainscow, M., Dyson, A., Goldrick, S., & West, M. (2012). Making schools effective for all: Rethinking the task. School Leadership & Management, 32(3), 197-213. Baker, J. A., Grant, S., & Morlock, L. (2008). The teacher-student relationship as a developmental context for children with internalizing or externalizing behavior problems. School Psychology Quarterly, 23(1), 3-15. Brannick, T & Coghlan, D. (2005). Doing Action Research in Your Own Organization.(2nd Edition). London/Thousands Oaks/New Dehli. SAGE Publications. Conroy, M., Sutherland, K., Haydon, T., Stormont, M., & Harmon, J. (2009). Preventing and ameliorating young children's chronic problem behaviors: An ecological classroom-based approach. Psychology in the Schools, 46(1), 3-17. Ek, U., Westerlund, J., & Furmark, C. & Fernell, E. (2012). An audit of teenagers who had not succeeded in elementary school: A retrospective case review. Dovepress, 4, 1-7. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/CA.S29535 Farrell, P., Dyson, A., Polat, F., Hutcheson, G., & Gallannaugh, F. (2007). SEN Inclusion and Pupil Achievement in English schools. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 7(3), 172-178. Giota, J. (2006). Why am I in school? relationships between adolescents' goal orientation, academic achievement and self-evaluation. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 50(4), 441-461. Giota, J., Lundborg, O., & Emanuelsson, I. (2009). Special education in comprehensive schools: Extent, forms and effects. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 53(6), 557-578. Greene, R. W. (2011). Collaborative problem solving can transform school discipline. Kappanmagazine.Org., 93(2), 20120331. Greene, R. W., Ablon, J. S., & Goring, J. C. (2003). A transactional model of oppositional behavior: Underpinnings of the collaborative problem solving approach. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 55(1), 67. doi:10.1016/S0022-3999(02)00585-8 Hughes, J. N. (2011). Longitudinal effects of teacher and student perceptions of teacher-student relationship qualities on academic adjustment. Elementary School Journal, 112(1), 38-60. O'Connor, E. E., Dearing, E., & Collins, B. A. (2011). Teacher-child relationship and behavior problem trajectories in elementary school. American Educational Research Journal, 48(1), 120-162. Ruijs, N. M., Van, d. V., & Peetsma, T. T. D. (2010). Inclusive education and students without special educational needs. Educational Research, 52(4), 351-390.