We present a case study of working with a group of students as researchers and policy makers in their school. We argue that there is much to learn about the location of gender and class within processes of inclu- sion and exclusion, specifically how student voice can reveal their experiences in ways that adults may not be able to or wish to. We acknowledge that this type of work with students is not easy, but through our experi- ence of working with students we report on how tack- ling inclusion for students needs to involve inclusion for teachers. Inclusion is a political process; it is activist and pedagogic. Key words: students as researchers, student voice. Introduction This paper will elaborate some theories about student voice. We understand this term to mean students as subjects actively involved in their own and others’ education – class- room learning, participation in school governance and active citizenship in the school and community. However, we also hesitate to use the term, as it is also used as a ‘toxic makeover’ (Gunter and Thomson, 2006) where, despite a rhetoric of agency, the reality is that students remain objects of elite adult plans, not least through how they must provide the evidence of excellent performance in the delivery of national standards. We argue for a form of student voice that is about learning through activism: negotiating a pro- ject, taking responsibility for a project, seeing it through, reporting on it, and sustaining it when all the fuss has died down. Thus, we support educational inclusion as a political practice, where students take part in making decisions about choices and strategies, neither maintaining the status quo nor bringing the whole edifice of schooling tumbling down as a result. We present a case study of students researching an aspect of school life through which they uncovered issues of gen- der and class-related bullying, and where the school took the risky step of enabling the students not only to gather, analyse and report on their data but also to use it to develop new school policies. The students, and we as researchers supporting the research project, came to see how inclusion and exclusion are deeply embedded within the everyday practice of students, very real to them but mainly off limits to adults, who either cannot penetrate that world or do not wish to. We suggest, through reporting on this case, that there have to be authentic approaches to both student (and adult) voice where important social issues that are brought into school are worked and reworked within the structures and cultures of school life, and are recognized, addressed and worked on by students and staff together. This is not easy. Speaking up We want to begin with a story of a research project that we have been involved in for the past three years. The antecedence of the project lies in the spring of 2004, when we were asked by the headteacher of a secondary (11–18) comprehensive school in the north of England to plan and undertake an evaluation of the school. The school had undergone a period of change, had come to the attention of the Innovations Unit at the DfES because of the rapid rise in student outcome indicators, and had ambitious plans for development. The school, which we call Kingswood, is located in a town in the one of the wealthiest areas in England, where affluent pare54nts tend to send their chil- dren to private schools. The 1600 strong student body is mixed, with the majority coming from comfortable middle class families, but also from a large public housing estate in the town and from a neighbouring authority. The school also has a 48-place unit for children with moderate learning difficulties where the students have access to individualized and mainstream learning opportunities. This is a successful comprehensive school where students and parents are positive about their educational experience; the school is perceived to be successful and has been ‘offi- cially’ endorsed as such by external inspections and data evidence on student outcomes. The approach taken by the headteacher and the school is not to have the curriculum automatically determined by external requirements; they see their role as professionals as constructing a curriculum based on their conceptualization of educational values and school purposes. Hence, school change is not directly framed around implementing top-down reforms but about developing learning opportunities, and while some of the language, such as choice and personalized learning, is shared with the reform agenda, what the school means by these has local features and inflections. The school has 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 301 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 40 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 501 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 91 60 © nasen 2007 Support for Learning • Volume 22 • Number 4 • 2007 181 STUDENT VOICE Learning about student voice HELEN GUNTER and PAT THOMSON