Children’s rights and the importance of research into school disciplinary practices

Children’s rights and the importance of research into school disciplinary practices

by | NW 25 Research on Children's Rights in Education

Childhood experiences, both at home and in school, play a fundamental role in shaping an individual’s life trajectory. Educational experts emphasize that parents and teachers significantly influence children’s well-being, with teachers playing a particularly crucial role in shaping young minds. Since children spend a substantial amount of time in schools and afterschool learning centers, understanding the dynamics within these environments is essential. Studying teachers’ behavior management strategies offers an opportunity to foster safe, nurturing, and positive learning environments for students.

According to UNICEF (2023), nearly one billion children globally, aged 2-17, experience some form of violence, including within schools. This violence encompasses both physical and emotional abuse inflicted by teachers and school staff (Scharpf et al., 2022).  Therefore, violence against children in schools is a pressing concern, as it negatively impacts children’s well-being worldwide (Durrant & Ensom, 2012; WHO, 2020). Addressing this issue requires urgent attention from policymakers, as well as the implementation of effective intervention strategies (End Violence Against Children, 2021).

The link between child maltreatment and violent discipline methods

What does it mean to discipline?

The term “discipline” often carries negative connotations. Derived from the Latin words discipulus (pupil) and disciplina (teaching), discipline refers to the imparting of knowledge or skills, often within the context of adherence to a specific code of conduct. In a typical classroom setting, students are expected to pay attention, follow the teacher’s instructions, complete their homework, and respect their peers, among other things.

Wilson (1982) argued that discipline and punishment are not synonymous. Similarly, Friedman and Friedman (1977) also clearly distinguished between corporal punishment and discipline. However, these terms are often mistaken or  misunderstood as being the same.

Child discipline is a crucial aspect of teaching and is universally recognized as essential for teaching self-control and acceptable behavior (Gershoff, 2017). Schools are similarly expected to shape the behavior of children. However, inflicting pain through physical and psychological punishments is not an acceptable form of discipline. Such practices not only violate children’s rights but also cause significant harm to their growth and development (UNICEF, 2010). While debates surrounding the use of physical and psychological disciplinary practices continue, there is a growing need for actionable policies that can be effectively implemented in schools worldwide.

Numerous studies indicate that “violent disciplinary” practices are the most common form of violence against children, perpetrated by both caregivers and teachers (Krug et al., 2002). In some cases, these practices escalate into child abuse, highlighting the connection between disciplinary methods and violence. As a result, violent child discipline is recognized as a form of child maltreatment, which not only affects the child’s well-being but also carries long-term socio-economic consequences for society (Meadows et al., 2011). Thus, child discipline practices are a critical component of any education system and are also aligned with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG): Quality Education (SDG:4) and Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions (SDG:16).

Psychological punishment – why it deserves attention

While the discussion surrounding disciplinary practices often focuses on physical punishment, psychological and verbal punishment has garnered less attention in academic literature (Ferrara et al., 2019). Although this form of discipline is pervasive, it remains underreported, unrecognized, and consequently less researched in various contexts (Bellis et al., 2023; Theoklitou et al., 2012).

Examples of harsh verbal punishment or psychologically aggressive discipline include screaming, yelling, swearing at a child, or labeling them as “stupid,” “deaf,” or “lazy.” These behaviors are intended to inflict emotional distress, either actively or passively. While such actions may sometimes be unintentional, they are typically employed in an attempt to correct or manage a child’s misbehavior. The long-term emotional and psychological consequences of these practices are far-reaching, yet they remain underexplored in many studies (Wang & Kenny, 2014; Witt et al., 2017). Child verbal abuse is even more overlooked in the school context (Bellis et al., 2023; Slep et al., 2022). It is crucial to recognize that these practices also violate children’s human rights, as defined by the UNCRC, and need focus and attention from researchers and policymakers.

Consequences of violent school disciplinary practices

The effects of violent disciplinary practices are profound and far-reaching, impacting children’s growth, development, and well-being (Abbasi et al., 2015; Durrant, 2005; Greydanus et al., 2003). Research consistently shows that children who experience violence or humiliation are more likely to develop negative character traits, engage in antisocial behaviors, and struggle academically  (Straus, 1994). The detrimental effects of such practices extend beyond childhood, manifesting in long-term consequences such as alcohol and substance abuse, low self-esteem, impaired cognitive abilities, poor self-regulation, and increased aggression (Gershoff, 2002).

Children who are frequently subjected to school violence are more vulnerable to bullying. In some tragic cases, children who endure humiliation and shaming from violent school disciplinary practices have been pushed to suicide, driven by the physical and psychological pain inflicted on them. Additionally, violence is often learned and passed down across generations, perpetuating a cycle of abuse (Holden et al., 2014; Straus & Field, 2003).

Key insights from literature

Through a literature review conducted as part of my Ph.D. research project, which included an international comparative analysis of violence against children with a focus on child discipline practices in schools, several key insights about violence against children in schools emerged:

Children’s voices are missing
There has been minimal attention given to understanding how children, as victims, perceive disciplinary practices in schools, and the extent to which violent punishment continues to be employed (Plan International, 2006). While physical abuse has declined in some regions, emotional abuse has increased and is often normalized as an alternative form of discipline (Dube et al., 2023).

 

Teacher awareness and legal compliance
Although teachers have largely moved away from corporal punishment due to legal bans, this may not be a result of increased awareness of the long-term adverse effects of corporal punishment), but rather it is more associated with the fear of legal consequences (Gershoff, 2017, Krug et al., 2002).

The role of environment in learning
Decades of research have shown that children learn from their environment, influenced by factors such as family, school, and society (Bandura & Walters, 1963; Bandura, 2005; Baumrind, 1966). Teachers, after parents, play a critical role in shaping children’s lives. Therefore, involving all these stakeholders—parents, teachers, and children—in research studies concerning child discipline is essential for a holistic understanding and the formulation of effective policies (Hegde in Beckel et al., 2024).


Need for rigorous research
Despite the severe effects of violent disciplinary practices, there is still insufficient empirical research on the methods used in school contexts (Pinheiro, 2006). Additionally, there remains a lack of open dialogue between teachers, parents, and students, and a need for more methodologically sound research (WHO, 2020). The sensitive nature of this topic continues to make it a taboo subject, further hindering comprehensive study.

Prohibiting and eliminating corporal punishment is a human rights imperative; from a human rights perspective, the suggestion that children from non-European cultures should be afforded less protection than their European counterparts is of course entirely unacceptable. No culture owns corporal punishment but all have a responsibility to disown it. 

End Violence Against Children

Working Paper, End Corporal Punishment, 2021

Reflections and Conclusion

As we reflect on this issue, several critical questions arise:

  • Are we doing enough to protect children’s rights in schools?
  • How effective has the abolition of corporal punishment been?
  • What efforts are being made to implement and enforce policies that protect children from violence at school level?
  • Are we doing enough towards evidence-based policy interventions that protect children by providing alternative classroom behavior management strategies, and a safe learning atmosphere?

To conclude, the use of corporal punishment and other violent disciplinary methods, including psychological abuse and aggressive verbal discipline, constitutes a violation of children’s rights. International human rights law emphasizes that children have a right to legal protection against corporal punishment in all contexts of their lives. Despite the widespread legal bans on corporal punishment, violence against children continues globally, regardless of a country’s development status (End Violence Against Children, 2021; UNCRC, 2006).

Protecting children from violence is a global responsibility, and more must be done to ensure that children’s rights are upheld in schools.

Key Messages

  • We need to do more to prevent violence against children in schools
  • There is a need to focus more on psychological punishments and effective implementation of alternative positive disciplinary practices in schools.
  • Providing a safe learning environment and protecting children’s rights in schools should be the priority and collective responsibility of all stakeholders.
  • Research should focus on studying all key stakeholders including children—to gain a holistic understanding of violence against children in the school context, since children are surrounded by various factors.
  • Research should be conducted globally, without being limited by the economic or arbitrary developmental status of countries because violence against children occurs across the world.
Shweta Hegde

Shweta Hegde

Martin Luther University, Halle-Wittenberg, Germany

Shweta Hegde is a PhD candidate in the Educational Psychology department at Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg.

Her research focuses on “Violence Against Children,” specifically examining child disciplinary practices in school and home contexts an international study. With decades of experience in the social sector at both national and international levels, Shweta has a deep commitment to addressing child and women’s issues. She is also a founding member of the non-profit initiative Pragyam Foundation in Bangalore, India. Her passion for education and social justice drives her research and advocacy efforts.

Other blog posts on similar topics:

References and Further Reading

Abbasi, M. A., Saeidi, M., Khademi, G., Hoseini, B. L., & Moghadam, Z. E. (2015). Child maltreatment in the worldwide: A review article. International Journal of Pediatrics, 3(1.1), 353–365.https://www.researchgate.net/publication/269988368_Child_Maltreatment_in_the_Worldwide_A_Review_Article

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.  Psychological Review, 84(2), 191-215. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1977-25733-001

Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 1-26. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.1

Bandura, A. (2005). The evolution of social cognitive theory. In K. G. Smith & M. A. Hitt (Eds.), Great minds in management (pp. 9-35). Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://d37djvu3ytnwxt.cloudfront.net/assets/courseware/v1/e57a5dfc0367fe26ee4ff80c9433e74e/asset-v1:USMx+LDT100x+2T2017_2+type@asset+block/Bandura2005.pdf 

Bandura, A., & Walters, R. H. (1963). Social learning and personality development. New York: Holt Rinehart and Winston. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1963-35030-000

Baumrind, D. (1966). Effects of authoritative parental control on child behavior. Child Development, 37(4), 887-907. https://doi.org/10.2307/1126611

Bellis, M. A., Hughes, K., Cresswell, K., & Ford, K. (2023). Comparing relationships between single types of adverse childhood experiences and health-related outcomes: A combined primary data study of eight cross-sectional surveys in England and Wales. BMJ Open, 13(4), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2023-072916

Dube, S. R., Li, E. T., Fiorini, G., Lin, C., Singh, N., Khamisa, K., McGowan, J., & Fonagy, P. (2023). Childhood verbal abuse as a child maltreatment subtype: A systematic review of the current evidence. Child Abuse & Neglect, 144,106394. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2023.106394

Durrant, J. E. (2005). Distinguishing physical punishment from physical abuse: Implications for professionals. Envision: The Manitoba Journal of Child Welfare, 4(1), 86-92.

Durrant, J., & Ensom, R. (2012). Physical punishment of children: Lessons from 20 years of research. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 184(12), 1373-1377. https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.101314

End Violence Against Children. (2021). Corporal punishment of children: Review of research on its impact and associations. September, 1-35. https://endcorporalpunishment.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Research-effects-full-working-paper-2021.pdf

Ferrara, P., Franceschini, G., Villani, A., & Corsello, G. (2019). Physical, psychological and social impact of school violence on children. Italian Journal of Pediatrics, 45(1), 1-4. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13052-019-0669-z

Gershoff, E. T. (2002). Corporal punishment by parents and associated child behaviors and experiences: A meta-analytic and theoretical review. Psychological Bulletin, 128(4), 539-579. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.128.4.539

Gershoff, E. T. (2010). More harm than good: A summary of scientific research on the intended and unintended effects of corporal punishment on children. Law and Contemporary Problems, 73(2), 31-56. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8386132/

Gershoff, E. T. (2017). School corporal punishment in global perspective: Prevalence, outcomes, and efforts at intervention. Psychology, Health & Medicine, 22, 224-239. https://doi.org/10.1080/13548506.2016.1271955

Greydanus, D. E., Pratt, H. D., Spates, C. R., Blake-Dreher, A. E., Greydanus-Gearhart, M. A., & Patel, D. R. (2003). Corporal punishment in schools: Position paper of the Society for Adolescent Medicine. Journal of Adolescent Health, 32(5), 385–393. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1054-139X(03)00042-9

Hegde, S. (2024). Violence against children: A theoretical perspective. In L. Beckel, T. Maschke & F. Stein (Eds.), BILDUNGSGERECHTIGKEIT: Transformation – Empowerment – Sustainability (pp. 267-279). Residenz Verlag.

Holden, G. W., Brown, A. S., Baldwin, A. S., & Caderao, K. C. (2014). Research findings can change attitudes about corporal punishment. Child Abuse & Neglect, 38(5), 902-908. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2013.10.013

Krug, E. G., Mercy, J. A., Dahlberg, L. L., & Zwi, A. B. (2002). The world report on violence and health. The Lancet, 360(9339), 1083-1088. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(02)11133-0

Lansford, J. E., & Deater-Deckard, K. (2012). Childrearing discipline and violence in developing countries. Child Development, 83(1), 62-75. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2011.01676.x

Meadows, P., Tunstill, J., George, A., Dhudwar, A., & Kurtz, Z. (2011). The costs and consequences of child maltreatment: Literature review for the NSPCC. National Institute of Economic and Social Research.

Morrow, V., & Singh, R. (2014). Corporal punishment in schools in Andhra Pradesh, India: Children’s and parents’ views. Young Lives. ISBN: 978-1-909403-37-6 https://www.younglives.org.uk/sites/www.younglives.org.uk/files/YL-WP123_Morrow-and-Singh_School%20Violence.pdf

Pinheiro, P. S. (2006). World report on violence against children. Geneva: United Nations.

Plan International. (2006). Impact of corporal punishment on school children: A research study. https://www.planindia.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Plan-Repo-Corporal-Punishment-compressed.pdf

Scharpf, F., Kızıltepe, R., Kirika, A., & Hecker, T. (2023). A systematic review of the prevalence and correlates of emotional violence by teachers. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 24(4), 2581-2597. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/15248380221102559

Shawar, Y. R., & Shiffman, J. (2021). A global priority: Addressing violence against children. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 99(6), 414-421. https://doi.org/10.2471/BLT.19.247874

Slep, A. M. S., Glaser, D., & Manly, J. T. (2022). Psychological maltreatment: An operationalized definition and path toward application. Child Abuse & Neglect, 134, 105882. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2022.105882

Straus, M. A., & Kantor, G. K. (1994). Corporal punishment of adolescents by parents: A risk factor in the epidemiology of depression, suicide, alcohol abuse, child abuse, and wife beating. Adolescence, 29(115), 543–561. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7832020/

Straus, M. A., & Field, C. J. (2003). Psychological Aggression by American Parents: National Data on Prevalence, Chronicity, and Severity. Journal of Marriage and Family, 65(4), 795–808. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2003.00795.x

Theoklitou, D., Kabitsis, N., & Kabitsi, A. (2012). Physical and emotional abuse of primary school children by teachers. Child Abuse & Neglect, 36(1), 64-70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2011.05.007

United Nations Children’s Fund (2010). Child disciplinary practices at home: evidence from a range of low- and middle-income countries. New York: UNICEF. https://data.unicef.org/resources/child-disciplinary-practices-at-home-evidence-from-a-range-of-low-and-middle-income-countries/

United Nations Children’s Fund. (2017). A familiar face: Violence in the lives of children and adolescents. New York: UNICEF.

United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC). (2006). General comment No. 8: The right of the child to protection from corporal punishment and other cruel or degrading forms of punishment. Committee on the Rights of the Child, 8(8), 15.

Wang, M. T., & Kenny, S. (2014). Longitudinal links between fathers’ and mothers’ harsh verbal discipline and adolescents’ conduct problems and depressive symptoms. Child Development, 85(3), 908-923. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12143

Witt, A., Brown, R. C., Plener, P. L., et al. (2017). Child maltreatment in Germany: Prevalence rates in the general population. Child & Adolescent Psychiatry & Mental Health, 11, 47. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13034-017-0185-0

World Health Organization. (2020). Global status report on preventing violence against children 2020. WHO. https://www.who.int/publications-detail-redirect/9789240004191

Children’s Rights and Crises: A Child-centred Perspective

Children’s Rights and Crises: A Child-centred Perspective

by | NW 25 Research on Children's Rights in Education

Recognising the needs of children during a crisis

Within literature, children are frequently labelled as being in ‘crisis’, a term which broadly refers to a significantly threatening and seemingly unresolvable situation [1] [2]. Children are often considered to be one of the most vulnerable social groups affected by crises due to their need for a safe and stable environment to promote healthy development [3]. They are usually disproportionately impacted during times of economic depravity [4], political conflict [5] and natural disasters [6] due to infringements placed on their rights to access education and to participate in decisions which affect their lives [7].

Despite this, understanding how children interpret adverse experiences is vastly under-researched, and their capacity for knowledge about difficult events is consistently undervalued [8]. Research has found that children often have a unique interpretation of policy which affects them, and they can feel that their voices are being disregarded within decision-making [9]. However, post-crisis interventions designed for children have been shown either to be ineffective [10] or suffer from a high drop-off rate [11] [12], reflecting the adult-centric lens through which they are developed. As such, an urgent examination of how children are being shaped by their experiences of devastation and disaster is of critical importance.

A failure to protect the participatory rights of children

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), and its near universal ratification by state parties of the United Nations (UN), has promoted developmental, survival, protection and participation rights as fundamental for children [13]. Subsequently, the UNCRC has gained recognition in education systems and curricula. However, when it comes to a crisis, the obligation of adults to uphold children’s rights to provision and protection seemingly ‘overwrites’ children’s participatory rights [7].

Fundamentally, child-centred research strives to respect the child as a person with rights and entitlement to participation [14]. This necessitates that children are placed at the centre of research about and in relation to them [15]. Reframing children as active citizens in learning from and rebuilding following a crisis event may, therefore, help them to address their experience, stimulating post-crisis growth [16].

Aims and study design

The following study aimed to investigate how children attribute meaning to the term, ‘crisis’ through their narrative discourse. Two secondary aims were; firstly, to encourage children to evaluate the support systems which may provide aid to them during a crisis; and secondly, to delineate what children perceive to be their role within crisis management.

To understand the unique perspective of children, this qualitative, exploratory study deployed semi-structured focus groups with 37 UK primary school children (aged 9-11). Data was analysed through a mixture of thematic analysis and narrative inquiry, with a particular focus on how meaning is co-constructed in children through discussing individual narratives [17].

A collaboratively constructed meaning of crisis

The study found that children demonstrated the capacity to build a collectivist understanding of crisis as a scalable and deeply personally affecting event. Specifically, children emphasised that the phenomenon of a crisis can be distinguishable based on several distinct markers. These included the number of deaths caused, the publicity an event received, its personal significance and the length of time it lasted. These factors were described to have variable and intermingling effects upon how easy a crisis was to overcome, with the most severe examples, such as war, terrorist attacks and health epidemics being characterised as resistant to recovery and something which is learned to be lived with.

Child agency within crisis management

Children demonstrated disillusionment with the authorities who they viewed as disregarding the true needs of children in times of crisis. However, these feelings did not automatically translate into a desire for more involvement within organising crisis management. Instead, children primarily sought greater inclusion within discussions about difficult events as they played out. Children often attributed their stress during a crisis as being higher and less manageable when they felt under-informed about why certain events were occurring and what impact they could realistically have in controlling them. It was assumed that adults should bear the responsibility of deciding how much to share with children with sensitive consideration of their age and emotional resilience. Overall, children perceived that information about difficult events was generally being unnecessarily and indiscriminately withheld from them to the detriment of their mental health.

Reconceptualising children as active social agents within crisis management

These findings paint the picture of children as active social beings, desperately seeking out reasons to attribute meaning to the difficult events they have experienced. Rather than protecting the ‘best interests of the child’ by perpetuating their ignorance, adults may, in fact, be eliciting unnecessary stress in children by avoiding troubling yet important conversations. In light of this research, post-crisis intervention programmes for children should create careful guidelines to direct adults on how to sensitively hold these discussions with children. The priority must be to educate in order to address misinformation and help them to anticipate potential future outcomes [18]. Doing so is likely to encourage children to feel a shared sense of responsibility with adults for tackling crises, thereby reducing stress-inducing helplessness.

Overall, this study further highlighted the need for a theoretical shift in the tradition of viewing children as objects of inquiry, towards including them as social actors with a unique perspective to adults [19]. Children are disempowered from becoming active participants in resolving crises which may reflect propagated narratives that children are unknowledgeable, vulnerable and incompetent [20]. Subsequently, policy which campaigns for child participation rights is being compromised and requires reform to better actualise children’s participatory rights.

Key Messages

• There is no clear conceptualisation of what it means to be a child ‘in crisis’, despite them often being one of the most vulnerable social groups affected.

• Current crisis response interventions appear ineffective at mitigating the damaging impacts on children.

• Children value their own inclusion within conversations regarding crises, mandated by adults in an age-appropriate manner.

• Children’s participatory rights, as cited by the UNCRC, are being compromised in times of crisis and require reform to be actualized.

Alex Bidmead

Alex Bidmead

Assistant Psychologist, Psychology of Education MSc graduate (University of Bristol)

Alex Bidmead is a Psychology of Education (MSc) graduate from the University of Bristol and is currently an Assistant Psychologist at an independent specialist school. Her professional background in residential childcare has involved cultivating safe and therapeutically supportive environments for children and young people with complex SEMH needs, utilizing principles of trauma-informed care.

Ms Bidmead’s research interests lie in evaluating the actualization of child agency and advocacy, with a focus on vulnerable children and young people. She presented her research on Children’s Rights and Crises: A Child-centered Perspective via an online portal through Edge Hill University on 7th December 2023: https://www.edgehill.ac.uk/event/childrens-rights-and-crises-a-child-centred-perspective/

Linkedin: www.linkedin.com/in/alex-bidmead-baab46a5

Other blog posts on similar topics:

References and Further Reading

[1] Boin A, Ekengren M and Rhinard M (2020) Hiding in plain sight: Conceptualizing the creeping crisis. Risk, Hazards & Crisis in Public Policy 11(2): 116-138. 

[2] MacNeil Vroomen J, Bosmans JE, van Hout HP and de Rooij SE (2013) Reviewing the definition of crisis in dementia care. BMC Geriatr 13: 10.

[3] Agrawal N and Kelley M (2020) Child Abuse in Times of Crises: Lessons Learned. Clinical Pediatric Emergency Medicine 21(3): 100801. 

[4] Lawrence JA, Dodds AE, Kaplan I and Tucci MM (2019) The Rights of Refugee Children and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Laws 8(3).

[5] Jones L (2008) Responding to the needs of children in crisis. Int Rev Psychiatry 20(3): 291-303. 

[6] Curtis T, Miller BC and Berry EH (2000) Changes in reports and incidence of child abuse following natural disasters. Child Abuse & Neglect 24(9): 1151-1162. 

[7] Harper C, Jones N and McKay A (2010) Including children in Policy responses to economic crises. Report no. Report Number|, Date. Place Published|: Institution|.

[8] Hohti R and Karlsson L (2014) Lollipop stories: Listening to children’s voices in the classroom and narrative ethnographical research. Childhood 21(4): 548-562.

[9] Perry-Hazan L and Lambrozo N (2018) Young children’s perceptions of due process in schools’ disciplinary procedures. British Educational Research Journal 44(5): 827-846.

[10] Thabet AA, Vostanis P and Karim K (2005) Group crisis intervention for children during ongoing war conflict. Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry 14(5): 262-269.

[11] Hendricks-Ferguson VL (2000) Crisis intervention strategies when caring for families of children with cancer. J Pediatr Oncol Nurs 17(1): 3-11. 

[12] Rhoades H, Rusow JA, Bond D, et al. (2018) Homelessness, Mental Health and Suicidality Among LGBTQ Youth Accessing Crisis Services. Child Psychiatry Hum Dev 49(4): 643-651.

[13] Assembly UNG (1989) Convention on the Rights of the Child. Available at: (accessed 3).

[14] Merriman B and Guerin S (2006) Using children’s drawings as data in child-centred research. The Irish journal of psychology 27(1-2): 48-57. 

[15] Toros K, Tiko A and Saia K (2013) Child-centered approach in the context of the assessment of children in need: Reflections of child protection workers in Estonia. Children and Youth Services Review 35(6): 1015-1022. 

[16] Mutch C (2011) Crisis, curriculum and citizenship. Curriculum Matters 7: 1-7.

[17]Savin-Baden M and Niekerk LV (2007) Narrative inquiry: Theory and practice. Journal of geography in higher education 31(3): 459-472.

[18] Harmey S and Moss G (2021) Learning disruption or learning loss: using evidence from unplanned closures to inform returning to school after COVID-19. Educational Review. DOI: 10.1080/00131911.2021.1966389. 1-20. 

[19] Brady L-M and Davey C (2011) NCB Guidelines for Research With Children and Young People.

[20] Oakley A (2002) Women and children first and last: Parallels and differences between children’s and women’s studies. Children’s Childhoods. Routledge, pp.19-38.

 

 

Resisting the marginalisation of children’s right to play

Resisting the marginalisation of children’s right to play

by | NW 22 Research in Higher Education, NW 25 Research on Children's Rights in Education, NW 7 Social Justice and Intercultural Education, NW 9 Assessment, Evaluation, Testing and Measurement

Why have we, as educators, accepted that play now occupies the margins of early childhood education and care? Whilst a long tradition of international research positions play as essential to early learning (Wood, 2015), tensions remain with play being foregrounded in classroom life. But can – and should – educators subvert the marginalisation of play in early childhood and care (ECEC)? It is one question that has provoked the recent scholarship on the resistance practices of educators. Dr Jo Albin-Clark and Dr Nathan Archer share their research and thoughts on the marginalisation of play in education.

Play in the current context

Over time, as researchers in ECEC, we have found that play seems to have slipped down the agenda in the push for formalised learning in countries such as England, as accountability bodies frame teaching within standards agendas that can sideline child-initiated play (Wood, 2019). Play seems to occupy a contested curriculum space (Fairchild and Kay, 2021, p. 1). Yet play is not just under erosion in school life, the pull of structured time and the chasing of high achievements reaches into family life (Sahlberg and Doyle, 2019). The result is the withholding of play from children (Murray et al., 2019).  

But play is much more than educational experiences. It is deeply associated with childhood itself. The entitlement to play is part of Article 31 of the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) (Office for the High Commissioner for Human Rights OHCHR, 1989). Significantly, the right to play is an innovative component that acts as a gateway to other rights related to health and broader development (Davey and Lundy, 2011). Even though play is strongly associated with many domains of learning and development, it is not always taken seriously and because of that the status of play has suffered (Brooker and Woodhead, 2013).

Resistance practices

Play is a matter of social justice (Souto-Manning, 2017), and, for that reason, needs policymakers and educators to protect children’s entitlement to play, including through resistance to its marginalisation. As such, a growing body of literature in early childhood education (Moss 2019; Archer and Albin Clark 2022) focuses on the multiple manifestations of these resistances by educators.  Much of this resistance scholarship takes an explicit social justice position, with reconceptualist writers having increasingly called for greater advocacy and social activism in terms of both policy and practice (e.g., Bloch et al., 2018). Research reveals how the scope and scale of this resistance and activism varies from micro resistances to collective action. Nonetheless, both small and large-scale actions can produce sites for hopeful and flourishing pedagogies that can shift from marginalisation to more active politicised resistance.  

Resistance stories

Building on this prior work, we came together as researchers with two cases from separate studies (Albin-Clark, 2018; 2022; Archer, 2020; 2021). What is common to both case studies is a shared interest in how ECEC educators make sense of their experiences and enact forms of resistance. Through the stories of two early childhood educators working in England, we identified their commitment to ‘being the right thing’ and ‘doing the right thing’, foregrounding play in their practice as a matter of social justice. As such, both educators resisted and subverted pressures, scrutiny, and colleague expectations to make play happen, and demonstrate how play is implicated with concerns of justice (Nicholson and Wisneski, 2017).

Call to arms

In conclusion, we need to further problematise the implications and risks of mobilising play (Shimpi and Nicholson, 2014). Making play happen requires a critical awareness of the relationship between rights and play agendas and the tensions involved navigating the value of play in the complexity of ECEC (Wong, 2013). Saying ‘no’ to play’s marginalisation brings teachers into a professionalism founded on resistance (Fenech et al. 2010).

 Now is the time to acknowledge and amplify resistances that promote the right to play. But for educators there are risks of being labelled a ‘disobedient’ professional (Leafgren, 2018). In promoting play, it can mean thinking carefully about how curriculum content is framed (Wood and Hedges, 2016). Moreover, children’s access to and entitlement to play is positioned as a moral imperative by both educators in our studies, which suggests how seriously the right to play is positioned (Nicholson and Wisneski, 2017; Wood, 2007). Social justice needs serious play.

 

Key Messages

  • Play has an essential role in children’s educational lives and matters to their childhood.
  • Play and educational justice are related concepts.
  • There are both implications and risks in marginalising children’s right to play.
  • The increasing formalisation of education for our youngest children needs scrutiny.
  • Making play happen in educational practice might need forms of resistance.
Dr Jo Albin-Clark

Dr Jo Albin-Clark

Senior Lecturer Early Education

Dr. Jo Albin-Clark is a senior lecturer in early education at Edge Hill University. Following a teaching career in nursery and primary schools, Jo has undertaken a number of roles in teaching, advising and research in early childhood education. She completed a doctorate at the University of Sheffield in 2019 exploring documentation practices through posthuman and feminist materialist theories in early childhood education. Her research interests include observation and documentation practices and methodological collaboration and research creation through posthuman lenses. Throughout her work, teachers’ embodied experiences of resistances to dominant discourses has been a central thread.

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6247-8363

https://research.edgehill.ac.uk/en/persons/joanne-albin-clark 

Dr Nathan Archer

Dr Nathan Archer

Researcher at Leeds Beckett University

Dr Nathan Archer is a researcher at Leeds Beckett University. Originally qualified as a Montessori teacher, Nathan has worked in practice, policy and research in early childhood education for twenty-five years. He gained a PhD from University of Sheffield in 2020 and has undertaken policy analysis with Sutton Trust, Nuffield Foundation and University of Leeds. He continues to research early childhood workforce policy, and the resistance and activism of early childhood educators. Nathan is Associate Editor of Journal of Early Childhood Research.  

 
Nathan Archer (0000-0003-4365-4349) – ORCID

Other blog posts on similar topics:

References and Further Reading

Albin-Clark, J. (2018). ‘I felt uncomfortable because I know what it can be’: The emotional geographies and implicit activisms of reflexive practices for early childhood teachers. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 21(1), 20-32. https://doi:10.1177/1463949118805126

 Albin-Clark, J.  (2022). The right to play: Are young children free to determine their own actions? https://blogs.edgehill.ac.uk/isr/the-right-to-play-are-young-children-free-to-determine-their-own-actions/

 Albin-Clark, J. & Archer, N. 2023, “Playing social justice: How do early childhood teachers enact the right to play through resistance and subversion? ” Prism: Casting new light on learning, practice and theory, 5 (2), 1-22. https://doi.org/10.24377/prism.article714

 Archer, N. (2020). Borderland narratives: Agency and activism of early childhood educators [Doctoral dissertation, University of Sheffield]. https://etheses.whiterose.ac.uk/27993/

 Archer, N.  (2021). ‘I have this subversive curriculum underneath’: Narratives of micro resistance in early childhood education. Journal of Early Childhood Research https://doi:10.1177/1476718X211059907 

 Archer, N. & Albin-Clark, J. (2022, July 20). Telling stories that need telling: A dialogue on resistance in early childhood education. FORUM for Promoting 3-19 Comprehensive Education, 64 (2) https://journals.lwbooks.co.uk/forum/vol-64-issue-2/abstract-9564/

 Bloch, M. N., Swadener, B. B., & Cannella, G. S. (Eds.). (2018). Reconceptualizing Early Childhood Education and Care-a Reader: Critical Questions, New Imaginaries & Social Activism. Oxford: Peter Lang.

 Brooker, L., & Woodhead, M. (2013). The right to play. early childhood in focus, 9. The Open University with the support of Bernard van Leer Foundation

 Davey, C., & Lundy, L. (2011). Towards greater recognition of the right to play: An analysis of article 31 of the UNCRC. Children & Society, 25(1), 3-14. https://doi:10.1111/j.1099-0860.2009.00256.x

 Fairchild, N., & Kay, L. (2021, November 26). The early years foundation stage: Challenges and opportunities. BERA blog. https://www.bera.ac.uk/blog/the-early-years-foundation-stage-2021-challenges-and-opportunities

 Fenech, M., Sumsion, J., & Shepherd, W. (2010). Promoting early childhood teacher professionalism in the Australian context : The place of resistance. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 11(1), 89-105. https://doi:10.2304/ciec.2010.11.1.89 

 Leafgren, S. (2018). The disobedient professional: Applying a nomadic imagination toward radical non-compliance. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 19(2), 187-198. https://doi:10.1177/1463949118779217 

 Moss, P. (2019). Alternative narratives in early childhood. Abingdon: Routledge

 Murray, J., Smith, K., &Swadener, B. (2019). The Routledge international handbook of young children’s rights Abingdon: Routledge. https://doi:10.4324/9780367142025 

 Nicholson, J., &Wisneski, D. (2017). Introduction. Early Child Development and Care, 187(5-6), 788-797. https://doi:10.1080/03004430.2016.1268534 

 Office for the High Commissioner for Human Rights, (OHCHR). (1989, November 20). United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC)https://www.ohchr.org/enhttps://www.ohchr.org/en

 Sahlberg, P., & Doyle, W. (2019). Let the children play. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

 Shimpi, P., & Nicholson, J. (2014). Using cross-cultural, intergenerational play narratives to explore issues of social justice and equity in discourse on children’s play. Early Child Development and Care, 184(5), 719-732. https://doi:10.1080/03004430.2013.813847 

 Souto-Manning, M. (2017). Is play a privilege or a right? and what’s our responsibility? on the role of play for equity in early childhood education. Early Child Development and Care, 187(5-6), 785-787. https://doi:10.1080/03004430.2016.1266588. 

 Wong, S. (2013). A ‘Humanitarian Idea’: using a historical lens to reflect on social justice in early childhood education and care. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 14(4), 311-323.https://doi.org/10.2304/ciec.2013.14.4.31https://doi.org/10.2304/ciec.2013.14.4.31

 Wood, E. (2007). New directions in play: consensus or collision? Education 3-13, 35(4), 309-320. https://doi:10.1080/03004270701602426 

 Wood, E. (2015). The capture of play within policy discourses: A critical analysis of the UK frameworks for early childhood education. In J.L. Roopnarine, M.Patte, J.E. Johnson & D. Kuschner (Eds.), International perspectives on children’s play (pp. 187-198). Buckingham: Open University Press.

 Wood, E. and Hedges, H., 2016. Curriculum in early childhood education: Critical questions about content, coherence, and control. The curriculum journal, 27(3), pp.387-405.

Human Rights Law – The Speckled Bird of Educational Research?

Human Rights Law – The Speckled Bird of Educational Research?

by | NW 25 Research on Children's Rights in Education

In human rights law, education is a big deal. A really big deal. It appears in all the major human rights treaties, from the Universal Declaration on Human Rights to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. It is said to act as a multiplier of rights, meaning that all other human rights can be enhanced when it is enjoyed fully and impacted negatively when it is not. It is also unique because it is the only right that is compulsory, another indication of how important it is considered to be.

Human Rights and Educational Research

In education and educational research, human rights, particularly children’s human rights, do not enjoy quite such an international ‘Rockstar’ status.  While there are a few scholars (none better than EERA’s Network 25)who work explicitly in this area, there is quite a lot of ambivalence and, in some cases, antipathy to human rights (Lundy and Martinez Sainz, 2019). This shows up in the use of language like ‘legalistic’ to dismiss what is often just a sound legal analysis or ‘normative’ to imply that something has no theoretical foundation. And, for the record, what’s wrong with being ‘normative’, especially when those norms are grounded in values derived from centuries of moral philosophy?

An ongoing concern is that there are still those who deny that children can, have, or should have human rights when they would never deny that adults have human rights. I have been told of educational researchers saying that they don’t believe in human rights for children – like they are the tooth fairy. Clearly, they are a legal fact, but a worrying consequence of the resistance to the idea that children have rights has been that the language of children’s human rights can become diluted, substituted and truncated with seemingly ‘safer’  alternatives such as well-being and the SDGs used instead (Lundy, 2019).

A further common response is to talk about how human rights or rights language has been deployed for nefarious purposes or in ways that trivialise their remit and purpose. That is undoubtedly happening (e.g., I am told regularly by teachers that some parents will  claim that their child has a ‘right’ to a chocolate bar in a school with a healthy eating policy). However, a sound legal understanding would show that the problem is not the human rights in themselves but a flawed understanding of them. A common example of that in practice is the claim that the rights of the many ‘outweigh’ the rights of the few, particularly when one child’s behaviour is disruptive in a classroom. (Gillett-Swan and Lundy, 2021).

Of course, this is not to say that the human rights laws are perfect articulations of all that we would expect of education.  Valid criticisms of human rights law (feminist, post-colonial, neo-liberal etc.) abound. Most come from within our own field, so much so that those of us whose work focuses on children’s human rights have been coined as ‘critical proponents’ Reynaert et al., 2009).  Human rights laws are politically negotiated compromises, thus providing fertile soil for critique. The right to education is no exception. States tend not to over-promise, and one result, for example, is that the commitment to free education only applies to primary education, although states should always be striving to improve their provision. Critiquing the standards and therefore the sometimes less than ambitious commitments of governments, drawing in educational research on best practice, is a thriving area of human rights research.

Using human rights law in educational research offers a bounty of other possibilities. For a start, they can provide a conceptual framework for analysis and critique of education policy and practice. Children’s rights policy is distinctly different from childhood policy in substance and in process (Byrne and Lundy, 2018). It demands that the researcher puts their gaze on the child’s interests and entitlements (not just those of the school, teachers, or parents). It is also naturally intersectional – human rights data must be disaggregated, as the focus is always on finding those, particularly those in groups facing discrimination, whose rights might be infringed.

Human rights standards can also be applied to methodology.  We have pioneered an approach to research that is guided by the UN Statement of Common Understanding of human rights-based approaches (Lundy and McEvoy, 2012).  One consequence of this is that we always work with children as co-researchers, getting their advice on what to research and how to research it.  For example, in the recent CovidUnder19 initiative, we took advice from over 270 children across the world about what to ask in a survey of their lives.  The children stressed the need to ask about the consequences for examinations and testing in the questions on the right to education. Only children can know what is most important to know from their perspective (Lundy et al., 2021).

The Great Speckled Bird

Photo by Dulcey Lima on Unsplash

In 2004, I moved from a law school to an education school within the same institution. This was not the ‘done thing’.  A senior colleague in law warned me that it would not make me a better lawyer. I replied that it would make me a better academic. And I think that we were both right. When I arrived in education, a senior colleague there described me as a bit of a ‘speckled bird’.

In the wave of excitement and optimism, I took it as a compliment, understanding that it meant that I was an interesting addition to the flock. When writing this blog, I decided to investigate the root of that phrase.   It turns out that it comes from a southern US hymn and that being a ‘great speckled bird’ is, in fact, not such a good thing:

 

“Desiring to lower her standard
They watch every move that she makes
They long to find fault with her teachings.”

 

In truth, sixteen years later, the description of the speckled bird actually makes more sense.  Yet, while I work across many fields, and have recently taken up an additional chair in the School of Law at University College Cork, I continue to find a home in the educational research community, benefitting from the fact that education is uniquely and genuinely multi-, inter- and trans- disciplinary.

The Lundy Model – Giving Young People a Voice

The first education conference that I attended was ECER 2004 in Crete. And it was a result of discussions at that conference that I formulated the rights-based conceptualisation of student voice (space, voice, audience, and influence) that is now widely known as ‘the Lundy model’ (Lundy, 2007).  

Human rights law, imperfect as it is, won’t be for everyone, but it has a role to play in understanding why and how we provide education, what it should and shouldn’t look like and how students themselves experience it and can and should shape it. Would we want a world in which there were no human rights, no children’s rights?  If not, then we need scholarship that strives to understand its underpinning theory, its content, its limitations and its (lack of) implementation.

Other blog posts on similar topics:

Professor Laura Lundy

Professor Laura Lundy

Professor of Children's Rights, Queen's University Belfast: Professor of Law, University College Cork

Laura Lundy is Co-Director of the Centre for Children’s Rights and a Professor of Education Law and Children’s Rights in the School of Social Sciences, Education and Social Work at Queen’s University, Belfast.

She is joint Editor in Chief of the International Journal of Children’s Rights. Her expertise is in law and human rights with a particular focus on children’s right to participate in decision-making and education rights.

Her 2007 paper in the British Educational Research Journal, “’Voice’ is not enough” is one of the most highly cited academic papers in BERJ and on children’s rights ever. The model of children’s participation it proposes (based on four key concepts – Space, Voice, Audience and Influence) is used extensively in scholarship and practice.

The “Lundy model” has been adopted by numerous national governments and public bodies as well as international organisations including the European Commission, World Health Organisation, UNICEF and World Vision.

References and Further Reading

Watch Professor Lundy’s keynote address at ECER 2021 here 

 

Irish National Framework for Young Peoples Participation in Decisionmaking

The Framework is based on the child-rights model of participation developed by Professor Laura Lundy, Queens University, which provides guidance for decision-makers on the steps to take in giving children and young people a meaningful voice in decision-making. https://hubnanog.ie/participation-framework/

Universal Declaration of Human Rights 

UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. 

The role of law and legal knowledge for a transformative human rights education: addressing violations of children’s rights in formal education. Lundy and Martinez Sainz, 2019

A Lexicon for Research on International Children’s Rights in Troubled Times. Lundy, 2019

Children, classrooms and challenging behaviour: do the rights of the many outweigh the rights of the few? Gillett-Swan and Lundy, 2021

A Review of Children’s Rights Literature Since the Adoption of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Reynaert et al., 2009

Children’s rights-based childhood policy: a six-P framework. Byrne and Lundy, 2018

UN Statement of Common Understanding of human rights-based approaches (Lundy and McEvoy, 2012

#CovidUnder19 – Life Under Coronavirus: An initiative to meaningfully involve children in responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. CovidUnder19

Life Under Coronavirus: Children’s Views on their Experiences of their Human Rights. Lundy et al., 2021

‘Voice’ is not enough: conceptualising Article 12 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Lundy, 2007)

The Rights of Children in Education

The Rights of Children in Education

by | NW 25 Research on Children's Rights in Education

Some weeks ago, I was invited to deliver a speech at the ‘Wicked Problems in Children’s Rights in Education’ conference organised by the European Educational Research Association. Whilst preparing my talking points, I was reflecting on the fact that a ‘wicked problem’ is one that is difficult to resolve. There is no simple solution to a wicked problem and it creates tensions, depending on the lens used to analyse the issue. Within this context, I decided to throw some light on one of the more radical rights outlined in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC): children and young people’s right to participate and its intersection with the right to education.

The UNCRC has been recognised as revolutionary because, for the first time in history, it entitled children and young people with a specific set of human rights, including the right to participate. The UNCRC’s views deem children and young people to be rights-holders and is supported by the childhood studies field that positions them as competent social actors. However, three decades after the UNCRC entered into force, participation rights continue to be challenging to implement, and the educational system is no exception. 

In order to discuss these issues, it is critical to review three key global policy instruments:

  • the UNCRC
  • the UN’s Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC’s) General Comment No. 1 on the aims of education
  • the CRC’s General Comment No. 12 on the right to be listened to.

The Aims of Education

 

General Comment No.1 highlights that education is not only composed of the formal schooling system, but it should also include the development of life experiences and learning processes to strengthen children and young people’s personalities, talents, and abilities. In the same line of thought, the UNCRC’s Article 29 outlines the aims of education as the holistic development of children and young people’s full potential, including the development of respect for human rights, an enhanced sense of identity and socialisation, and interactions with others and the environment. Thus, children and young people’s right to education is not only a matter of access; it is also about content, which must be child-centred, child-friendly, and empowering.

Unfortunately, children and young people’s experiences in many educational systems around the world reveal that these aims are not always achieved. Often the focus is only on improving academic skills and sharpening intellect, ignoring other critical formative components. Here is where education systems’ aims contrapose UNCRC’s ideals, including the promotion of children and young people’s empowerment, as stated in General Comment No.1 and the UNCRC’s Article 12. 

Empowerment can be achieved by developing children and young people’s social skills, supporting learning and other capacities, valuing human dignity, and supporting self-esteem and self-confidence. This raises the question of whether this aim is attained or undermined by the systemic focus on academic success.

The Right to Participate

 

In turning the discussion to children and young people’s right to participate, defined by General Comment No. 12 as ‘the right to express their views freely in all matters affecting them’, an ‘ongoing process, which includes information-sharing and dialogue between children and adults based on mutual respect’. This definition embraces the notion of participation as a process with three pivotal components:

    • an impact on decision-making
    • mutual respect between children and young people and adults
    • a collaborative learning process.



The Disconnect between Rights and Reality

Now, where is the tension? What makes the implementation of this right to participate in education problematic? Children, as rights-holders, competent social actors, and empowered decision-makers, should be able to have opportunities to form and express their views freely, and these views should be respected and taken seriously. However, reality shows that children and young people seldomly have meaningful opportunities to participate in decision-making processes at school, and they rarely perceive positive results from their participation.

The major constraints are consistently the same across time and spaces:

      • the authority of adults, in this case, school teachers and educational staff, over children and young people that perpetuates patriarchal structures of power
      • inequalities in education which includes or excludes children and young people based on their social categories
      • tensions between children and young people being considered objects of education and subjects of mutual learning.

 Yet, this ‘wicked problem’ can be easily addressed, if all parties involved take the key principles outlined in the UNCRC, General Comment No. 1, and General Comment No. 12 seriously.

Hence, in order to discuss the future direction needed to ensure the realisation of children and young people’s rights, we must link participation rights and education aims when designing educational systems. Children and young people must be front and centre as subjects of rights, subjects of learning, and competent social actors, able to shape their educational environments. The challenge will always be to create spaces where adults listen to children and young people and take their views seriously. Thus, adults also need to build their abilities to listen to children and young people and adapt their decision-making processes to be more inclusive and equitable.

Photo Credit: World Vision/Jon Warren

Dr Patricio Cuevas-Parras

Dr Patricio Cuevas-Parras

Director for Child Participation and Rights with World Vision International

Dr Patricio Cuevas-Parra is the Director for Child Participation and Rights with World Vision International. He leads strategies and programmes to ensure that children and young people are at the centre of the advocacy and policy debate.

He holds a PhD in Social Policy from the University of Edinburgh, United Kingdom, a Master of Advanced Studies in Children’s Rights from University of Fribourg-UIKB, Switzerland, and a Master of International Relations. Patricio has worked in more than 20 countries, including long-term roles in Ecuador, Chile, Indonesia, Lebanon, Cyprus and the United Kingdom. He has published a variety of books and reports on the topics of children’s rights, child participation, indigenous children and gender equality.

Dr Cuevas-Parra has a keen interest in looking at cutting-edge child rights advocacy tools and models to enhance children and young people’s engagement in decision-making. His research interests fall into three main categories: children’s participation in public policy, child-led research methodologies, and children’s perspectives on violence and abuse. Patricio is currently conducting research projects on children’s participation with Queen’s University Belfast and the University of Edinburgh.

Challenges and Future Directions for Children’s Rights in Education

Challenges and Future Directions for Children’s Rights in Education

by | NW 25 Research on Children's Rights in Education

The Research on Children’s Rights in Education Network (Network 25) recently held our annual event, as part of the European Educational Research Association (EERA) #ReconnectingECER programme.

This was an exceptional event in several respects. Due to COVID and the cancellation of our annual ‘face to face’ European Conference on Educational Research (ECER), we transformed our EERA Network  Development funded project into a virtual open event. To broaden exposure to our network, and include a wider range of voices that has not always been possible at previous events, we brought together various communities to encourage intergenerational dialogue that focused specifically on the intersection of education and children’s rights.

Specifically, the session addressed the topic of “Wicked Problems in Children’s Rights in Education”. We also ensured live-tweeting prior to and during the event through a partnership with @ChildRightsChat. Finally, since we aimed to draw new avenues for research on children’s rights and education, a graphic facilitator accompanied the whole webinar, providing our Network with a visual summary of the discussions initiated.

We were joined by 66 participants from 23 different countries within and outside Europe.[1] 11 presenters provided 11 thought-provoking and stimulating Lightning Talks on different ‘wicked problems’ affecting children’s rights and education. Wicked Problems are problems that are complex or difficult to solve[2]. 

The speakers comprised of young people and adults, including academics and members of NGOs, from around the world, all passionate experts about child rights and education. The young people brought a unique, lived and living perspective to the topic of ‘wicked problems in children’s rights in education’. Their level of involvement has set a precedent for voice and participation in such discussions.

The Speakers

The event began with Victor, 16 years old from the UK, a EuroChild Children’s Council member. His presentation on ‘The Flaws in our Education System’ set the scene. Victor highlighted the contradiction present in schools, where there is an individualist culture, which simultaneously lacks in consideration for each individual’s uniqueness. The system focuses heavily on memorisation and standardised testing, which stands in contrast to individualism.

Professor Laura Lundy, from Queen’s University Belfast, followed with ‘Children’s Rights – Inflation, Dilution and Reputation’. Professor Lundy shared her thoughts on how and when the actual language of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child is used. She argued that legal accuracy is necessary to ensure credibility in the field of children’s rights and education.

We heard then from Bertsy, 16 years old from Cameroon, a member of the GNRC Youth Committee – Arigatou International in 2019. Bertsy provided us with examples of how the costs of education, notably school fees, impact the most vulnerable in societies. By doing so, she raised the issue of who contributes to enforcing rights in such contexts.

Mr Samson Oladejo, a PhD Candidate at the University of the West of Scotland, then reminded us of the number of children not in education and how technology could support many of these children’s needs. Mr Oladejo provided examples from his research focusing on discourses of risk that obfuscate educational access (in the context of Universal Basic Education) for young people in poor urban areas of Lagos, Nigeria.

Laura, a 12-year-old Australian and founder of Student Alliance 4 Inclusion, then concluded the first section of the Webinar with a presentation titled ‘Adults’ assumptions on segregating children in education -the discriminatory legacy for children’. She made the point that discriminating against children in education does not meet the requirements of article 29 of the UNCRC and drew upon specific examples of disability discrimination and segregation in educational contexts.

After a short break, Dr Patricio Cuevas-Parra, the Director for Child Participation and Rights with World Vision International, launched the second section of the Webinar. Dr Cuevas-Parra provided examples of how adults need to ‘share the platform’ with children and young people, and how ‘power’ can have a diverse impact on how the platform is shared. He insisted on the fact that empowerment is a process and an outcome. You can read Dr Patricio Cuevas-Parra’s blog post here. 

Following this, we heard from Reece, a 16-year-old South African, Child Rights Advisor with Child Rights Connect, and founder of Earth Kids Organisation (EKO), which focuses on environmental education and youth empowerment projects. Reece’s talk concentrated on early childhood development and rights. He illustrated how governmental standards can sometimes undermine rights and problematised the longer-term implications of such restrictions.

Our next speaker, Assistant Professor Gabriela Martinez Sainz, an Ad Astra Fellow and Assistant Professor in Education at University College Dublin, called for more research on pedagogical knowledge on children’s rights. She also pointed out the lack of ‘structures and spaces’ to teach children about their rights.

Savannah, 11 years old from England is a Child Rights Advisor with Child Rights Connect. She provided us with examples of some of the issues children had during the COVID-19 school closures. Ending with a plea for all children to have ‘real and regular’ contact with teachers during such times, Savannah highlighted the difficulties of going through education ‘alone’.

Our penultimate speaker was Professor Philip D. Jaffé, from the Centre for Children’s Rights Studies (CCRS) and current member of the Committee on the Rights of the Child. Professor Jaffé provided us with an ecological understanding of Human rights violations. Witnessing the numerous violations of children’s rights within education, he provocatively wondered whether human rights education remains possible if this does not change.

Professor Ann Quennerstedt, from Örebro University in Sweden and Link Convenor of Network 25 was our final speaker. Professor Quennerstedt stated that ‘Teachers are a wicked problem’ and reminded us that ‘positioning teachers as villains’ does not support children’s right in education. She suggested child rights researchers should turn the focus away from teachers to address structural issues and aspects of professionalisation.

The Discussions – A Visual Representation 

There was a wide range of insightful questions from the attendees and the presenters did an excellent job of answering these questions from attendees verbally and in the chat. We were delighted to have Debbie Roberts from EngageVisually joining us this year.

Debbie created a visual summary of the event by way of a graphic recording. This visual has captured the essence of the talks and exchanges that occurred during the session. At different points throughout the seminar, we were able to see the ‘work-in-progress’ which further stimulated our ongoing conversations.

 

Feedback from Attendees

‘An absolutely excellent session. I found it to be very educative in the widest sense in the re-visiting foundational principles from unique and diverse perspectives and then expanding upon them even more. Few webinars have left me so enriched.’
– Regina Murphy, DCU, Ireland.

‘I really enjoyed the conference. Very well organised and fantastic speakers. The intergenerational dialogue was rich and meaningful.’
– Panellist Dr Patricio Cuevas Parra, World Vision International 

Future Activities

The event has generated much discussion, new ideas, and collaborative possibilities, which we, as a network, will continue to cultivate in our future activities. Among the numerous options evoked, we are pleased to share here a few take-aways:

  • Research directions
    • Ask more WHY questions to understand the reasons undermining rights implementation in education (versus solely describing them)
    • More interdisciplinary work to reinforce the human rights language used in research in Children’s rights and education without losing the focus on core educational questions
  • Research topics
    • How the COVID crisis affects education beyond lockdown, and seeking children’s own views on these matters?
    • The abuse and bullying of children activists
    • What are the aims of education?
  • Research collaborations:
    • Including more intergenerational dialogue

Find out details of these activities through subscribing to our newsletter and following the network via Twitter@Network25EERA.

To subscribe to the network newsletter, simply send a blank message to nw25-subscribe@lists.eera-ecer.de

Finally, we recommend looking for the following accounts and hashtags on Twitter, to read some of the interesting anecdotes and discussions from the event:

Sponsors

Our event was proudly supported by EERA’s Network Development project funding scheme. We want to thank our supporters EERA and @ChildRightsChat, for having made this event possible. Thanks also to the University of Geneva, and its Centre for Children’s Rights Studies for technical support. We would also like to express our sincere thanks and gratitude to the following organisations who have supported the event with enthusiasm and a short timeframe to initiate young people’s participation in the event, namely: Child Rights Connect; Eurochild; Time-matters UK, and Arigatou International.

[1] Australia, Bangladesh, Belgium, Cyprus, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Moldova, Norway, Poland, Rwanda, Sweden, South Africa, Spain, Switzerland, United Kingdom, Turkey and USA.

[2] For additional insight on ‘wicked problems’ see B. Guy Peters (2017) What is so wicked about wicked problems? A conceptual analysis and a research program, Policy and Society, 36:3, 385-396, DOI:10.1080/14494035.2017.1361633

 

Professor Zoe Moody

Professor Zoe Moody

University of Teacher Education Valais

Zoe Moody is Professor at the University of Teacher Education Valais and Senior Research Associate at the Inter- and Transdisciplinarity Unit, Center for Children’s Rights Studies, University of Geneva. Her research and teaching activities lie at the intersection between educational sciences and the field of children’s rights: notably children’s rights to, in and through education. Zoe Moody is French-speaking editor of the Swiss Journal of Educational Research and Deputy link convenor of the Research on Children’s Rights in Education Network (25) of the European Conference on Educational Research (ECER).

Dr Ally Dunhill

Dr Ally Dunhill

Dr Ally Dunhill is a consultant and researcher in the social policy domain, with a particular focus on children, youth, inclusion and rights. She has worked across the education and social care sectors for over 30 years. She has lectured, researched and presented on a wide range of topics, all with the core theme of promoting, protecting and respecting human rights. Since 2015, all aspects of her work have been aligned to the Sustainable Development Goals (SGDs). Ally is also the co-founder of Accessible AD, one of the first Start-Ups in the UAE, which is a third sector organisation focused on accessibility and inclusion.

Jenna Gillett-Swan

Jenna Gillett-Swan

Associate Professor, Faculty of Education at Queensland University of Technology, Australia

Associate Professor Jenna Gillett-Swan researches to understand and address threats to wellbeing in students’ educational experiences through participatory rights-based approaches to educational transformation and school improvement. A/Prof Gillett-Swan’s approach is characterised by privileging the perspectives and experiences of young people and working in partnership with them and other stakeholders to enact change and influence in educational contexts. She is an Associate Professor within the Faculty of Education at Queensland University of Technology, Australia; co-leader of the ‘Safety and Wellbeing’ research program within the Centre for Inclusive Education; a member of the International Journal of Children’s Rights Advisory Board, and current co-convenor for the European Educational Research Association Research on Children’s Rights in Education Network.