Voices that shape learning: A case study from Hunter’s Bar Junior School

This article has been published as part of the Rethinking Curriculum project, kindly funded by The Helen Hamlyn Trust.

Alex Beauchamp, Lead practitioner and Assistant Head at Hunter’s Bar Junior School

Hunter’s Bar Junior School (HBJS) is located in southwest Sheffield and serves a diverse community of children aged 7-11. For 15 years, our teaching staff have carefully developed a sustainable culture of research- and evidence-informed professional learning, leadership and teaching practice. Through our CPD (continuing professional development) curriculum we help teachers become reflective and evaluative practitioners, equipped to help all pupils make the best progress possible.

However, despite our evaluation cycles being functional and useful, for many years we were leaving out arguably the most valuable evidence source: the children. Through the work of Rudduck and McIntyre (2007), Flutter and Rudduck (2004) and Cook-Sather (2002), we began to see the value in using pupil interviews and posed two questions:

1. How can pupil voice help to evaluate the impact of teaching strategies and curriculum content? 
2. What insight can pupil voice give us into classroom environment, engagement and pedagogical effectiveness?

Four years ago we implemented pupil voice as a formal vehicle for evaluation, using pupil interviews. The use of ‘Learning Researchers’ – the name we’ve given to pupils who take part in the interviews – has since involved around one hundred children giving their opinions and feedback in the areas identified in our two questions.

Conducting pupil interviews is a science in itself so we carefully researched how to design appropriately pitched questions. We were influenced greatly by the work of McCallum, Hargreaves, and Gipps (2000), who highlighted how we could develop effective ways to help adults talk to and learn from younger learners, particularly the Lundy Model of Participation (2007). Using this model, we were able to gain greater insights from the children and learned how to use the interview evidence to make marginal but impactful changes in the classroom. Lundy highlights the importance of communicating in a way that aligns with the child’s developmental stage, allowing for meaningful dialogue that captures authentic reflections. This research helped us develop a meaningful and purposeful pupil voice model that we could use across the school CPD curriculum. 

In 2021, we launched the Professional Inquiry Programme. This CPD programme allows teachers to research an area of inquiry linked to meaningful pedagogical and curriculum issues in their classrooms. A major part of assessing the ongoing impact involves conducting regular pupil interviews to see what approaches and techniques are working well and how they can be improved. Learning Researchers from all year groups are given the unique opportunity to shape their learning experiences through this feedback loop. They are asked specific questions relating directly to the inquiry. The responses are then fed back to the class teacher through a coaching conversation. An example of this is from an inquiry that focussed on oracy-led retrieval practice in history, where Learning Researchers gave feedback on how to improve retrieval of key events in World War Two by using image cues on a timeline as key reminders of the events, rather than just written cues. This feedback was used formatively across the unit as a direct result, with teachers reporting higher levels of retained and recalled knowledge in their pupils.

Another job for our Learning Researchers has been in the area of curriculum development and evaluation. Sixty Learning Researchers are interviewed three times a year by 15 subject leaders giving feedback on the intent and implementation of the curriculum. This feedback has thus far focussed on what knowledge and concepts have been remembered, the awe and wonder within the subjects, and the tier three, subject-specific vocabulary. This evidence is then combined with data collected from lesson observations, teacher voice and book monitoring to build a picture of the subject in the mind of the subject leader. Feedback from subject leaders and pupils has been largely positive in all areas where pupil voice is being used. To ensure our diversification promise is enacted and in line with the work of Keddie (2015) we capture the voices of children from a diverse range of backgrounds to ensure that educational change at HBJS is rooted in equity and inclusionAn approach where a school aims to ensure that all children are educated together, with support for those who require it to access the full curriculum and contribute to and participate in all aspects of school life.

Findings and implications

As we enter our fifth year of using pupil voice as a vehicle for improvement, we can now assess the impact and utility of the approach. Through triangulation of multiple evidence sources—including teacher voice, classroom observations, learning walks, and analysis of pupil work—it has become increasingly evident that pupil voice is a crucial piece of the evidence jigsaw in school improvement.  Without pupil voice, the ‘child’ can become lost in the data and evidence that is accrued. The children also report that they feel more part of the school community when they know they can contribute to changing the way their day looks and feels in the classroom. As for the learning experiences, children can see their opinions leading to marginal improvements. Examples of success can be seen across each subject in each classroom, one such being the use of gratitude to help build a culture of kindness and consideration in Year 5 and Year 6 classrooms; another being how peers use iPads to help reflect on and improve their dance routines. Both ideas were introduced by the teachers but improved and iterated through the pupil–teacher feedback loop.

Limitations 

While pupil voice is a valuable tool for fostering engagement and agency among Key Stage 2 pupils, it also presents several limitations. 

• Due to their stage of cognitive and emotional development, pupils may struggle to fully grasp complex issues or consider long-term implications, often responding based on immediate feelings rather than critical thought. 
• Communication barriers can also limit the effectiveness of pupil voice; not all children feel confident expressing their views, and more articulate or assertive pupils may dominate, overshadowing quieter voices. 
• There is a risk of tokenism if schools seek pupil input without genuinely acting on it, which can undermine trust and authenticity. 
• Adult interpretation of children’s feedback may oversimplify or misrepresent their views. 
• Even well-expressed ideas may not always be practical to implement due to constraints such as curriculum requirements or resource limitations. 

Recommendations

The following recommendations offer practical, research-informed guidance for implementing meaningful and inclusive pupil voice practices in Key Stage 2, ensuring that children’s contributions are both valued and impactful.

• When implementing pupil voice in Key Stage 2, it is important to begin by understanding the underlying research purpose before considering the specific methods. Establishing clear principles, grounded in research, ensures a more child-centred and evidence-informed approach. 
• Authenticity is crucial; pupils need to feel their feedback leads to meaningful changes rather than token gestures. This involves selecting areas where feedback can genuinely shape decisions. 
• Inclusivity must also be prioritised, ensuring all pupils—not just the confident or articulate ones—have opportunities to contribute through varied means such as discussion, drawing, recording or writing. 
• Respect and trust are also key, with pupils needing reassurance that their views are valued, even if not every idea is actionable. 
• Closing the feedback loop through “You said… We did…” communication reinforces the impact of pupil input and encourages continued engagement.

We’ve discovered at Hunter’s Bar Junior School that when pupils have a voice, and are truly listened to, they don’t just take part, they take ownership, transforming school life from the inside out.

References

Cook-Sather A, (2002) Authorizing students’ perspectives: Toward trust, dialogue, and change in education. Educational Researcher 31(4): 3–14.

Keddie A. (2015) Student voice and diversityThe recognition of individual differences in terms of race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, socio-economic status, physical ability, religious beliefs and other differences in school reform: A case study of a school committed to the principles of social justice. International Journal of Inclusive Education. 19(5): 499–516.

Flutter J and Rudduck J (2004) Consulting Pupils: What’s in it for Schools? London: Routledge.

Lundy, L. (2007). ‘Voice’ is not enough: conceptualising Article 12 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. British Educational Research Journal, 33(6), 927–942. https://doi.org/10.1080/01411920701657033

McCallum B, Hargreaves E, and Gipps C. (2000) What Makes a Good Primary Teacher? Expert Classroom Strategies. London: Routledge. 

Rudduck J and McIntyre D, (2007) Improving Learning through Consulting Pupils. London: Routledge.