This paper explores the role of a group of 30 student researchers (age 11-14) in a secondary school in England which undertook a 2 year partnership project with Newcastle University. The aim of the project was to develop enquiry based teaching and a self assessment framework for enquiry skills. In line with the philosophy of our research centre the project aimed to be collaborative, involving teachers and students as far as possible, so that reform was being done ‘with’ them rather than ‘to’ them. The key questions for this strand of the project were: 1. What is the potential for the role of student researchers in curriculum and pedagogic reform? 2. How is this potential best understood and realised? Historically, as charted by Thomson & Gunter (2006) there have been three broad phases of student voice activity, starting with consulting pupils, progressing to pupils engaged in school self evaluation and currently to positioning students as researchers (SaRs). In this most recent phase students ultimately play a part in the implementation of change. However according to Flutter & Ruddock (2004) the uptake of SaRs in education has been slow. A wide range of benefits are claimed for student voice, for example: • Shifting the culture of institutions by developing new relationships, adjusting power and changing organisational structures (Oakes and Lipton, 2002); • The insightful perspectives provided by students in relation to their own lives; • An informed view of efforts at reform by the students such that they are very conscious of why teachers are offering different opportunities and making changes; • Students can be significant allies having a powerful effect on parental and community support (Pekrul & Levin, 2005) Fielding and Bragg (2003) detail the positive impact on students, when they act as researchers: • Developing a positive sense of self and agency; • Developing social competences and new relationships; • Reflecting on their own learning; • A chance to be active and creative. There are however two particular forms of scepticism voiced about SaRs. Firstly, as Lundy (2007) summarises, there are a number of concerns commonly raised by adults whose cooperation is needed. They show scepticism about children’s capacity to make a meaningful input into decisions and they have concerns that giving children more say will undermine authority. This can be interpreted as resistance to the process. The second body of concern relates to students being deceived and exploited through the process, which confers a legitimacy on existing power structures. As an example the phenomenon of student councils is fairly widespread but their sphere of influence is often marginal and their impact often cosmetic. Bragg (2007) raises the question of whether SAR instils new forms of obligation and responsibility on young people which will have an influence on identity. This is interpreted through the lens of Foucault’s (1991) work on governmentality which leads to the fear that the individual is being worked on to become subjects who are “capable of bearing the burdens of liberty” (Rose, 1999).

This paper uses a case study approach (Stake 1995) and accordingly has sought multiple sources of data. The methods used to gather this data has included: 1. Field notes kept by the second author who was based in the school; 2. (4) Focus group interviews with the students on their general experiences as researchers; 3. The use of Pupil View Templates a visual research method on which participants record their conceptions via speech and thought bubbles which relate to classroom scenarios; 4. Teacher interviews some which pertain to the role of the students; 5. Conference presentations by the students about the project; 6. Documents generated by the project. The analysis has been largely driven by the questions. However we have endeavoured to track changes in the role and contribution of the students as it has matured over time, as data was collected over a 2 year period

The data has confirmed some of the findings in the literature most notably that students are very conscious of why teachers are making changes. This has made the students very sympathetic to the teachers and their insights into their struggles are surprisingly detailed and sophisticated. It is also clear that some teachers have drawn considerable comfort from the support of the student researchers. There are also a range of positive outcomes for the students. In general terms they see school and their education in a very different light as they have had their eyes opened to what learning might be by the assessment framework (which is based on metacognitive knowledge and skills). Furthermore their contribution and role has changed over time as they have matured. We have learned some vital lessons. The project has proven that embarking on such change is not an event but an ongoing process. It is important that to realise the full potential that the students are seen as allies and partners in curriculum change. We see this very much in terms of the ‘framing’ rules of school (Bernstein 1996) being changed, so that relationships, language and power that govern roles are fundamentally shifted.