This paper analyses the main results of a research project funded by the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness with the objective of accompanying schools in the development of improvement and participation processes focused on increasing inclusion, the participation of children and equity in school practices. The project is entitled “Innovation Networks for Educational and Social Inclusion. Co-laboratory of Inclusive Participation” (Dir. Teresa Susinos. Ref. EDU2015-68617-C4-4-R). Specifically, the aim of our work is to improve decision-making on curricular design and development in a state funded school in which students from one early childhood class (2 year olds) and two primary education classes (Year 6) participated. In the specialised literature we have identified recurrent experiences that seek to increase the role of students in the management and organisation of aspects such as playground spaces, the improvement of infrastructures, coexistence, etc. However, the school curriculum has been a highly forgotten aspect and therefore presents a challenge to be faced in the future.

Taking inspiration from the UNCRC (1989) as a tool that allows the rights of children to be defended worldwide (Coppock & Gillett-Swan, 2016), this research seeks to implement some of the rights of children, especially those linked to the right to education (Art.28 and 29) and the recognition of their right to express their opinion and for this to be taken into account in issues that affect them (Art.12). In the experiences that we present, the students have assumed the role of co-researchers in processes of curriculum reconstruction that allow this group to make decisions about their own learning (methodologies, organisation and the selection of contents, classroom activities, ways of evaluating, etc.) (Susinos & Ceballos, 2012; Thomson, Hall & Jones, 2012).

On the other hand, in line with the recommendation contained in the document “Final Observations of the Committee on the Rights of the Child” (2018), in which Spain is invited to continue working on the configuration of a system of inclusive education, we highlight the value of our research, given that within it decisions are made which aim for all students, without exception, to have a presence, participate and benefit from the experience (Slee, 2011; Thomson & Hall, 2015).

The nature of school as a social institution is changing and requires to be reinvented from the perspective of inclusive and democratic education. Thus, this project is based on the critical perspective of the student voice, it seeks to ensure their right to participate and influence what is real and common, thereby reaching higher levels of agency (Arnot & Reay, 2006; Susinos, Haya & Ceballos, 2015; Ceballos, Susinos & Saiz, 2016; Mitra, 2018). Ultimately, this research aims to promote a democratic culture (Fielding & Moss, 2011).

Taking this conceptual framework as a reference, we have considered the following research questions: 

• What consultation and deliberation strategies can we carry out so that all students see their presence, visibility and agency increased in decision-making processes relating to the curriculum?
• What can we learn about how they like to learn and what contents they identify as more interesting from the voice of children? What are the main proposals that students make about their learning?
• What are the key organisational aspects in the reconfiguration of the school curriculum as a space for democracy and student decision-making? 

The research is framed in the inclusive-qualitative research paradigm(Nind, 2014) which promotes participatory and emancipatory processes that allow a research to be carried out “with” children not “on” them(Bucknall, 2012; Groundwater-Smith, Dockett, & Bottrell, 2015). We used research strategies that seek to increase the presence, visibility and agency of students: images as a source of elicitation(Mannay, 2015); (video)observation by teachers(Clark & Moss, 2011); informal conversations with children(Blaisdell, Arnott, Wall & Robinson, 2018); the use of objects as eliciting resources. In addition, we used participant observation and semi-structured interviews(Flick, 2017) with teachers as techniques to enable us to document the impact of the research. The experiences share the same phases that constitute the research participation cycle: • Consultation and deliberation process. This is defined by access to the ideas by students on their own learning. In early childhood classroom the consultation question was what activity do you like the most? The teacher maintained an informal conversation with each child supported by images of the different activities that were usually carried out. The students’ preferences are: motor activities, to experiment with sound and activities that allowed the manipulation of materials. In primary education the students were consulted about the topic they wanted to investigate. In groups of 4 people, each group decided which topic they wanted to investigate and, therefore, what type of methodological strategies needed to learn about it. • Development of the proposal emerging from the student voice. In early childhood classroom, the students’ proposals materialised in: a story involving movement, a table for sound experimentation with musical instruments, sound objects created ad hoc and resources whose manipulation produced different effects. In the case of the primary classes, each work group selected a research topic around which they had to develop their own research activities(produce questionnaires, carry out interviews, review documents, analyse data, etc.). Once the entire research process on the chosen subject had been carried out, each group prepared a report which was shown to the rest of the classes in a dissemination session. • Evaluation of the proposal. In the case of students the evaluation consisted of an informal conversation based around the following questions: What did I like the most? How did I feel?(early childhood classroom); and a self-video in primary education(a camera was placed in a space without the presence of adults in which students evaluated the whole process). A semi-structured interview was used for teachers.

• The analysis of the consultation and deliberation strategies was carried out with a commitment to listening to the voice of all students. The importance of the consultation question as an eliciting resource and the value of open questions are vindicated since they allow students to respond without adult interference. The relevance of images as a support for those students whose oral language is less developed (especially in early childhood classroom). The proposal of individual consultation spaces prior to collective deliberation present exceptional opportunities for listening to all students. The role of the adult as a mediator based on a commitment to non-intrusion and non-manipulation of the students’ proposals. In primary education allowing students to decide what contents should be addressed led to the radical transformation of other curricular elements such as methodological strategies, assessment processes and reconstruction of knowledge. • The decisions made by students about their own learning (methodologies, organisation and selection of contents, classroom activities, ways of evaluating, etc.). In early childhood classroom, the choice of open activities that facilitate experimentation and the manipulation of different materials as well as activities based on movement prevails. In primary education the students showed an interest in diverse subjects, some of which were linked to school problems(the scarce use of technological, the problems of coexistence, etc.), as well as other more social topics (natural disasters, marine animals or the viewing of horror films in childhood, among others). • The development of curriculum reconstruction initiatives that emerge from the student voice requires reflection around: the role of the teacher, the transition from management roles that direct the power of decision-making towards intergenerational learning positions and power sharing in decision-making processes; making academic time and space more flexible; the reorganisation of educational supports so that all students can participate.

Blaisdell, C., Arnott, L., Wall, K., & Robinson, C. (2018). Look Who’s Talking: Using creative, playful arts-based methods in research with young children. Journal of Early Childhood Research. in press Coppock. V. & Gillett-Swan, J. (2016). Introduction. In J. Gillett-Swan, & V. Coppock. (Eds). Children’s Rights, Educational Research and the UNCRC: past, present and future (pp. 7-16). Oxford: Symposium Books. Arnot, M. & Reay, D. (2007). A Sociology of Pedagogic Voice: Power, inequality and pupil consultation. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 28(3). 311-325. Bucknall, S. (2012). Children as researchers in primary schools: Choice, voice, and participation. London: Routledge. Clark, A. & Moss, P. (2011). Listening to young children: The mosaic approach. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers. Fielding, M., & Moss, P. (2011). Radical education and the common school: A democratic alternative. UK: Routledge. Flick, U. (2017). The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Data Collection. Londres: SAGE. Groundwater-Smith, S., Dockett, S., & Bottrell, D. (2015). Participatory research with children and young people. London: Sage. Mannay, D. (2015). Visual, narrative and creative research methods: application, reflection and ethics. UK: Routledge. Mitra, D. (2018). Student voice in secondary schools: the possibility for deeper change. Journal of Educational Administration, 1-16. Nind, M. (2014). What is Inclusive Research?. London: Bloomsbury Academic. Slee, R. (2011). The irregular school: Exclusion, schooling and inclusive education. United Kingdom: Taylor & Francis. Susinos, T. & Ceballos, N. (2012). Voz del alumnado y presencia participativa en la vida escolar. Apuntes para una cartografía de la voz del alumnado en la mejora educativa. Revista de educación, 359, 24-44. Susinos, T., Haya, I. & Ceballos, N. (2015). The power of student participation for promoting inclusive school ethos. A Spanish experience. In C. Gemma & V. Grion (Ed.) Student Voice. Pratiche di partecipazione degli studenti e nuove implicazioni educative (pp. 131-143). Barletta: Cafagna Editore. Ceballos, N., Susinos, T., & Saiz, Á. (2016). How can we improve through pupil participation? An infants school experience. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 16(S1), 583-586. Thomson, P., Hall, C. & Jones, K. (2012). Creativity and cross-curriculum strategies in England: Tales of doing, forgetting and not knowing. International Journal of Educational Research, 55, 6-15 Thomson, P. y Hall, C. (2015). ‘Everyone can imagine their own Gellert’: the democratic artist and ‘inclusion’in primary and nursery classrooms. Education, 43(4), 420-432. UNICEF (1989). Convention on the Rights of the Child.