25. Research on Children's Rights in Education
Paper
Dimensions for a Critical Analysis of Student Participation Rights
Idan Zak-Doron, Lotem Perry-Hazan
University of Haifa, Israel
Presenting Author: Zak-Doron, Idan
Objectives
This study outlines dimensions for a critical analysis of student participation rights. It seeks to provide a complex and nuanced understanding of these rights by shedding light on their potentially negative ramifications and offering an analytical framework for identifying and exploring these ramifications.
The study draws on data from democratic schools’ participatory disciplinary procedures. Democratic schools exemplify an organizational ethos that sanctifies student participation. This ethos is manifested in a whole-school approach, encompassing the entire school and integrating participation in all school practices (see Gawlicz & Millei, 2022; Korkmaz & Erden, 2014; Wilson, 2015). Given the centrality of student participation to the whole-school ethos of democratic schools, this context facilitates an inquiry into the ramifications of participation rights.
The focus on participation in school discipline was chosen to manifest the interrelations of collective and individual participation rights. Democratic schools’ disciplinary systems are based on committees encompassing both students and teachers. Any conflict or breaching of school rules is submitted to those committees whose members conduct a trial and reach a verdict (Greenberg, 1991; Hecht, 2010).
Whereas the analysis presented in the paper draws on a specific context, it carries broad relevance to various participatory practices in educational settings.
Theoretical framework
Studies about children’s participation rights tend to promote and justify children's participation. Scholars have argued in this regard that critical voices about participation have been muted as the promotion of participation has become a “moral crusade” (Lewis, 2010, p. 15) or a taken-for-granted “mantra” (Tisdall & Punch, 2012, pp. 251, 254). Scholars have also criticized the prevalent monolithic perceptions of participation rights (e.g., Author 2 & Other, 2023; Blaisdell et al., 2021). Some scholars have highlighted the need for more critical thinking regarding the potential ramifications of high participation levels in various contexts (Author 2, 2021; Kim, 2016; Tisdall & Punch, 2012), but empirical studies examining those ramifications are scarce (Authors, 2023a, 2023b).
Several explanations can be suggested for this gap in the research. Scholars who study children’s rights are typically supportive of human rights as a value, thus tending to advocate participation rather than criticize it (Quennerstedt, 2013). Moreover, children’s rights and children’s participation are relatively novel concepts. From an historical point of view, the desire to raise the profile of such research may have compelled the researchers to close ranks so that their avant-garde ideas would be accepted (James, 2007).
Initial criticism concerning children's participation has begun to emerge in regard to participation in research. Some scholars introduced critical questions regarding the practice of research “by” children in which children act as “primary investigators” or “co-researchers” (e.g., Hammersley, 2017; Kim, 2016; Thomas, 2021; Tisdall, 2012). For example, Tisdall (2012) questioned whether children’s expertise in their own lives necessarily makes them experts in other children’s lives (p. 187). Others have doubted the assumption that children are sufficiently competent to perform research (Hammersley, 2017; Kim, 2016).
Another path of criticism has emerged with regard to the unequal implications of participation rights. For example, studies have shown that privileged children may maneuver their participation toward their own interests (Wyness, 2009). Studies have also shown that participatory practices could lead to favored treatment by the participating youth, with youth participation implemented as a tool to reinforce institutional power relations and engender compliance (Drew, 2019; Finneran et al., 2023; Gawlicz & Millei, 2022).
None of these studies offered a comprehensive critical analysis of participation rights. This study aims to address this gap in the literature.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThis research was conducted in three democratic schools in Israel. We chose schools that represent different democratic school models and operate their participatory disciplinary procedures in different ways. All three schools had instituted disciplinary committees where students serve as adjudicators in semi-trial procedures. In School A, the committee members are elected. In School B, the committee is open to all students, and there are no organized elections. School C’s disciplinary system comprises three levels of “courts” responsible for “judging” different types of violations of school rules. School C’s trials are more systematic and less dialogical than those in Schools A and B.
The study used qualitative methods. The participants in the three schools were 37 children aged 8–19, 16 teachers, 13 parents, and two school principals. All adults and 16 of the 37 children participated in an individual semi-structured interview. The remaining 21 children participated in focus groups comprising 2–3 children each. The interviews were conducted during 2019-2020. Most participants (N=53) were interviewed in person, whereas the remainder were interviewed via Zoom when the schools were closed due to the COVID-19 crisis (N=17).
The interview protocols included questions about the school's disciplinary system, the participants' opinions about this system, and the participants' experiences with the system. All interviews were recorded and transcribed. In addition, relevant documents were collected and analyzed (school rules, relevant forms, and documents delineating the committees' duties and ideology).
The data were analyzed using a grounded theory approach. The current study is part of a broader project that explored conflicts between rights in the participatory disciplinary committees (Authors, 2023a), compared models of participation in the three schools (Authors, 2023b), and characterized adults’ role in facilitating, delimiting, and guiding participation (Authors, under review). The codes for the current study were formulated upon the completion of previous parts of the project, which provided a broad understanding of the ramifications of participation rights within a whole-school organizational ethos. Some of the codes emerged from previous sets of data analysis, and new codes were added at this stage. Relevant codes were organized into five subthemes, reflecting different dimensions for a critical analysis of student participation rights.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThe conclusions offer several crucial dimensions for a critical analysis of student participation rights:
(1) Participation should be examined from a holistic human rights perspective that considers other related rights and interests. The findings showed how students collective participation rights conflicted with children’s right to privacy and protection and with their best interest.
(2) Different types of participation rights should be analyzed discretely. Specifically, the study illuminates critical differences between individual participation rights, referring to the individual child’s right to participate in decisions that affect their life, and collective participation rights, which refer to the rights of groups of children.
(3) Participation rights should not be perceived as an obligation. The right not to participate means that while adults are required to facilitate participation, children who freely choose not to participate should be able to do so. The findings indicated that obligatory participation can be embarrassing or stressful and even create social difficulties, as the adjudicators’ decisions directly affect their peers.
(4) Participation rights should be understood as relational rights, which can affect and be affected by different people and social structures. The findings emphasized how the collective participation of some children can influence their peers as well as the critical roles of adults in the participation process.
(5) Participation rights should be contextualized and consider local circumstances and culture. Whereas this contention regarding the significance of the context may be evident in most educational settings, it might not be taken for granted in organizations where participation is at the heart of their ethos, such as democratic schools. The findings revealed substantial distinctions between different models of participatory committees, which underscore that even comparable participatory practices may be implemented differently in different organizational cultures and have entirely different implications for students’ rights and education.
ReferencesAuthor 2. (2021).
Author 2 & Other (2023).
Authors. (2023a).
Authors. (2023b).
Authors. (under review).
Blaisdell, C., Kustatscher, M., Zhu, Y., & Tisdall, E. K. M. (2021). The emotional relations of children’s participation rights in diverse social and spatial contexts: Advancing the field. Emotion, Space and Society, 40, 100816. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emospa.2021.100816
Drew, C. (2019). Problematising ‘student choice’ in classrooms. British Journal of Educational Studies, 67(4), 541–555. https://doi.org/10.1080/00071005.2018.1535646
Finneran, R., Mayes, E., & Black, R. (2023). Student voice, inequalities, and class. In G. W. Noblit (Ed.), Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Education. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.013.1902
Gawlicz, K., & Millei, Z. (2022). Critiquing the use of children’s voice as a means of forging the community in a Polish democratic school. Ethnography and Education, 17(1), 33–48. https://doi.org/10.1080/17457823.2021.1990100
Greenberg, D. (1991). Free at last: The Sudbury Valley School. The Sudbury Valley Press.
Hammersley, M. (2017). Childhood Studies: A sustainable paradigm? Childhood, 24(1), 113–127. https://doi.org/10.1177/0907568216631399
Hecht, Y. (2010). Democratic education: A beginning of a story. Alternative Education Resource Organization.
James, A. (2007). Giving voice to children’s voices: Practices and problems, pitfalls and potentials. American Anthropologist, 109(2), 261–272. https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.2007.109.2.261
Kim, C. Y. (2016). Why research “by” children? Rethinking the assumptions underlying the facilitation of children as researchers. Children & Society, 30(3), 230–240. https://doi.org/10.1111/chso.12133
Korkmaz, H. E., & Erden, M. (2014). A Delphi study: The characteristics of democratic schools. Journal of Educational Research, 107(5), 365–373. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2013.823365
Lewis, A. (2010). Silence in the context of “child voice.” Children & Society, 24(1), 14–23. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1099-0860.2008.00200.x
Quennerstedt, A. (2013). Children’s rights research moving into the future: Challenges on the way forward. The International Journal of Children’s Rights, 21(2), 233–247. https://doi.org/10.1163/15718182-02102006
Thomas, N. P. (2021). Child-led research, children’s rights and childhood studies: A defence. Childhood, 28(2), 186–199. https://doi.org/10.1177/0907568221996743
Tisdall, E. K. M. (2012). The challenge and challenging of childhood studies? Learning from disability studies and research with disabled children. Children & Society, 26(3), 181–191. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1099-0860.2012.00431.x
Tisdall, E. K. M., & Punch, S. (2012). Not so “new”? Looking critically at childhood studies. Children’s Geographies, 10(3), 249–264. https://doi.org/10.1080/14733285.2012.693376
Wilson, M. A. F. (2015). Radical democratic schooling on the ground: Pedagogical ideals and realities in a Sudbury school. Ethnography and Education, 10(2), 121–136. https://doi.org/10.1080/17457823.2014.959978
Wyness, M. (2009). Children representing children: Participation and the problem of diversity in UK youth councils. Childhood, 16(4), 535–552. https://doi.org/10.1177/0907568209344274
25. Research on Children's Rights in Education
Paper
Educators' perspectives of Young Children’s Rights from Socio-economic Deprived Areas in England and Wales
Ioanna Palaiologou1, Jacky Tyrie2, Sarah Chicken3
1University of Bristol, United Kingdom; 2Swansea University; 3University of West England
Presenting Author: Palaiologou, Ioanna;
Tyrie, Jacky
The 21st Century has seen multiple socioeconomic and geopolitical changes and crises that have impacted children’s lives. A global pandemic (COVID-19), wars and climate changes have led to increased disruption, displacement, exploitation (e.g., digital threats to privacy and safety online), violence and poverty (Eisenstadt et al., 2019). These issues affect all children, especially those from socioeconomically deprived backgrounds (SDBs) (UNICEF 2021, Loopstra et al., 2019) and are an ongoing violation of their human rights.
Since 1998, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) has driven implementation of children’s rights worldwide, leading to researchers and policymakers examining how children can access their rights. To date research examining children’s rights (e.g., Michell, Lundy & Hill, 2023), has either focused on older children (seven+) (Tyrie and Beachamp 2018) or on participation within school decision making related to Article 12 in particular. Less attention has been paid to children’s perspectives on broader rights. Furthermore, research on the experiences and accessibility to rights of children under five years is limited (Correia et al, 2019, Urbina-Garcia et al. 2022) and it is this gap that this research project seeks to address for three- to five-year-olds.
Moreover, public opinion, policies and laws in England and Wales are converging in support of assuring self-determination rights for children to validate their person status. To do so responsibly an appropriate balance between protection and self-determination rights must be achieved for children at every point in their development, no matter their socio-economic background. To determine and support this balance will require the existence of (a) empirical evidence of need and readiness for various protection and self-determination opportunities throughout the developmental period, (b) a broadly supported positive ideology of the child and (c) the active involvement of children in establishing their needs and rights. However, this involvement is problematic in disadvantaged socio-economic areas across UK.
The rights of children within educational settings are well acknowledged within the literature (e.g. Quennerstedt, 2016), and in the last 20 years much work has been undertaken in Human Rights Education (e.g. Robinson at al. 2020). Limited research focuses on the convergence between younger children’s rights (within education and in their everyday lives), however, and their experiences of socioeconomically deprivation. This research focuses, therefore, on the intersectionality between the two marginalised characteristics; younger children (3–5-year-olds) and socio-economic deprivation and seeks to evaluate how these impact access to rights. As discussed below, this is a three-year project that aims to:
- gain an understanding of educators’ perspective of young children’s access to their rights (age 3-5) [Year 1],
- to explore pedagogical practices that educators use (if any) to listen to young children about their rights [Year 1],
- gain an understanding of young children’s experiences of their rights (age 3-5) in four urban regions affected by socio-economic deprivation in England and Wales [Year 2],
- identify current practices of how children access their rights in practice and if any change is needed [Year 2],
- investigate ways of amplifying and enacting change where needed through collaboration and co-production with key stakeholders and communities [Year 3].
This presentation is focusing on the first two research questions being examined in Year 1 and reports data from educators in two urban regions in England and Wales that are affected by socio-economic deprivation.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThis project is driven by rights-based principles (rooted in UNCRC), has a conceptual framework of ‘child agency’ (James and Prout, 1997) and draws on Ecocultural Theory (Bernheimer et al., 1990). ‘Ecocultural Theory’ focuses on social phenomena within participants’ cultural settings and how families and communities construct meaning(s) of their circumstances. ‘[I]n ecocultural theory a critical unit of analysis is daily routines (or active settings) that are created and sustained by ecocultural focus’ (Bernheimer et al., 1990, p.221). Such lenses provide a framework that will enable us to understand how educators think, feel and act in certain ways, rather than homogenise voice(s). This theoretical framework enables us to understand the complexities of voice(s) of SDBs children and their families, as well as the multilayered meanings of their values and beliefs within their social spaces.
This project is developed over multiple stages across three years:
Stage 1: Exploring Educators’ perceptions (2024): This stage employs qualitative methodology and uses semi-structured interviews with educators in early childhood education, addressing research RQs 1 and 2 (see above). Currently, this stage is work in progress as we collect data from the educators.
In the initial research stage (2024) the approach is a Case Study (Denscombe 2021) with two case study sites, one in Swansea (Wales) and one in Bristol (England). The sample population is educators from early childhood education in each city who are accessed via opportunity sample and approx. 10 educators (on going data collection at the time the abstract submitted) will take part, divided equally between the two case study sites.
Stage 2: Understanding children’s perspectives (2025) Address RQs 3 and 4.
Stage 3: Making change (2026) Address RQ 5.
Stages 2 and 3 employ a combination of Participatory Action Research (PAR), case study and mixed methods research strategies (Denscombe 2021). During this period, we aim to work together with the children, caregivers and practitioner participants to examine children’s rights and to, where identified by participants, empower and support changes to rights access.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsWe consider this research is important both in the UK context and for other nations as in the last five years young children have grown and developed in a world of extraordinary change. This includes a global pandemic and a cost of living crisis, with evidence that 72 per cent of households go with without essentials and 58 per cent reporting not having enough money for food (UK Poverty 2024). Recent research has shown an exacerbation of social and educational inequalities for less privileged children and families (Baker and Bakopoulou, 2021). Thus, it is important to examine the educator’s perspectives and find out their perspectives on how young children from SDBs access their rights. As we are collecting data, final conclusions cannot yet be drawn, however expected themes are outline below:
• Educators will unpick both their own understanding of rights for the children in their care, but also provide an insight into children’s experiences of rights (from their adult perspectives – the second stage of the research will explore the children’s perspective).
• The data will draw out educators’ perceptions of the impact of socio-economic deprivation on children’s access to their rights.
• We will examine educator’s views on how best to engage and research with 3–5-year-olds in their settings, to support the next steps of the research in 2025.
ReferencesBernheimer LP, Gallimore R and Weisner TS (1990) Ecocultural theory as a context for the individual family service plan. Journal of Early Intervention 14(3): 219–233.
Baker W, and Bakopoulou I (2021) ‘Examining the impact of COVID-19 on children’s centres in Bristol’. British Educational Research Association, Report Series: Education and COVID-19. Retrieved from: https://www.bera.ac.uk/publication/examining-the-impact-of-covid-19-on-childrens-centres-in-bristol-lessons-for-policy-practice-promoting-life-chances-in-the-early-years. 30 January 2024.
Correia, N., Camilo, C., Aguiar, C., & Amaro, F. (2019). Children's right to participate in early childhood education settings: A systematic review. Children and Youth Services Review, 100, 76-88. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0190740918309770
Eisenstadt, N. and Oppenheim, C. (2019) 'Parents, poverty and the state: 20 years of evolving family policy', Bristol: Policy Press.
James, A., and Prout, A., (1997) Constructing and reconstructing childhood: Contemporary Issues in the Sociological Study of childhood, London: Routledge.
Loopstra, R., Reeves, A., and Tarasuk, V. (2019) 'The rise of hunger among low-income households: an analysis of the risks of food insecurity between 2004 and 2016 in a population-based study of UK adults', Journal Epidemiology and Community Health, 73(7): 668–73.
Mitchell, M., Lundy, L., and Hill., L., (2023) Children’s human rights to “Participation” and “Protection”: Rethinking the relationship using Barnahus as a case example. Child Abuse Review, vol. 32 (6), pp. 1-7.
Quennerstedt, A. (2016). Young children's enactments of human rights in early childhood education. International Journal of Early Years Education, 24(1), 5-18.
Street , M., (2022) Eliciting young children’s ‘voice’ in low-income areas in England: Recognising their mutuality of being, European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 30:1, 96-107.
Tyrie, J., and Beauchamp, G. (2018) 'Children’s perceptions of their access to rights in Wales: The relevance of gender and age', The International Journal of Children's Rights, 26(4), pp. 781–807.
UNICEF (2021) 'The state of the world’s children: On my mind: Promoting, protecting and caring for children’s mental health', The State of the World's Children 2021 | UNICEF.
Urbina-Garcia, A., Jindal-Snape, D., Lindsay, A., Boath, L., Hannah, E. F. S., Barrable, A., & Touloumakos, A. K. (2022). Voices of young children aged 3–7 years in educational research: An international systematic literature review. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 30(1), 8–31.
Robinson, C., Phillips, L., & Quennerstedt, A. (2020). Human rights education: Developing a theoretical understanding of teachers’ responsibilities. Educational Review, 72(2), 220-241.
Denscombe, M. (2021). The good research guide: For small-scale social research projects. McGraw-Hill Education (UK).
25. Research on Children's Rights in Education
Paper
Liberating Voices: Exploring Parent-Teacher Conferences from a Rights Perspective.
Stine Helms, Clara Ina Severin Steensen
University College Absalon, Denmark
Presenting Author: Helms, Stine;
Ina Severin Steensen, Clara
The intention of this paper is to give rise to reflections about the purpose of parent-teacher conferences in the light of children's rights to freely express their views on matters affecting their lives, as outlined in Article 12 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. This will set the stage for a discussion of the obstacles that hinder students' rights and their authentic engagement as valuable contributors to their own school lives. The project is based on an empirical study of student’s participation in parent-teacher conferences within the context of the Danish education system. However, the study has international relevance for all countries in which parent-teacher conferences is part of their school system.
In recent decades, there has been a growing market orientation in the education sector (Ball, 2003; Biesta, 2009; Helms, 2017/2020; Steensen, 2023), alongside with an increased focus on optimizing both schools' and students' performance which has resulted in a heightened demand for individual achievement. Alongside the shift towards enhanced evaluation practices in the school system in general, including the parent-teacher conferences (Helms & Steensen 2023), there has been limited attention to students' right to be heard, have their opinions respected, and participate in decisions related to their own lives cf. Article 12. International research (Förster 2016; Kotthoff 2015; Hofvendahl 2006; Lendrum et al. 2015; Tholander, 2011) as well as Danish studies on parent-teacher conferences (Helms & Steensen 2023; Helms 2017, 2020; Knudsen 2010; Kryger 2012; Kryger and Ravn 2007) have consistently shown that students are not provided with genuine opportunities to contribute with their own voices and perspectives in the parent-teacher conferences. The communication is generally observed as predominantly one-way with teachers addressing students and parents, resulting in student reluctance due to the expectation of being assessed. Taking these aspects into account our main research question is:
What dynamics emerge in the parent-teacher conference regarding the involvement of students' voices and how can we develop practices in school where students' right to express their viewpoints about their own lives is given space and taken seriously?
Drawing from the theoretical framework by Gert Biesta, we seek to illustrate how involving students primarily as objects of external demands displaces participation as subjectification. Subjectification, in this context, refers to the opportunity for students to exercise their freedom, bring their voices into play and be acknowledged as subjects of their own lives. Subjectification also involves becoming a democratic person. Biesta encourages reflections on the opportunities for democratic action and "learning-in-action" we create within the school. What schools can do—or at least should try to do—is to make democratic action possible (Biesta, 2007). If our objective is to foster democratic citizens or students capable of making informed decisions and taking action in an uncertain world, the school must provide students with the opportunity to realize that they possess a voice, and that this voice holds significance in the world.
Furthermore, drawing on the theory of Hartmut Rosa, particularly the concepts of alienation and resonance, we explore students' subjective experiences of participation in parent-teacher conferences as both zones of potential alienation and spaces of resonance within the school environment (Rosa 2021). In addition to Biesta's and Rosa's perspectives, we integrate theoretical viewpoints that directly address children's rights. Harry Shier (2017) contributes with the perspective of children's active agency and emphasizes the importance of recognizing children as vital contributors to discussions about their education and well-being, rather than passive recipients. This viewpoint aligns with Laura Lundy's work, which enriches the discussion by underscoring the necessity for authentic engagement and the inclusion of students' voices in shaping their educational experiences (Lundy, 2007).
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedIn our methodological framework, we adopt a theoretical perspective informed by practice theory (Schatzki 1996, Kemmis et al. 2014) and draw inspiration from Lindblad & Sahlström's depiction of classroom research (1998). Lindblad & Sahlström emphasize that classroom research aligns with a specific form of ethnography, namely ethnographic classroom research. This approach is driven by the aspiration to generate knowledge 'from below,' focusing on specific interactions, negotiations, and strategies in everyday life (Lindblad & Sahlström, 1998, p. 226).
The analysis is based on a study conducted in 2021-2022, with a particular focus on students' perspectives on parent-teacher conferences. The empirical data encompasses observations from 71 parent-teacher conferences in the 8th and 9th grades, followed by interviews involving students, teachers and parents at five distinct schools. Three of these schools are located in a middle-class area within a medium-sized Danish town, while the remaining two are situated in areas facing socio-economic disadvantages. The interview data includes four focus group interviews involving a total of 22 students, five interviews with parents, and five interviews with one teacher from each school. The choice of focus group interviews was made with the intention of reducing the asymmetrical power dynamic between children and adults in the interview situation (Warming, 2011). The intention was that the students, in interaction with their peers, would express themselves more freely and engage in mutual meaning-making discussions (Halkier, 2010). We observed a high level of participation and discussion in the interviews, both through students’ building on each other’s responses and through disagreements about whether the parent-teacher conference was perceived as predominantly positive or negative.
The research project primarily focuses on illuminating the practice of parent-teacher conferences for students in underprivileged situations. Consequently, the analyses predominantly delve into the conferences and interviews of these specific students.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsBuilding upon Rosa's resonance perspective and incorporating insights from Biesta, our study highlights that when students perceive parent-teacher conferences as assessments of their performance, it creates an unsafe environment for those who already struggle to conform to the school's demands and expectations. Our analyses further emphasize that reducing students to objects evaluated by external criteria denies them the chance to voice their perspectives on the school life they are expected to engage in. Simultaneously, in our observations of parent-teacher conferences, we gain insight into teachers' efforts to incorporate students' perspectives in the conversation. The emergence of a more experimental practice forms an interesting foundation for a forward-looking discussion on creating a less anxiety-inducing framework for parent-teacher conferences, allowing space for students' voices and promoting a democratic practice.
In light of these findings, our goal is to collaborate with students, teachers, and parents to improve the content and structure of parent-teacher conferences. The aim is to transform the conferences into supportive and motivating experiences, fostering the development and well-being of all students. To achieve this, we propose implementing action research methods, where researchers closely collaborate with stakeholders to design and test initiatives. The objective is to counteract tendencies toward objectification and the overemphasis of students' responsibility, ultimately increasing opportunities for students' active democratic participation and rights to freely express their views on matters affecting their lives.
ReferencesBall, J. S. (2003) The teacher’s soul and the terrors of performativity. Journal of Education Policy 18: 215–28.
Biesta, G. (2007) Education and the Democratic Person: Towards a Political Conception of Democratic Education. Teachers College Record 109(3):740-769
Biesta, G. (2009) Good education in an age of measurement: On the need to reconnect with the question of purpose of education. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability 21: 33–46.
Förster, R. (2016) When boundaries become permeable: Conversations at parent-teacher conferences and their meaning for constitution of an institution. Journal of Applied Linguistic and Professional Practice 10: 23.
Helms, S. (2020) Inddragelse, modstand og forhandling i skole-hjem-samtalen. Studier i Læreruddannelse og -Profession 5: 31–51,
Helms, S. & Steensen, C. (2023) Skole-hjem-samtaler som fremmedgørelseszoner og resonansrum. Dansk Pædagogisk Tidsskrift 1: 78–94.
Hofvendahl, J. (2006) ‘Noa har inga fel’: Om bristfokus i skolans utvecklingssamtal [‘Noa has no mistakes’: On the deficiency focus of parent–teacher–student conferences]. Utbildning & Demokrati 15: 61–81.
Kemmis, S., Wilkingson, J., Edwards-Groves, C., Hardy, I., Grootenboer, P. & Bristol, L. (2014) Changing practices, Changing education. Springer.
Knudsen, H. (2010) Har vi en aftale? – magt og ansvar i mødet mellem folkeskole og familie. Nyt fra Samfundsvidenskaberne.
Kotthoff, H. (2015) Narrative constructions of school-oriented parenthood during parent-teacher-conferences. Linguistics and Education 31: 286–303
Kryger, N. (2012) Ungdomsidentitet—Mellem skole og hjem. In: Hvem sagde samarbejde? Et hverdagslivsstudie af skole-hjem-relationer. Edited by Karen Ida Dannesboe, Niels Kryger, Charlotte Palludan and Birte Ravn. Aarhus Universitetsforlag, pp. 89–130.
Lendrum, A., Barlow, A. & Humphrey, N. (2015) Developing positive school–home relationships through structured conversations with parents of learners with special educational needs and disabilities. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs 15: 87–96.
Lindblad, S. & Sahlström, F. (1998) Klasserumsforskning: en oversigt med fokus på interaktion og elever. In: Bjerg, J. (edt.) (2003) Pædagogik - en grundbog til et fag. Hans Reitzels Forlag.
Lundy, L. (2007) ‘Voice’ is not enough: conceptualising Article 12 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. British Educational Research Journal, 33(6), 927-942.
Rosa, H. (2021) Resonance, a Sociology of the Relationship to the World. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Schatzki, T. (1996) Social Practices. Cambridge University Press.
Shier, H. (2017) Children´s rights to participation in decision-making: A professional challenge in an international and Nordic perspective. Metropol.
Tholander, M. (2011) Student-led conferencing as democratic practice. CHILDREN & SOCIETY, vol. 25, (2011) pp. 239–250.
|
