25. Research on Children's Rights in Education
Paper
Children’s Rights Education and the School Climate
Sarah Zerika1, Maude Louviot2, Frédéric Darbellay1, Zoe Moody1,3
1University of Geneva, Switzerland; 2University of Applied Sciences and Arts of Wallis (Sierre); 3University of Teacher Education Wallis
Presenting Author: Zerika, Sarah;
Louviot, Maude
Since 1989, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child recognizes children as subjects of rights. They have also undertaken to make the best interests of the child a priority consideration in all sectors of society, notably in education. Children’s rights education can be relatively explicit, by teaching about children’s rights, or more implicit, with education taking place through the process of experiencing children’s rights respecting environments. This interaction between rights-focused content and rights-respecting learning processes supports the emancipation of children, who are thus able to defend the respect of their own rights as well as those of others (Moody, 2019). This contribution will specifically focus on implicit rights education with specific attention placed on rights-respecting environments from the viewpoint of actors. Based on empirical findings from two previous studies (Louviot, 2019; Zerika, Darbellay & Moody, 2022), it aims to develop a model to describe and understand the links between children’s rights education and the concept of school climate. The dimensions of participation of children in school and of more or less autonomous learning will be more specifically explored.
School climate is a multidimensional concept that takes into consideration various domains of school life and organization. Most studies include dimensions related to relationships, security, teaching and learning, as well as the institutional environment (Cohen et al., 2009; Janosz et al., 1998; Lewno-Dumdie et al., 2020). The concept is usually constructed as the articulation of the affective and cognitive perceptions of all members of a school community: educational staff, students, and parents (Rudasill et al., 2018). Research has highlighted that students’ learning and well-being are fostered within a positive school climate that develops social, emotional, and democratic education (Thapa et al., 2013).
This contribution aims to develop the theoretical links between rights-respecting environments and a positive school climate and confront them with empirical data. Covell and Howe (1999, p. 182) suggest that “including children’s rights education in school curricula is likely to improve children’s psychological well-being, teacher and peer relationships, and to promote more positive attitudes toward ethnic minority children”. Research on children’s rights through education suggests that rights-respecting learning environments with attention to pedagogical practices have an impact on children’s attitudes and engagement as well as on the welfare and protection of children (Quennerstedt & Moody, 2020). Similarly, Quennerstedt (2022) shows that education through right can be conceptualized as a positive school experience in relation to being safe, expressing opinions, being heard, and being equally treated. Research suggests that links between rights-respecting teaching and learning environments and dimensions that are constitutive of a positive school climate exist.
What are the specificities of rights-respecting teaching and learning environments which can support a positive school climate? Conversely, what dimensions of the school climate are more directly in relation to rights-respecting teaching and learning environments? Theoretical and empirical answers will be provided in this presentation.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedA dataset from qualitative approaches, based on case studies and multi-actor methodology, is used in this presentation. The case study approach allows for a detailed and contextual understanding of situations, that can be compared, reaching, to a certain extent, a comprehensive understanding (Albarello, 2011; Gagnon, 2012). Educational, institutional, and organizational dimensions like architecture, the role of knowledge, evaluative processes, governance, organization of time, and place given to the values of inter-individual relations or participation of children were studied. Mixed methodological devices were used, composed mainly of interviews with different actors concerned (teachers (n=18), headmasters (n=6), families (parents and children; n=3)), participant observations (children (n=170)) and documentary analyzes.
Data from six different schools-cases is used. These schools are heterogeneous with respect to education methods and systems. Four are alternative schools, following different approaches (Montessori, Freinet, Democratic school, School in, by and with nature), and two of them follow more traditional organizations and pedagogies. The comparison between multiple practices allows for highlighting the potential differences within those different approaches. The light can be shed on specific teaching and learning processes, among which some claim to place children and their schooling experience, as well as the objectives of knowledge, at the center of the process.
The high degree of variation between the six schools considered in this contribution, notably on the level of education methods and systems, provides a solid basis for inter-case comparisons and the identification of specificities with respect to participation, citizenship, autonomous learning, and the rights of children. Both convergences and divergences are highlighted.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsPositive school climate and rights-respecting environments are associated with better academic outcomes, greater student well-being, and indicate the importance of creating safe, inclusive, and supportive environments. Using four dimensions of school climate that are identified in the literature (Cohen et al., 2009) and relatively widely shared understandings of rights-respecting environments, we will describe some components that converge theoretically for a rights-respecting school climate and then exemplify them with data from the six cases.
The first dimension is the relationships that create a culture of respect and inclusion, in which all members of the school community feel valued and respected. It considers their interactions, participation and engagement for example in student councils or parent-teacher associations, and can include activities such as non-violent communication, collaboration, or conflict resolution. A second dimension of a rights-respecting school climate is security and discipline: a safe environment for students and staff who can be heard via appropriate measures in place to prevent and respond to discrimination and violence: e.g. applying the rules and peaceful coexistence using tools like school council or peer mediation.
A third dimension is teaching and learning. It is not only disciplinary (e.g., teaching about children’s rights) but aims at acquiring transversal skills with attention to the personality and the dignity of children. For teachers, it encourages ongoing professional to support their capacity to create a rights-respecting school climate. Finally, a fourth dimension is the institutional environment including the school system in terms of governance, that can be more or less horizontal and participatory depending on the schools. Another element is the assessment of schools policies and practices to identify any areas where improvement and adjustments can be achieved concerning principles of rights-respecting environments and positive school climate.
ReferencesAlbarello, L. (2011). Choisir l’étude de cas comme méthode de recherche. Bruxelles: De Boeck.
Cohen, J., McCabe, E. M., Michelli, N. M., & Pickeral, T. (2009). School climate: Research, policy, practice, and teacher education. Teachers college record, 111(1), 180-213.
Covell, K. & Howe, R. B. (1999). The impact of children’s rights education: a Canadian study. The international journal of children’s rights, 7, 171-183. https://doi.org/10.1163/15718189920494327
Gagnon, Y.C. (2012). L’étude de cas comme méthode de recherche. Québec : Presses de l’Université du Québec.
Janosz, M., Georges, P., & Parent, S. (1998) L'environnement socioéducatif à l'école secondaire : un modèle théorique pour guider l'évaluation du milieu. Revue Canadienne de Psycho-éducation, 27(2), 285-306.
Lewno-Dumdie, B. M., Mason, B. A., Hajovsky, D. B., & Villeneuve, E. F. (2020). Student-report measures of school climate: A dimensional review. School Mental Health, 12(1), 1-21.
Louviot, M. (2019). La participation des enfants à l’école sous le prisme des droits de l’enfant. Éducation et socialisation, 53. https://doi.org/10.4000/edso.7297
Moody, Z. (2019). Droits de l’enfant et école : diversité, participation et transformation sociale. In J. Zermatten & P. D. Jaffé (dir.), 30 ans de droits de l’enfant: un nouvel élan pour l’humanité (p. 174-183). Sion, Suisse : Université de Genève, Centre interfacultaire en droits de l’enfant.
Quennerstedt, A. (2022). Unicef’s Rights Respecting Schools Award as children’s human rights education. Human Rights Education Review, 5(3), 68–90.
Quennerstedt, A., & Moody, Z. (2020). Educational Children’s Rights Research 1989–2019: Achievements, Gaps and Future Prospects, The International Journal of Children's Rights, 28(1), 183-208.
Rudasill, K. M., Snyder, K. E., Levinson, H., et L Adelson, J. (2018). Systems view of school climate: A theoretical framework for research. Educational psychology review, 30(1), 35-60. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-017-9401-y
Thapa, A., Cohen, J., Guffey, S., et Higgins-D’Alessandro, A. (2013). A review of school climate research. Review of educational research, 83(3), 357-385.
Zerika, S., Moody, Z., & Darbellay, F. (2022). Les pédagogies « alternatives » au prisme de trois études de cas. Recherches & Éducations. https://journals.openedition.org/rechercheseducations/12353
25. Research on Children's Rights in Education
Paper
An Investigation of Children's Digital User Profiles in the Context of Rights Awareness
Erdem Hareket
Kırıkkale University, Turkiye
Presenting Author: Hareket, Erdem
Children represent a large, unique, and underappreciated user group of digital technologies (Gillett Swan & Sargeant, 2018). For this reason, the protection of children and their rights is among the issues of increasing importance in the digital age. It means that children are in a particular situation that requires a unique interpretation of human rights regarding social conditions and universal status in a digitized world (Öhman & Quennerstedt, 2017). This paradoxical situation points to an issue that needs to be emphasized when considering the best interests and well-being of children who are digital users. It also leads child rights experts to ask: "On what principles and with what qualities of environments and content should access to and participation in digital media as a right be based in a way that includes children's best interests? However, it is not easy to answer this question because even child rights experts and sector representatives are still unable to establish cooperation and understanding on promoting and respecting children's rights in digital environments and overlook the nature of the problems in this regard (Livingstone, 2021). Fortunately, "General Comment No. 25 on the Rights of the Child in Relation to the Digital Environment" published by the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child in 2021 emerges as a guide for us. This Declaration which includes issues related to the protection of children's rights in digital environments, draws attention to the need to improve the digital literacy levels of children, parents, childcare providers and educators. At this point, it is foreseen that the user profiles of children in digital environments can guide us in terms of the steps to be taken to protect both themselves and their rights. These profile findings can also guide us about digital literacy areas that should be included in children's rights education processes. In the scope of this research, it is aimed to extract the digital user profiles of children and to discuss the findings in terms of children’s rights awareness. With this overarching aim, the research aims to find answers to the following sub-questions:
a) What are the most used digital platforms by children and their intended use?
b) What are the children's perceptions of the emotional effects of digital tools/platforms on them?
c) In what way do children's daily use of digital tools and spatial usage preferences intensify?
d) What are the topics that are described as disturbing content by children on digital platforms?
e) What are the aspects of digital tools/media that are considered beneficial and harmful by children?
f) What are the tendencies of children to share their personal information on digital platforms?
g) What are the tendencies of children to use chat applications, and what are their purposes for use?
h) What are the issues considered by children as the risks of digital environments?
i) What are the types of content needed/expected by children in digital environments?
j) What is the self-evaluation of children regarding their rights awareness as digital users?
k) What are the children's rights that are actively used by children in digital environments and that are frequently violated on the other hand?
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThis research was planned and conducted by the mixed research approach in which quantitative and qualitative methods are used together. The mixed research method which is defined as the process of combining quantitative and qualitative methods and approaches in one or more successive studies and combining the obtained data (Creswell, 2013), takes the strengths of the two methods and completes the weaknesses of each other and allows for more effective and comprehensive research (Creswell and Plano Clark, 2007). The participant group of the research consists of 1430 children between the ages of 9-18 in Turkey. An accessible sampling method was used to determine the participant group of the research. No special criteria were used to determine the children participating in the research. Children who wanted to participate in the research and who had parental consent were included in the research group. A questionnaire consisting of open-ended questions was used to obtain the data. According to Patton (2014), open-ended questions seek to grasp what people think without the limitations and predictions of predetermined categories. In addition, one-on-one online interviews were conducted with some of the children participating in the research. Parental permission was obtained for these interviews. The interviews lasted between 35 and 48 minutes on average. The research data were collected with a group of co-researchers who participated in the author’s children's rights education project. The research data were analyzed with thematic content analysis and descriptive analysis. According to Berg (1998), content analysis is used to systematically interpret interviews and field notes that are overlooked or deemed inappropriate for analysis.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsAs a result of the research, it was seen that children mostly use digital platforms through their tablets and phones. Also, it has been seen that the usage purposes are focused on playing digital games, having fun, chatting and creating a social environment. It was concluded that children mostly use digital tools for 4-7 hours a day and the emotional effects of these uses on children are concentrated in two different poles as anger and pleasure. The other result of the research, it can be said that children tend to protect their personal data and display a non-sharing profile on digital platforms at this point. It has been concluded that the beneficial aspect of digital environments is strongly emphasized by children in terms of the use of rights such as having a good time, social participation, communication, education, freedom of expression and thought. On the other hand, it is considered problematic in terms of exposure to violence, sexuality and marketing content. It has been determined that children do not consider their awareness of the rights and freedoms they have in digital environments sufficient. In addition, it has been determined that personal rights are violated mostly by cyberbullying harassment. The research results showed generally that digital literacy skills should be integrated into children’s rights education processes because there are some inconsistencies between children's digital user attitudes and their awareness of their rights. In addition, in line with the results of the research, some determinations have been made for more effective protection of children and their rights in digital environments.
ReferencesBerg, B. L. (1998). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences (Third Edition). Allyn & Bacon.
Creswell, J. W., & Clark, V. L. P. (2007). Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research.
Creswell, J. W. (2013). Nitel Araştırma Yöntemleri. (M. Bütün & S. B. Demir, Cev.) Ankara: Siyasal.
Gillett‐Swan, J. K., & Sargeant, J. (2018). Voice inclusive practice, digital literacy, and children's participatory rights. Children & Society, 32(1), 38-49.
Livingstone, S. (2021). Realizing children’s rights in relation to the digital environment. European Review, 29(1), 20-33.
Öhman, M., & Quennerstedt, A. (2017). Questioning the no-touch discourse in physical education from a children's rights perspective. Sport, Education and Society, 22(3), 305-320.
Patton, M. Q. (2014). Nitel araştırma ve değerlendirme yöntemleri. (M. Bütün & S. B. Demir, Çev. Ed.). Pegem Yayıncılık.
25. Research on Children's Rights in Education
Paper
Learning Through Protest: Conceptualising the Right to Freedom of Assembly Through Social Epistemology
Amy Hanna1, Gabriela Martinez Sainz2
1University of Strathclyde, United Kingdom; 2University College Dublin, Ireland
Presenting Author: Hanna, Amy;
Martinez Sainz, Gabriela
Children are not typically considered as being ‘political’, but they have the right to freedom of peaceful assembly under international human rights instruments such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC). Nonetheless, a lack of commentary and jurisprudence on this right of children and young people has left the right largely unexplored. Similarly, the aims of education set out in Article 29 CRC are almost identical to the education rights enshrined in Article 13(1) ICESCR, but Article 29 seems to be taken for granted (Gillett-Swan, Thelander and Hanna, 2021). Both CRC and ICESCR explicitly acknowledge the role of education in wider society and democracy, and jurisprudence on Article 29 CRC highlights that education is not only a right in itself, but an essential medium for the realisation of other rights (Lundy et al, 2016; Tomasevski, 2001; see also Gillett-Swan and Thelander, 2021). Article 29 largely mirrors the ICESCR and its reference to education as development of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, but it also features additional references to respect for cultural identity, language and values, and the natural environment.
Article 29 CRC sets out the purpose and value of education in a presentation that has been criticised for being idealistic (Lundy and Martinez-Sainz, 2018), and that has led to emergent tensions between the disciplines of human rights law, and the education to which it pertains (Gillett-Swan and Thelander, 2021). Indeed, it is its position as a right that enables all other rights (Lundy et al, 2016; UN, 2001: para. 6) that may explain the lack of substantive focus in the literature (Gillett-Swan, Thelander and Hanna, 2021). There are a number of typologies that represent education rights such as Tomasevski’s (2001) ‘4-A’ typology, and Verhellen’s (1993) typology of rights to, in, and through education. The Committee on the Rights of the Child, however, emphasises that education is not merely formal schooling, but the experiences that connect young people’s lives with the purpose of education (UN, 2001: para. 2). Crucially, this purpose includes ‘efforts that promote the enjoyment of other rights’ in all environments, whether ‘home, school or elsewhere’ (UN, 2001: para. 8). Despite this emphasis on the purposes of education as being the lynchpin of children’s rights more broadly, there is still little empirical research that illuminates the aims of education as a right in and of itself, and little attention to how exercising civic rights such as the right to freedom of assembly (Article 15) can realise children’s education rights under Article 29.
Whilst the findings from an empirical study have been presented elsewhere (Martinez Sainz & Hanna, forthcoming; Hanna & Martinez Sainz, under review), this paper seeks to address the scarcity of jurisprudence and commentary by presenting a conceptual framework that links article 29 aims of education and article 15 right to freedom of assembly through the lens of social epistemology. This paper employs empirical data gathered in an examination of how young people exercised their right to freedom of peaceful assembly during the pandemic, using the social epistemology of groups (Bird, 2021; Tollefsen, 2021) and of human rights (Buchanan, 2021) to conceptualise how young people learn through protest in realisation of the aims of education under Article 29.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThe study upon which this paper is based used a digital ethnography methodology (Pink, 2016) to examine how young people exercise their Article 15 CRC right to peaceful assembly. Using MAXQDA, all Tweets using the hashtags #FridaysForFuture and #ClimateStrikeOnline were collected for the following dates running up to the first UK Covid lockdown in 2020: i) 28 February, the Bristol Climate Strike that preceded COP25; ii) 6 March, the Brussels Climate Strike; and iii) 13 March, the first climate strike online. These dates provided a cross- sectional ‘snapshot’ of young people exercising their right to peaceful assembly.
The hashtags formed the sampling criteria applied to the data as only Tweets including these hashtags were coded. The data were cleaned and those in English selected for analysis which produced a dataset of 9,403 Tweets. All coding was done by hand for consistency using a deductive coding framework agreed by both authors. This framework was agreed by an initial coding of Tweets and was applied to surface content of Tweets, any links included in Tweets, and the content of any posted links.
This research was conducted with full ethical approval from the University. All Twitter data were anonymised by removing usernames, handles, metadata and geospatial location. Where content may still be identifiable, Tweets were paraphrased. All data was treated in accordance with the Best Interest of the Child principle of children’s human rights (UN, 1989), and followed ethical practices of research (BERA, 2018).
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsIn exploring the links between children and young people exercising their right to freedom of peaceful assembly and their education rights, and the manner in which this takes place in person and online, we will propose a conceptualisation of how children learn through protest that will contribute to the sparse jurisprudence on both Article 15 and Article 29. In doing so, we will apply a lens of collective epistemology: a subfield of social epistemology that examines epistemic practices and processes of aggregate groups such as young climate strikers. This, we argue, will highlight that in contrast to the populist position that children ‘lose out’ on their education by protesting (Guardian, 2021), children in fact live the aims of education: respect for human rights and the natural environment; and are prepared for life in civic society (UN, 1989)
ReferencesAdams, R. (2021) Do not encourage children to join climate protests, says draft DfE strategy, The Guardian
British Education Research Association (BERA) (4th Ed.). (2018) Ethical Guidance for Education Researchers. Available at: https://www.bera.ac.uk/researchers-resources/publications/ethical-guidelines-for-educational-research-2018 accessed 31/01/23
Bird, A. (2021) ‘Group Belief and Knowledge’ in M. Fricker, P. J. Graham, D. Henderson and N. J. L. L. Pedersen (Eds) The Routledge Handbook of Social Epistemology, Abingdon: Routledge, pp274-283
Buchanan, A. (2021) ‘The Reflexive Social Epistemology of Human Rights’ in M. Fricker, P. J. Graham, D. Henderson and N. J. L. L. Pedersen (Eds) The Routledge Handbook of Social Epistemology, Abingdon: Routledge, pp284-292
Gillett-Swan, J. and Thelander, N. eds., 2021. Children’s Rights from International Educational Perspectives: Wicked Problems for Children’s Education Rights (Vol. 2). Springer Nature.
Gillett-Swan, J., Thelander, N. and Hanna, A. (2021) Setting the Scene for Children’s Rights and Education: Understanding the Aims of Education. Children’s Rights from International Educational Perspectives: Wicked Problems for Children’s Education Rights, pp.1-11.
Hanna, A., and Martinez Sainz, G. (forthcoming) “I will not stand aside and watch. I will not be silent”: Young people’s organisation of their right to freedom of assembly through the #FridaysForFuture movement, International Journal of Children’s Rights
Lundy, L. and Sainz, G.M. (2018) The role of law and legal knowledge for a transformative human rights education: Addressing violations of children’s rights in formal education. Human Rights Education Review, 1(2), pp.04-24.
Lundy, L., Orr, K., and Shier, H. (2016) ‘Children’s Education Rights: Global Perspectives’ in M. Ruck, M. Petersen-Badali, and M. Freeman (Eds) Handbook of Children’s Rights: Global and Multidisciplinary Perspectives, London: Routledge, pp364-380
Martinez Sainz, G., and Hanna, A. (forthcoming) “You cannot ban us from exercising our human rights”: Pedagogical challenges and possibilities of youth activism for human rights, Human Rights Education Review
Pink, S. (2016) Digital ethnography. Innovative methods in media and communication research, pp.161-165.
Tollefsen, D. P. (2021) ‘The Epistemology of Groups’ in M. Fricker, P. J. Graham, D. Henderson and N. J. L. L. Pedersen (Eds) The Routledge Handbook of Social Epistemology, Abingdon: Routledge, pp263-273
Tomasevski, K. (2001) Human Rights Obligations: Making Education Available, Accessible, Acceptable and Adaptable, (Right to Education Primers No. 3) Gothenburg: Novum Grafiska AB
United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child (2001) General Comment No. 1, Article 29(1): The Aims of Education (CRC/GC/2001/1), Geneva, United Nations
Verhellen, E. (1993) Children's rights and education: A three-track legally binding imperative. School Psychology International, 14(3), pp.199-208.
|
