The United Nation’s Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) (see Taylor 2000), ratified by most European governments, has enshrined a number of important rights for children, the implications of which are still being debated. Children have the right to express their views on all matters affecting them (article 12) as well as to maximum participation regardless of disability (article 23) and an entitlement to discipline in schools which is administered with due respect for their human rights (article 28). Somewhat influenced by this treaty, various guidance from central governments across Europe now encourage schools to either i) consult their pupils about, or better still, ii) involve them with, organisational and pedagogic decision making. However, the challenges facing such initiatives in provision made across Europe for students experiencing emotional and/or behavioural difficulties are somewhat magnified (Davies 2005). Such provision is often founded upon published good practice advocating firm boundaries, well-organised structures and routines controlled by adults. Hence, teachers may overtly or covertly resist pupil empowerment initiatives as they are uneasy about conceding power and control to pupils (Wyness 2006). It is therefore quite likely that students with emotional and/or behavioural difficulties are less likely to experience democratic schooling, not least because such an approach requires a shift from viewing children as the objects of education/research to partners in the process (Warren 2000). This paper reports one such attempt, where one group of 6 pupils were given the opportunity to form a ‘Students as Researchers’ group at an English school that specifically caters for children and young people experiencing emotional and/or behavioural difficulties. The group met seven times for approximately an hour each time over of a period of 2-3 months. Their role involved reviewing the current behaviour management policy, for which they could consult other students at the school.

The analytical approach adopted was qualitative in nature, drawing upon methodologies from focus group and case study research with an active role for the participants (Warren 2000). The approach was also highly influenced by grounded theory (Charmaz 1995), allowing the process to stay open to the students’ perceptions and direction. Such a method was chosen as the data collection procedures sit easily with the acknowledgement that expertise on this particular topic resides with the participants. The interpretation/analysis of data and the writing of a final report also included a significant role for participants.

Findings highlight that the members of this group could by extremely articulate about their experiences and raised a number of critical issues and questions pertinent to inclusive practice. The students’ views remind professionals of the need for consistency, positive relationships and communication underpinning behaviour management strategies. They also raised a number of issues researchers can learn from when implementing similar projects in such contexts. The main point to emerge from this study was 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 (as with Jahnukainen 2001, amongst a small number of similar studies). Given that the environments in which pupils experiencing emotional and/or behavioural difficulties are educated may employ interventions not normally used in ‘mainstream’ schools, there is a clear ethical basis for a debate on making such consultation standard practice (Morgan 2004).