25. Research on Children's Rights in Education
Paper
Inclusion, Sustainability and Policy Impact of Children’s and Youth’s Councils
Anouk Van Der Wildt1, Irene Baraldi2, Marie Van Roost1
1Karel de Grote University, Belgium; 2International Institute of Humanitarian Law, Italy
Presenting Author: Van Der Wildt, Anouk;
Van Roost, Marie
While the importance of enhancing children’s agency - those actions made by children that are not simply reactions to adults’ inputs (Baraldi, 2022) - is increasingly becoming a central part of education (OECD, 2018), studies show that traditional education keeps promoting children’s conformity minimising experimentation and risk-taking (Kirby, 2020). On a similar note, traditional narratives about children describe them as incompetent and unreliable (Baraldi, 2014). This tendency is confirmed by research studies that show that children have the feeling that their opinions are not considered seriously and specific groups of children do not have the opportunity to raise their voices as loudly as others and remain excluded (European Commission, et.al., 2021). At school, 16,7% of children feel adults never listen to their opinions when making policy decisions (Unicef & Eurochild, 2019). Moreover, even when participatory activities, like children’s councils, are promoted, they often suffer from issues of sustainability and continuity, as guaranteeing staff capacity and training is a challenge. The project GOTALK challenges this trend and complies with the idea that children have the right to share their opinions and adults should take those opinions into account when they take decisions that affect children. To do so, the GOTALK project proposes an innovative participatory creation and implementation of youths’ councils in two contexts, Italy and Belgium. In the framework of the project, three schools and one youth center embarked on the GOTALK journey towards more inclusive and sustainable councils that would also lead to effective policy impact. The trajectory was inspired by insights on living wall, pedagogical documentation and the mosaic approach (Bjartveit et.al., 2019; Clark & Moss, 2011). The analysis was done together with the members of the children’s and youth’s councils and will be discussed with other children from the schools to ensure they also recognize themselves in the analysis, aiming at the inclusiveness of the analysis and saturation of the data . In order to ensure the sustainability of the insights, the GOTALK project focuses on one policy theme for the entire school year: in Belgium children’s councils will discuss the topic of out-of-school care and activities (following up on the Decree BOA, 2019), while in Italy, also following the introduction of the new law on civic education (Law 92/2019), citizenship education related topics will be at the pipeline of the children’s activities.
As the credibility of the actions is a key issue to ensure that youths and children feel heard and entrusted, sustainability is also a fundamental aspect of the children councils. In this regard, the GOTALK team supports schools and youth organizations in ensuring the continuity of the councils by raising awareness and appreciation of the student councils inside and outside the school or organization. Ensuring policy impact is guaranteed by engaging with policy makers in a discussion on the boundaries of the policy impact that children councils can have and by facilitating the direct dialogue between children and policy makers.
The GOTALK research aims at strengthening children’s participation by enhancing it’s inclusiveness, policy impact and sustainability. In this research we focus on two questions: (1) How do children between 10 and 18 in children’s councils attribute meaning to the concepts of inclusiveness, sustainability and policy impact? And (2) How can we build upon these meanings in order to cocreate an inclusive, sustainable trajectory with policy impact at the children’s councils?
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThe method of this research includes action research in primary and secondary schools and youth organizations combined with narrative analysis of children’s voices about inclusiveness, sustainability and policy impact. The voices of children and youth are gathered during various council meetings and in individual peer-to-peer interviews with children. Besides that, the data involves the pedagogical documentation that is done within the children’s and youth’s councils on the participation trajectories.
During the narrative analysis, the different formats in which we can hear and read the voices of the children are gathered in NVivo software and analysis. The three main focus points of the GOTALK approach: inclusiveness, sustainability and policy impact are used as structuring principles in the distillation of meanings from the voices from children’s and youth’s councils. Analysis is done separately for Italian and Belgian data, as children have different experiences with councils and work on different policy themes but were periodically compared in the GOTALK research team.
The cocreation and development of the trajectories has been documented during meetings inspired by the Reggio Emilia approach to Early Childhood Education (Edwards et.al., 1993). During these meetings, the children’s and youth’s councils and the joint analysis considered. Researchers considered the voices heard in order to use these as the most important element for the design of the further trajectory in the schools and youth center. Important turning points and insights from these meetings are used to make explicit how the trajectories have been built.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThe meaning attributed to inclusiveness, sustainability and policy impact are various. For what concerns inclusiveness, children stress the inclusion of various voices. Children involved in the councils showed awareness and understanding of who is not included in the councils (such as younger children and children that are rather silent). They showed the willingness and need to include their excluded peers, but also expressed some children are hard to reach, also for them, as peers. Children tend to feel more confident when asking younger children or multilingual children about their stance on the policy topics, than children who show aggressive behavior.
Considering sustainability, children feel the councils should not only be continued over time, but a very important aspect of sustainability is also how the council is embedded at school. Some children express their concerns about the image of the council with children and teachers that do not take part in it.
Policy impact has been a topic along the trajectory. Throughout this first phase of the research, it appeared that children are not used to reflect upon a “policy” topic for a long period of time, which would include several meetings and activities. This is related to the fact that schools as institutions involve children in the decision-making process only for a short period of time, providing them fast and unsustainable solutions to their enquiries. Instead, sustainable change requires time and energy: it is notable that despite feelings of demotivation, children express their appreciation towards a long-term perspective, as they feel more informed about the policy topic before being expected to express their arguments and suggestions.
One of the adjustments so far is to slow down the trajectory and adopt a more flexible preparation for the councils as children expressed they felt too little space to discuss topics in depth.
ReferencesBjartveit, C., Carston, C. S., Baxtor, J., Hart, J., & Greenidge, C. (2019). The living wall: Implementing and interpreting pedagogical documentation in specialized ELCC settings. Journal of Childhood Studies, 28-38.
Baraldi, C. (2022). Facilitating Children's Agency in the Interaction. Palgrave Macmillan.
Clark, Alison and Moss, Peter (2011). Listening To Young Children: The Mosaic Approach (2nd ed.). London: National Children's Bureau.
Edwards, et.al. (1993) The Hundred Languages of Children: The Reggio Emilia Approach to Early Childhood Education. Norwood: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
European Commission, Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers, Janta, B., Bruckmayer, M., Silva, A., et al., Study on child participation in the EU political and democratic life: final report, Publications Office, 2021, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2838/388737
Kirby, P. (2019). Children’s Agency in the Modern Primary Classroom.
OECD (2018), Education at a Glance 2018: OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/eag-2018-en.
UNICEF & EUROCHILD (2019) The Europe Kids Want. Sharing the views of children and young people across Europe. Autumn 2019. https://eurochild.org/uploads/2020/11/Euro_Kids_Want_Brochure_Nov2019.pdf
25. Research on Children's Rights in Education
Paper
Children´s Participation in the Swedish School-age Educare
Jonas Johansson, Marita Cronqvist, Petra Andersson
University of Borås, Sweden
Presenting Author: Johansson, Jonas;
Cronqvist, Marita
Children’s possibility to participate in everyday life is a fundamental right, mentioned in The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) which is a part of Swedish law (Act on Convention on the Rights of the Child, 2018). In Sweden many children in the age of 6-12 years take part in the school-age educare (SAE) which is an activity taking place before and after school, as well as during holidays. SAE has a unique position within the Swedish school system as the activities are conducted within the framework of the school based on school law and curriculum, but also have a clear anchoring in everything that can be associated with leisure and social activities. SAE is an important part of the school´s activity (Cronqvist, 2021) where the education is affected by relationships and well-being in general, based on children´s needs, interest and experience (Swedish National Agency for Education, 2022). For the SAE-centre to be able to assert high quality in teaching, Hjalmarsson (2013) is addressing the problems surrounding the children's opportunities to participate in and design their own activities in relation to the adults' endeavour to offer the children a variety of activities. There seems to be a tension within SAE, on the one hand, meeting children’s needs and interests and, on the other hand, conducting activities based on a curriculum aimed at children's development and learning, which could indicate that teachers organize specific activities for teaching purposes. However, Pálsdóttir (2014) claims that social learning does not seem to be the subject of educators' planning but takes place informally in the activities. Jonsson and Lillvist (2019) believe that the everyday practice when teachers in SAE must deal with many children at the same time means that there is no time for reflection, and the activities are allowed to run on. There are thus limits to the extent to which children's interests and needs can be met, and many times the solution can lie in children being allowed to play freely. Haglund (2015) advocates children's influence in the activities based on the democratic mission on which the school lean towards, which would be another challenge based on the conclusions drawn by Jonsson and Lillvist (2019). It is not enough just to plan and reflect on the activities that the teachers organize, but the children's perspectives, thoughts, opinions and needs have to be asked for and involved in the planning. The problem that is relevant to how children's perspectives can be made visible and add quality in SAE is how an individualistic approach can be accommodated within leisure activities, which are traditionally group-oriented and focused on relationships between children (Lager, 2016). Throughout, there is a gap in research where more knowledge is needed about how children's perspectives can be taken advantage of in leisure activities to increase their participation and thereby create quality. The current project aims to reduce this gap.
The project aims to pay attention to children's perspective on the leisure activities they participate in and, based on their lived experiences, identify and define a concrete development area to increase children's participation in SAE, implement an action and then follow up and reflect on the experiences of the action. If time allows, possible adjustments can be made in the activities based on the reflections. The purpose has been formulated based on the needs that representatives of the school have identified, and the implementation has been jointly discussed. The teachers experience difficulties when taking advantage of the children's perspective in the daily activities and want to expand their opportunities to be involved.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThe project is conducted as action research in various stages and is generally based on phenomenology. The specific approach is Reflective Life World Research (RLR) which strives to, despite contextual variations, find the essence of the current phenomenon through the lived experiences of the participants (Dahlberg et al., 2008).
The participating children are approximately 40 aged 8-10 years from two different SAE-departments at a school in Sweden. The project is pursued by the vice principal and two teachers at the current school in corporation with a lecturer, a PhD-student and a senior lecturer from a nearby university. In all steps collaboration will take place, but from obvious reasons step 1 and 5 will be moderated by the school-staff.
The project will be carried out in six steps and will be implemented in line with the different phases identified within action research (Zeichner & Noffke, 2001). Reflection will be prominent in the process.
The six steps:
1) the children react emotionally and express their feelings about the SAE through a simple survey with emojis.
2) some of the children will be selected for interviews in purpose to learn about their lived experiences in relation to participation in the SAE.
3) data will be analysed phenomenologically to get knowledge of themes/essential meanings concerning children’s participation in the SAE.
4) the result will be reflected and different possible actions to strengthen children’s participation is discussed. Decision of implementation is made.
5) the action is carried out.
6) the action is followed up through common reflections. Different proposals of adjustments and changes are discussed and possibly implemented.
The analysis work is carried out in different stages with an open reflective attitude towards the phenomenon's character traits and an effort to “bridle” (Dahlberg et al., 2008) one's own preconceptions. In the first step, data is read, repeatedly to get familiar with it. Individual words, sentences or paragraphs are marked when they express something about the meaning of the phenomenon (van Manen, 2014). Notes are made in the margin about those meaning units. In the second step, patterns are searched for, called clusters, which are based on the marked meaning units. In the patterns, a structure is sought for what is superior and subordinate in terms of meaning. In the third step, an attempt is made to formulate the abstract essential meaning of the phenomenon based on which character traits are stable despite various contextual variations.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThe tentative results show that the participant children express participation in the SAE as a phenomenon affected by organizational aspects such as time and place, but also interpersonal interactions. The children’s possibilities to get their voice heard depends on how they manage to handle these aspects and interactions. For example, the daily gathering at the SAE is a moment for information from the staff but also an opportunity for the children to speak out. Some of the participant children express that the possibility to express their opinion during the gathering is limited by time and the number of participants, and therefore they find other ways to negotiate participation. Furthermore, some of the participant children's express feelings of satisfaction and security when the staff in the SAE organize and decide what, how and when things happen in the SAE. This adult governance contributes to a feeling of belonging. Though, concurrently, some of the children express that their feeling of belonging to the peer group is limited by organizational aspects as grouping. This conclusion will eventually be reversed after completed analysis.
ReferencesAct on Convention on the Rights of the Child (SFS 2018:1197). Socialdepartementet. https://www.riksdagen.se/sv/dokument-och-lagar/dokument/svensk-forfattningssamling/lag-20181197-om-forenta-nationernas-konvention_sfs-2018-1197/
Cronqvist, M. (2021). Joy in Learning: When Children Feel good and Realize They Learn. Educare, (3), 54–77. https://doi.org/10.24834/educare.2021.3.3
Dahlberg, K., Dahlberg, H. & Nyström, M. (2008). Reflective lifeworld research (2nd ed.). Studentlitteratur.
Haglund, B. (2015) Pupil's opportunities to influence activities: a study of everyday practice at a Swedish leisure-time centre. Early Child Development and Care, 185(10), 1556-1568. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2015.1009908
Hjalmarsson, M. (2013). Governance and voluntariness for children in swedish leisure-time centres: Leisure-time teachers interpreting their tasks and everyday practice. International Journal for Research on Extended Education, 1(1). 86-95.
Jonsson, K. & Lillvist, A. (2019) Promoting social learning in the Swedish leisure time centre. Education Inquiry, 10(3), 243-257. https://doi.org/10.1080/20004508.2019.1571358
Lager, K. (2016) ‘Learning to play with new friends’: systematic quality development work in a leisure-time centre. Early Child Development and Care, 186(2), 307-323. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2015.1030634
Pálsdóttir, K. Þ. (2014). The professional identity of recreation personnel. Barn: Forskning om barn og barndom i Norden, 32(3), 75–89. https://doi.org/10.5324/barn.v33i3.3502
Swedish National Agency for Education (2022). Curriculum for the compulsory school, preschool class and the leisure-time centre 2022. https://www.skolverket.se/undervisning/grundskolan/laroplan-och-kursplaner-for-grundskolan/laroplan-lgr22-for-grundskolan-samt-for-forskoleklassen-och-fritidshemmet?url=907561864%2Fcompulsorycw%2Fjsp%2Fcurriculum.htm%3Ftos%3Dgr%26cur%3DLGR22&sv.url=12.5dfee44715d35a5cdfa219f#anchor_4
van Manen, M. (2014). Phenomenology of practice: Meaning-giving methods in phenomenological research and writing. Left Coast Press.
Zeichner, K. & Noffke, S. (2001). Practitioner Research. In Virginia Richardson (ed.). Handbook of Research on Teaching (4th ed.). AERA.
25. Research on Children's Rights in Education
Paper
Pedagogic Voice in the Classroom from a Children's Rights Perspective
Gabriela Martinez Sainz1, Dympna Devine1, Seaneen Sloan1, Jennifer Symonds2
1University College Dublin, Ireland; 2University College London, UK
Presenting Author: Martinez Sainz, Gabriela
Children have the right to form their own views and be heard on matters affecting them. As detailed in Article 12 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), children have the right to express their views and opinions and for these views to be given due weight and the right to being heard (UNCRC, 1989, Art. 12). As it has been articulated in the Lundy model of child participation (2007), voice is one of the core elements of children’s right to participation. For the full exercise of this right, children’s voice requires safe and inclusive opportunities where they can form and express their views (space), and also demand that children are listened to (audience) and their views are acted upon as appropriate (influence). Breaches to children’s right to participate, including disregard or neglect to consider their views or exclusion from decision-making, have been consistently corroborated since then particularly in relation to their education and schooling experience (McMellon & Tisdall,2020), despite children's clear desire to participate (Forde et al. 2018; Martinez Sainz & Daminelli, 2022; Waldron & Oberman, 2016). Children’s capacity to express their views on matters related to teaching, learning and curriculum is encompassed by the concept of ‘pedagogic voice’ (Arnot & Reay, 2007), which aligns with their right to be listened to on matters that affect them and the extent to which their views are fully considered and acted upon as granted in the UNCRC.
This paper brings together the sociology of pedagogic voice and a children’s rights framework to answer two research questions. First, how do children experience being heard and actively participate in decision-making processes related to their learning in diverse primary school settings in Ireland? Second, how do the relationships between children and teachers and their pedagogical encounters in the classroom inform and transform children’s voice? We proposed a rights-based approach to children's pedagogic voice as a relevant framework to explore their experiences of participation in decision-making and whether and if so how these shape their learning experiences. We draw on quantitative and qualitative data from the longitudinal mixed-methods cohort study Children’s School Lives (CSL) study in Ireland to analyse the views and experiences of children and teachers regarding children's voice and their capacity to influence their own learning.
Research exploring children’s voice in school and community life has looked at different processes and practices from consultations or collaborations with students to participation spaces and mechanisms and leadership opportunities for children (Cook-Sather, 2006; Fielding, 2004; Fleming, 2013; Mitra & Gross, 2009). It also has explored the opportunities children have to analyse and revise educational approaches or act as partners in research projects (Lundy & Cook-Sather, 2016). The inclusion of children in decision-making has been demonstrated to result in meaningful contributions to school improvement (Mitra, 2001; MacBeath et al, 2003; Flutter and Rudduck, 2004; Pedder & McIntyre 2006; Rudduck & McIntyre, 2007; Thompson, 2009). Fostering children’s voice in schools contributes to their development as citizens, preparing them for active and informed participation in society (Devine, 2002; Jerome & Starkey, 2021); and can lead to a stronger commitment to their own learning, including improved motivation and positive attitudes towards learning as well as a stronger identity as a learner (Flutter and Rudduck, 2004). As children are “expert witnesses” (Flutter and Rudduck, 2004, p 4) or legitimate informants (Lundy & Cook-Sather, 2016) of learning, teaching and schooling processes, they can provide unique insights into challenges and possible solutions.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThe data analysed in this paper are part of the national longitudinal study of primary schooling in Ireland, Children's School Lives (www.cslstudy.ie). CSL is a mixed-method cross-sequential longitudinal study that follows two representative age cohorts in 189 primary schools reflecting the full spectrum of school types in Ireland in relation to size, patronage, socio-economic status, gender and urban/rural settings. Over a 5 years period, a nationally representative quantitative study was conducted across the 189 schools (CSL National study sample) using a repeated measures survey with children, their parents, classroom teachers and school principals. In addition, in-depth case studies were conducted across 13 schools (CSL Case study sample) using interviews, focus groups, class observations and multi-modal, child-centred participatory methods. The CSL study followed the ethical procedures approved by the University Human Ethics Research Committee and all the children and adults have previously consented to participate in this research.
This paper adopts a key exploratory interpretative case study (Thomas 2021) with phenomenological undertones (Kettley, 2010) and draws on longitudinal qualitative and quantitative data of children and teachers who participated in the project annually from 2019 to 2022. It encompasses the two cohorts participating in the CSL study, Cohort A comprised of children who started primary school in 2019 (4-5 years old) and Cohort B of children who were in 2nd class (7-8 years old). The paper includes data from four waves of data collection conducted on a yearly basis, the last wave analysed here was collected in 2022, when the cohorts were in 1st class (6-7 years old) and 5th class (10-11 years old) respectively. The quantitative data in the paper reports on the National Study sample with surveys of participating children of the two cohorts (N= 13,386) and their classroom teachers (N= 583). The qualitative data reports on 13 case Study sample, with 7 schools for Cohort A and 6 schools for Cohort B. The case study sample also represents the full spectrum of Irish schools in terms of size, urban/rural, socioeconomic status, gender and school patronage. The data analysed in this paper includes interviews with the teachers, focus groups with the children, observations and play-based activities.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsLongitudinal findings of the CSL Study demonstrate the existence of both individual challenges for children’s voice in the classrooms as well as structural barriers that hinder their active participation in decision-making to influence their learning. Whereas individual challenges relate to children’s perceptions, experiences and understandings of voice as well as teachers’ attitudes and their pedagogical practices, the structural barriers are connected to the affordances and limitations of the curriculum to facilitate children’s voice and requirements in the policy implementation for children’s participation in decision-making. The findings from children across the different classes in primary school provide a complex picture of pedagogic voice, highlighting how children’s capacity to express their views on matters related to teaching, learning and curriculum is informed and developed from their unique perspectives and everyday experiences in their school lives. Children’s perceptions of instances when their pedagogic voice was considered and respected, might not align with adults’ considerations. For instance, contrary to what teachers reported, children felt their voice was included more and their ideas taken into consideration as they progressed through primary school. However, in the examples they provided, it is evident that their participation was constrained to issues related to classroom management or school policies and not in relation to core pedagogical issues informing and shaping their learning such as teaching approaches, curriculum implementation or assessment strategies. Our findings highlight the complexity of both aspirations and practice with respect to children’s voice in the classroom. While the research suggests a very positive disposition toward children’s voice, in practice it operates in diverse ways - from higher voice and participation in the earlier years, to a more directed focus on voice in terms of discipline, and classroom management.
ReferencesArnot, M. & Reay, D. (2007) A Sociology of Pedagogic Voice: Power, inequality and pupil consultation, Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 28:3, 311-325.
Baroutsis, McGregor, A.G. & Mills, M. (2016) Pedagogic voice: student voice in teaching and engagement pedagogies, Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 24:1, 123-140.
Brantefors, L., & Quennerstedt, A. (2016). Teaching and learning children’s human rights: A research synthesis. Cogent Education, 3(1), 1247610.
Cook-Sather, A. (2006). Sound, Presence, and Power: "Student Voice" in Educational Research and Reform. Curriculum Inquiry 36(4), 359-390.
Devine, D. and McGillicuddy, D. (2016) Positioning pedagogy—a matter of children’s rights, Oxford Review of Education, 42(4), 424-443.
Donegan, A., Devine, D., Martinez-Sainz, G., Symonds, J., & Sloan, S. (2023). Children as co-researchers in pandemic times: Power and participation in the use of digital dialogues with children during the COVID-19 lockdown. Children and Society, 37(1), 235-253.
Fielding, M. (2007). Beyond "Voice": New Roles, Relations, and Contexts in Researching with Young People. Discourse 28(3), 301-310.
Fleming, J. (2013). Young people’s participation – Where next? Children & Society, 27: 484-495.
Flutter, J., & Rudduck, J. (2004). Consulting pupils: What's in it for schools?. Psychology Press.
Forde, C., D. Horgan, S. Martin, and A. Parkes (2018). Learning from Children’s Voice in Schools: Experiences from Ireland. Journal of Educational Change 19 (4): 489–509.
Horgan, D., C. Forde, S. Martin, and A. Parkes. 2017. “Children’s Participation: Moving from the Performative to the Social.” Children’s Geographies 15 (3): 274–288.
Jerome, L. & Starkey, H. (2021) Children's Rights Education in Diverse Classrooms
Pedagogy, Principles and Practice. London: Bloomsbury.
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.
Lundy, L., & Cook-Sather, A. (2016). Children’s rights and student voice: Their intersections and the implications for curriculum and pedagogy. In The SAGE handbook of curriculum, pedagogy and assessment. London: SAGE. 263–277.
McMellon, C., & Tisdall, E. K. M. (2020). Children and Young People’s Participation Rights: Looking Backwards and Moving Forwards, The International Journal of Children's Rights, 28(1), 157-182. doi: DOI:10.1163/15718182-02801002
Mitra, D.L. (2018). Student voice in secondary schools: The possibility for deeper change. Journal of Educational Administration, 56(5), 473–487. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-01-2018-0007
Skerritt, C. (2023) A sinister side of student voice: surveillance, suspicion, and stigma, Journal of Education Policy, 38:6, 926-943
UNCRC, United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, November 20, 1989. https://www.ohchr.org/en
|
