Conference Agenda
Overview and details of the sessions of this conference. Please select a date or location to show only sessions at that day or location. Please select a single session for detailed view (with abstracts and downloads if available).
Please note that all times are shown in the time zone of the conference. The current conference time is: 19th Aug 2026, 21:28:38 EET
|
Daily Overview |
| Session | ||
25 SES 12 A: Children's Voices
Paper Session
| ||
    | ||
25. Research on Children's Rights in Education
Paper Listening Beyond Words: Children’s Voice and Democratic Meaning-Making in the Classroom Book Corner 1: Fırat University, Faculty of Education, Elazığ, Türkiye; 2: Fırat University, Faculty of Education, Elazığ, Türkiye Presenting Author:In recent years, the concept of children’s voice has made a significant contribution to recognising children in early childhood education not as passive recipients of educational services, but as active meaning-makers whose perspectives shape everyday pedagogical life (Clark, 2005). Nevertheless, despite this increasing emphasis, children’s voice is still frequently addressed in research as verbal expressions elicited and interpreted within adult-centred frameworks (Clark, 2007). This study aims to move beyond narrow and representational understandings of children’s voice by examining how children’s perspectives emerge in early childhood classrooms through everyday interactions, material environments, and relationships. The classroom book corner is conceptualised as a lived pedagogical space in which children make choices, negotiate meanings, and exercise their autonomy through daily interactions with books, peers, and adults (Bolat et al., 2025). In this study, the book corner is not treated as a neutral or merely instructional area; rather, it is approached as a space where democratic meaning-making processes take place. The main objective of the study is to investigate how children express their experiences and perspectives regarding the classroom book corner through multiple modes of expression, and how these expressions influence pedagogical practices. Accordingly, the study is guided by the following research questions:
The theoretical framework of the study is grounded in childhood studies, democratic education, and rights-based approaches to research with children. Within this framework, children are understood as competent social actors and rights holders, and children’s voice is conceptualised not as a direct or transparent reflection of individual intention, but as a relational, situated, and co-constructed process. This perspective foregrounds the ethical responsibilities of researchers and educators in relation to how children’s voices emerge, how they are mediated, and how they are responded to in practice. In line with this theoretical and methodological framework, the study conceptualises democracy through children’s everyday classroom interactions, decision-making processes, and negotiations of meaning, while the book corner is treated as an experiential pedagogical space in which these processes become visible. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used This study was conducted using a qualitative research design informed by phenomenology and was designed within the framework of the Mosaic approach. Phenomenology, which is characterised by its capacity to capture lived experience in depth (Van Manen, 2007), was chosen to explore children’s lived experiences of the classroom book corner and the meanings they attribute to these experiences. In high-quality early childhood research, it is essential that children are positioned as active participants in the research process (Stephenson, 2009; James & Prout, 2015). The Mosaic approach provides a participatory and child-centred framework that makes children’s voices visible through multiple modes of expression. The Mosaic approach enables children to express their experiences not only verbally, but also through drawings, photographs taken by the children, storytelling, play-based interactions, and embodied forms of expression (Clark & Moss, 2011). Through these multiple modes of expression, children are able to participate actively in the research process as experts of their own lives (Lundy, 2007; I’Anson, 2013). The study group was determined using purposeful sampling, specifically criterion sampling (Patton, 2015), which is a non-probability sampling method. The criteria included children being aged between 48 and 72 months, attending early childhood education, and participating in the study on a voluntary basis. The participants of the study consisted of 20 children aged 48–72 months attending early childhood education settings and the teachers working with these children. One private preschool and one public preschool were selected for the study, and 10 children from each school were included. The participating children were enrolled in three different classrooms across the two schools. In selecting the schools, the implementation of an early childhood education programme and the presence of an actively used classroom book corner were taken as the main criteria. Data generation was carried out in two stages. In the first stage, children’s perspectives were documented through drawings, photographs taken by the children, observations of play and book-related interactions, and everyday conversations. In the second stage, these materials were revisited together with the children and teachers, and meanings were co-interpreted through shared dialogues. In research with children, attention to ethical considerations is one of the most critical aspects of the data collection process (Einarsdóttir, 2007; Cook-Sather, 2006; Einarsdóttir, 2014). Accordingly, particular care was taken to ensure that children’s everyday learning experiences were not disrupted and that participation was based on voluntariness. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings The study is expected to demonstrate that children’s voices related to the classroom book corner emerge in multimodal, relational, and context-sensitive ways. It is anticipated that children’s perspectives become visible not only through speech, but also through play, movement, choice-making, silence, and interactions with peers and materials. The findings are expected to show that children’s voices actively shape the organisation and use of the book corner, as well as the meanings this space holds for children. In this sense, the book corner is understood to function as a democratic space in which children negotiate participation, autonomy, and belonging. The study aims to contribute to discussions on how democracy in early childhood education can be understood not as an abstract concept to be taught, but as a lived experience enacted through everyday pedagogical practices. By foregrounding children’s voices through a familiar classroom space, the study highlights the potential of participatory methodologies for conducting ethical and democratic research with young children. References Bolat, Y., Camcı, T., Demir, E., Taşcı, İ., & Yüksel, Z. (2025). Anaokullarındaki öğrenme merkezlerinin incelenmesi. İnönü Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 26(1), 279–302. Clark, A. (2005). Listening to and involving young children: A review of research and practice. Early Childhood Development and Care, 175(6), 489–505. Clark, A. (2007). Views from inside the shed: Young children’s perspectives of the outdoor environment. Education 3–13, 35(4), 349–363. Clark, A., & Moss, P. (2011). Listening to young children: The Mosaic approach (2nd ed.). National Children’s Bureau. Clark, A., & Statham, J. (2005). Listening to young children: Experts in their own lives. Adoption & Fostering, 29(1), 45–56. Cook-Sather, A. (2006). Sound, presence, and power: “Student voice” in educational research and reform. Curriculum Inquiry, 36(4), 359–390. Einarsdóttir, J. (2007). Research with children: Methodological and ethical challenges. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 15(2), 197–211. Einarsdóttir, J. (2014). Children’s perspectives on play. In L. Brooker, M. Blaise, & S. Edwards (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of play and learning in early childhood. SAGE. I’Anson, J. (2013). Beyond the child’s voice: Towards an ethics for children’s participation rights. Global Studies of Childhood, 3(1), 70–80. James, A., & Prout, A. (2015). Constructing and reconstructing childhood (3rd ed.). Routledge. Lundy, L. (2007). ‘Voice’ is not enough: Conceptualising Article 12 of the UNCRC. British Educational Research Journal, 33(6), 927–942. Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice (4th ed.). SAGE Publications. Stephenson, A. (2009). Horses in the sandpit: Photography, prolonged involvement and “stepping back” as strategies for listening to children’s voices. Early Childhood Development and Care, 179(2), 131–141. Van Manen, M. (2007). Phenomenology of practice. Phenomenology & Practice, 1(1), 11–30 25. Research on Children's Rights in Education
Paper Creating Space for Children’s Voices - Interaction Quality and Children's Choices University of Helsinki, Finland Presenting Author:According to Article 12 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child the Convention, children shall be assured the right to express their views, and “the views of the child being given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child”. In Finland, the child’s right to participating in decisions concerning Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC), pre-primary education and basic education is also stated in national laws. When hearing children of different ages in matters concerning them, it is important to understand the notion of age and maturity of the child and the notion of maturity being the “capacity of a child to express her or his views on issues in a reasonable and independent manner”. This study draws from the perspective of seeing children as experts in their own lives and active agents being capable of expressing their views reasonably and independently (Biggeri et al., 2019; Clark & Moss, 2001; Lundy, 2007). The study illustrates how children of different ages and from different settings can be supported to express their views using “the Lundy model” (Lundy, 2007) and dialogues with horizontal qualities (Gerrits et al., 2005; Kalland et al 2022, Russell et al., 1998). We describe children’s preferred choices on participating in research and their written and artistic expressions of how they prefer to be heard. The research question for the study is: What are the best practices for creating a space that support children’s voices, including children with different abilities from different ages and settings? The research data consists of children's and young people's own texts and drawings, which have been produced in 32 workshops with children held between autumn 2022 and early 2023. Children and young people were reached through ECEC centres and comprehensive education schools, and research workshops were held in the facilities of their school or ECEC facilities. The schools and ECEC centres in the study were located in six different types of municipalities across Finland in terms of population development and service network situation (cf. Aro et al., 2023). Using thematic analysis, we analysed responses from 221 children between the ages of 4 and 16. According to our results, children have various ways of participating in research. By allowing different alternatives of participating in research and using horizontal dialogues, more children can find their own individual way of expressing their views, regardless of age and level of maturity. This approach supports and illuminates the child’s perspective when hearing children’s views. The analysis shows that creating space for children’s voices, while considering their age and level of maturity, involves providing diverse forms of participation, acknowledging the responsibility of adults, listening to children, respecting children and children’s voices and allowing children to have an impact on decisions. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used In our research project, we applied the Lundy model (Lundy, 2007) and conducted workshops with children between the ages 4 and 16, collecting their views on different topical matters related to changes in school networks regarding; everyday life, friendship, commuting, free time and education in relation to their home, daycare, preschool or school. We developed a questionnaire for the children based on horizontal qualities, inspired from and with tools from a successful research project on mentalizing-based intervention for supporting social-emotional development in ECEC (Kalland et al., 2022; Martikainen et al., 2024). We explored what makes children happy, what concerns them, what they hope for, and what messages they would like to communicate to decision-makers. For this study, we analysed all the data collected from 32 workshops with children. Drawing on Lundy’s model (2007), we focus on “space” and “voice”, analysing how children participate in research if they get to choose and how they expressed their preferences for being heard, by examining written responses, drawings, as well as describing their preferred working methods. The data was analysed with a thematic analysis appropriate for identifying, organizing, describing and interpreting themes (cf. Braun & Clarke, 2006). We have approached the data in the following way: We have identified how children actually chose to participate in the research by recognizing the different forms of participation, i.e. no participation, being present, individual participation, participation in pair or in a small group as well as communication styles; oral, body language, in writing, by drawing, discussing. In addition, we have identified all statements where the respondents articulate or show artistically how they want to be heard, how they are allowed to influence decisions and feelings about influence and being heard. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings When children were able to influence the working methods, they could easily choose their own preferred way. In almost every workshop, children chose slightly different methods and tools, however some similarities could be found in different age groups. By introducing and allowing horizontal discussions qualities as well as providing different alternatives of participating in hearing, children can more easily find a way to express their views, leading to better opportunities to get genuine opinions and more comprehensive responses according to age and level of maturity. Every child has a way of communicating, and it is important for the researcher to acknowledge and accept all forms of communication. At times, a child may wish to be present without actively participating. This kind of passive involvement is also meaningful, as the experience of simply being included can nurture a sense of belonging, strengthen self-esteem, and build trust in adults. Being heard is not only about adults organizing special events or channels (e.g. hearing events, feedback boxes or polls) when children are asked about their opinions. Being heard is also about how adults listen and whether children genuinely feel listened to. In order for children to get assurance of being heard means that adults show authentic interest in children’s perspectives, acknowledge their needs, and demonstrate an understanding of their everyday experiences. Respect is a core value that is needed for a successful dialogue with children. A genuine participation of children and young people in decision-making does not happen automatically; it requires intentional structures, sensitive facilitation, and a genuine willingness to listen. References Aro, R., Aro, T., Hongisto, P., Kaarakainen, S.-S., Kalland, M., Kyösti, A., Puumalainen, J., Salovaara, V., Varjo, J., & Volmari, S. (2023). Effects of population change on the organisation of early childhood education, pre-primary education and basic education National and international experiences, monitoring indicators, and quality criteria for consulting children and young people (Publications of the Ministry of Education and Culture, Finland 2023:52). Ministry of Education and Culture. https://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-952-263-961-5 Biggeri, M., Arciprete, C., & Karkara, R. (2019). Children and Youth Participation in Decision-Making and Research Processes. In The Capability Approach, Empowerment and Participation. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-35230-9_8 Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2). https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa Cashmore, J., Kong, P., & McLaine, M. (2023). Children’s Participation in Care and Protection Decision-Making Matters. Laws, 12(3). https://doi.org/10.3390/laws12030049 Clark, A. & Moss, P. (2001). Listening to young children: The mosaic approach. London: National, Children’s Bureau for the Joseph Rowntree Foundation. Gerrits, M. H., Goudena, P. P., & Van Aken, M. A. G. (2005). Child-parent and child-peer interaction: Observational similarities and differences at age seven. In Infant and Child Development (Vol. 14, Number 3). https://doi.org/10.1002/icd.377 Kalland, M., Linnavalli, T., & Koskull, M. von. (2022). SAGA-Supporting Social-Emotional Development in Early Childhood Education: The Development of a Mentalizing-Based Intervention. Education Sciences, 12(6). https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12060409 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). Martikainen, S., Kalland, M., Linnavalli, T., Kostilainen, K., Aittokoski, M., Reunamo, J., Vasileiou, Z., & Tervaniemi, M. (2024). Supporting social-emotional development in early childhood education and care–a randomized parallel group trial evaluating the impact of two different interventions. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 68(5). https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2023.2204119 Russell, A., Pettit, G. S., & Mize, J. (1998). Horizontal Qualities in Parent-Child Relationships: Parallels with and Possible Consequences for Children’s Peer Relationships. Developmental Review, 18(3). https://doi.org/10.1006/drev.1997.0466 Vaismoradi, M., Jones, J., Turunen, H., & Snelgrove, S. (2016). Theme development in qualitative content analysis and thematic analysis. Journal of Nursing Education and Practice, 6(5). https://doi.org/10.5430/jnep.v6n5p100 25. Research on Children's Rights in Education
Paper Children’s Voice in an AI Based Invention Pedagogy Project 1: University of Helsinki, Finland; 2: Aalto University, Finland Presenting Author:The European Union (EU) Strategy on the Rights of the Child seeks to advance the realization of children’s rights across all domains of life. Central to this strategy is the commitment to empower children as active citizens and contributors to democratic societies. To achieve this, the European Commission has pledged to implement measures such as organizing events that include children as participants, conducting child-specific consultations in the development of relevant initiatives, and strengthening both expertise and practice in promoting meaningful child participation (European Commission, 2021). Before launching that strategy, The European Commission had acknowledged Laura Lundy’s (2007) model of participation (Correia & Aguiar, 2022). Lundy’s (2007) model is one of the most prominent model of participation cited in educational research due to its close and clear alignment with Article 12 on the UNCRC (Scarparolo & MacKinnon, 2021). Lundy’s model of child participation includes four elements: space, voice, audience, and influence. These are the elements teachers must carefully consider when planning opportunities for student participation (Lundy, 2007). In this presentation we introduce a four-week study, in which an AI-based multidisciplinary learning module was implemented with fourth-grade students (aged 10-11 years, n=22) in a Finnish school. The aim of the study was to develop students’ technological and communicational participatory skills by helping students understand the principles of AI, its possibilities and limitations. In the multidisciplinary learning module the students developed four AI-based tools that identified hate speech, provided automatic feedback, and offered alternative ways to express oneself constructively. In this study, the role of AI was to help children to recognize unconstructive language and its effects, receive immediate feedback on their own expressions, develop more empathetic and clear ways of communication and strengthen their ability to engage in constructive dialogue. The goal was to help children understand AI and with experiment with its use in practice and to develop the foundations of technology education (Ge, Ifenthaler & Spector, 2015). We situate our analysis within Lundy’s (2007) model of participation and extend it using the framework of transformative learning and transformative innovation (Mezirow, 1998; Schot & Steinmueller, 2018; Diercks et al., 2019). Mezirow (1998) provides the cognitive foundations of transformative learning, whereas Schot and Steinmueller (2018) distinguish between innovation aimed at economic growth (Frame 2) and innovation aimed at sociotechnical change (Frame 3). We locate our project within Frame 3, in which innovation is linked to broader societal transitions and oriented toward addressing persistent societal challenges. In this study, the connection between participation and technology education is not merely contextual but methodological. We operationalize Lundy’s (2007) model of child participation through the framework of Invention Pedagogy. The goal of technology education is not only to learn how to use tools, but to build an understanding of how technology shapes society and everyday life (de Vries, 2018; Ge et al., 2015; Dufva & Dufva, 2019). We argue that in this project, children are not passive users but inventors, creating a direct link between agency and the research field of technology education. This convergence is observed through the four elements of Lundy’s model, supported by the literature on technology education:
In this presentation, we introduce how the adults constructed space and audience for children’s voices in ways that enable them not only to learn about AI, but also to exercise directionality that impacts the values and behaviour of the technological systems they encounter. We further examine how this process supported transformative learning, focusing in particular on how children’s understanding of AI, their sense of agency, and their forms of societal participation evolved and became more articulated over the course of the project. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used This study is considered practitioner research (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 2013) that has elements from pedagogical action research (Niemi, 2019) In this study, the first three authors worked with the children in the project either as a teacher or an AI educator. The fourth author observed children’s working with AI and the fifth author looked at the project without having direct contact with the children in order to balance perspectives and improve researcher triangulation. In pedagogical action research, data of the study is produced with children rather than collected (Niemi, Kiilakoski & Kaukko 2023). Also in this study, data includes project planning sheets, teachers’ field notes written after each teaching sequence, and all pedagogical materials produced by children during the project (e.g. notes, written questions, Powerpoint presentations, and AI prompts). Our study also has elements from design-based research. We combined earlier theoretical perspectives of children’s participation, participatory pedagogy, invention pedagogy and technological education and created a project that followed the invention-pedagogy model through seven steps. By this way we used theoretical triangulation, but we also created an artefact. However, we understand that our artefact can’t be transformed to another context as whole but it must be reinvented with new teachers and learners in a new context. Data was analysed through deductive content analysis. The coding categories illustrate the coding tree created by Barros et al (2024). In the first phase, we discussed how to interpret each teaching sequence and coded them according to the coding tree. In the second phase the coded units were interpreted through the framework of transformative learning and transformative innovation (Mezirow, 1998; Schot & Steinmueller, 2018; Diercks et al., 2019). In this presentation we first present an expanded coding tree accompanied by detailed examples of teaching sequences. Subsequently, we examine how the project supported participatory spaces, amplified children’s voices and provided audiences for their perspectives, thereby enabling opportunities for them to act as agents of sociotechnical change. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings Lundy argues that children must be provided with a safe and enabling space in which to express their views. In this study, such a space was embedded within the structure of invention pedagogy, operationalised as a learning-by-designing environment typical of technology education (Lavonen et al., 2004; Keane & Keane, 2016) Lundy argues that children’s views must be heard by an appropriate audience. In this study, technology education provided a natural interface between classroom activity and the wider social context. The project involved external experts and guardians, thereby aligning with STEAM education principles that stress the importance of situating learning in authentic, real-world contexts (Keane & Keane, 2016). The technical artefact, that is, the AI tool, functioned as a boundary object that mediated interaction between pupils and adults and rendered children’s expertise visible and legible to this audience. In doing so, it demonstrated that children can act as competent contributors to discussions on the ethical use and development of AI. In this study, children exercised such directionality when they identified unconstructive language as a problem and designed AI-based tools to address it. Their engagement did not remain at the level of acquiring technical skills; instead, they inscribed normative values such as constructiveness and empathy into the technological system in order to respond to the societal challenge of hate speech. This reframes influence in Lundy’s model: it no longer refers solely to having a say in classroom decisions, but to acting as agents of sociotechnical change. When invention pedagogy is integrated with a transformative innovation perspective, the project illustrates how children can participate in shaping the future configurations of digital technologies (Dufva & Dufva, 2019) and how their values can become embedded in the algorithmic material of ongoing socio-digital transitions. References Barros, S. et. al (2024). A focus group study on participatory practices in early childhood education and care across four European countries. Early Education and Development, 35(6), 1292–1315. https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2024.236086 Correia, N., & Aguiar, C. (2022). Children’s right to participate: The Lundy model applied to early childhood education and care. International Journal of Children’s Rights, 30, 378–405. De Vries, M. (2018). Handbook of Technology Education. Springer. Diercks, G., Larsen, H., & Steward, F. (2019). Transformative innovation policy: Addressing variety in an emerging policy paradigm. Research Policy, 48(4), 880-894. Dufva, T. & Dufva, M. (2019). Grasping the future of digital society. Future, 107, 17–28 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. (2018). In defence of tokenism? Implementing children’s right to participate in collective decision-making. Childhood, 25(3), 340–354. Lundy, L. et al. (2021). Life under coronavirus: Children’s views on their experiences of their human rights. The International Journal of Children’s Rights, 29, 261–285. Lundy, L., Murray, C., Smith, K., & Ward, C. (2024). Young children's right to be heard on the quality of their education: Addressing potential misunderstandings in the context of early childhood education. British Educational Research Journal, 1–15. Mezirow, J. (1998). On critical reflection. Adult education quarterly, 48(3), 185-198. Niemi, R. (2019a). Five approaches to pedagogical action research. Educational Action Research, 27(5), 651–666. https://doi.org/10.1080/09650792.2018.1528876 Perry-Hazan, L. (2021a). Conceptualising conflicts between student participation and other rights and interests. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 42(2), 184–198. https://doi.org/10.1080/01596306.2019.1599324 Perry-Hazan, L. (2021b). Students’ perceptions of their rights in school: A systematic review of the international literature. Review of Educational Research, 91(6), 919–957. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543211031642 Perry-Hazan, L., & Somech, A. (2023). Conceptualising student participation in school decision making: An integrative model. Educational Review, 75(6), 1202–1223. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2021.1976113 Sargeant, J., & Gillet-Swan, J. (2019). Voice-inclusive practice (VIP): A charter for authentic student engagement. International Journal of Children’s Rights, 27, 122–139. Schot, J., & Steinmueller, W. E. (2018). Three frames for innovation policy: R&D, systems of innovation and transformative change. Research policy, 47(9), 1554-1567. 25. Research on Children's Rights in Education
Paper Civil Education and Students’ Rights in Vocational Upper-Secondary Schools Pedagogical Faculty Charles University, Czech Republic (Czechia) Presenting Author:The paper examines the everyday school experiences of students enrolled in three-year vocational education training (VET) programmes in the Czech Republic. It focuses on how the educational institution of Leqo School shapes the students’ knowledge about their own rights and their civil rights. The study is situated within the anthropology of education and addresses vocational schooling as a key site where classed trajectories, aspirations, and identities are shaped. In the Czech educational system, pupils are tracked into hierarchically structured secondary pathways already at the age of fourteen or fifteen, with VET programmes occupying the lowest-status position within this stratification. These programmes are not only associated with limited academic expectations, but they are also taught little academic knowledge of their civil rights. Against this backdrop, the presentation asks how VET students' rights are treated and how they are taught those rights. The central research questions, therefore, concern how the school system and the school as an institution shape the students with low academic trajectories, self-awareness of their civil rights, and how the VET experience influences students’ relationships to authority, participation, and their civic voice. Rather than treating disengagement or reluctance as individual deficits, the presentation conceptualises these orientations as socially produced responses to structural conditions embedded in educational systems. The objective of the presentation is to contribute to broader debates on civic curriculum, agency in vocational education and inequalities by foregrounding students’ perspectives and by analysing the school as a culturally and politically charged space. Specifically, the presentation aims to demonstrate how curriculum, institutional practices, symbolic hierarchies, and everyday interactions within vocational schools reinforce the perception of VET students as socially marginal. At the same time, it seeks to show how students actively reinterpret the meaning of schooling, selectively engage with institutional demands, and construct alternative sources of value and belonging outside dominant academic norms. In doing so, the presentation challenges deficit-oriented interpretations of vocational students and instead highlights the relational and contextual nature of their attitudes towards school. Conceptually, the analysis draws on Pierre Bourdieu’s theory of social reproduction, particularly the notions of cultural capital, habitus, and symbolic violence, to understand how educational institutions privilege certain forms of knowledge and dispositions while devaluing others. VET students’ limited access to institutionally valued cultural capital is not framed as a lack, but as a structural condition that shapes their positioning within the educational field. The paper also engages with Paul Willis’s seminal work on working-class youth and counter-school culture, using it as a lens to interpret forms of resistance, distancing, and solidarity that emerge in response to perceived exclusion. Rather than replicating Willis’s focus on overt oppositional culture, the analysis emphasises more subtle, everyday forms of resistance, such as selective participation, pragmatic compliance, and disengagement from school-organised civic practices. In this sense, resistance is understood not as rebellion, but as a way of maintaining autonomy and dignity within constrained circumstances. In addition, the paper is informed by Foucauldian perspectives on power, discipline, and subjectivation, which allow for an examination of how power operates through routine school practices, categorisation, and expectations rather than solely through formal authority. Power is conceptualised as productive as well as restrictive, shaping students’ sense of what is possible, meaningful, or worth pursuing. Finally, the presentation draws on anthropological approaches that foreground lived experience, relationality, and the co-construction of meaning within institutional settings. By situating vocational schooling within broader socio-political and historical contexts, the presentation aims to illuminate how educational inequalities are not only reproduced through policy and structure, but also enacted and negotiated in the mundane realities of school life. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used The research topic is answered through the optics of qualitative, ethnographic research in the anthropology of education, with a particular emphasis on long-term participant observation and auto-ethnography. Fieldwork was conducted as a part of a broader dissertation project at a vocational secondary school in the Czech Republic, referred to under a pseudonym to protect institutional and participants' anonymity. The study focused on one cohort of students enrolled in a three-year vocational educational training (VET) programme and followed this group longitudinally from their entry into upper secondary education through to the completion of their final qualification. The primary method of data generation was participant observation carried out over a period of three academic years. The researcher occupied a dual role as both teacher and ethnographer, allowing for sustained, immersive engagement in the everyday life of the school. Observations took place across multiple settings, including classrooms, vocational training sites, breaks, school events, staff meetings, and informal interactions among students and teachers. This positioning enabled access to routine practices, tacit norms, and unspoken assumptions that are often inaccessible through short-term observation or interview-based research alone. Fieldnotes were recorded regularly and focused on interactions, language use, affective atmospheres, and institutional practices related to evaluation, discipline, and participation. In addition to observation, the research incorporated semi-structured interviews with students and teachers. Students in the focal class participated in two recorded interviews: the first conducted during their initial year at the school, and the second during their final year. These interviews explored students’ educational trajectories, motivations for choosing the vocational pathway, experiences of school life, perceptions of academic and practical learning, and reflections on their future aspirations. Interviews with teachers addressed pedagogical expectations, categorisations of students, approaches to vocational and academic knowledge, and interpretations of students’ engagement and disengagement. Informal conversations with both students and staff constituted an additional, significant source of data and were treated analytically alongside more formal interviews. The research also adopted an auto-ethnographic approach, integrating systematic self-reflection on the researcher’s positionality, institutional role, and affective involvement in the field. Reflexive diary documented moments of tension, ethical dilemmas, and shifts in perspective, acknowledging the mutual influence between researcher and research participants. Analytical interpretation proceeded iteratively, moving between fieldnotes, interview transcripts, and reflexive writings. Throughout the analysis, reflexivity was treated not as an add-on, but as a methodological principle guiding both data interpretation and the representation of participants’ experiences. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings The findings indicate that VET students’ rights formally exist within the school framework, yet in practice, they are scarcely taught in the curriculum, and in practice, weakly enacted, unevenly recognised, and rarely experienced as meaningful by the students themselves. Rather than being actively taught and practised, students’ rights remain abstract, symbolic, or procedural, with little connection to the lived reality of VET students’ schooling. The ethnographic data show that opportunities to exercise civic and participatory rights, such as expressing opinions, criticising institutional arrangements, or participating in collective school events, are structurally available but socially inaccessible to VET students. The LC3 students’ (the nickname for the researched VET school class) non-participation in school-organised civic activities demonstrates that rights are not perceived as tools for influence, but as empty gestures within a hierarchy where their voices carry minimal weight. This reflects a form of practical exclusion, where students formally possess rights yet lack the recognition, confidence, and institutional encouragement necessary to use them. Civic education transmits normative knowledge about democracy and participation in an empty form and with a small volume, and everyday school practices simultaneously communicate that VET students occupy a marginal position with limited legitimacy. This produces disengagement. Students learn not that they have rights, but that exercising them is ineffective, risky, or irrelevant to their social position. In line with Bourdieusian perspectives on schooling as a mechanism of social reproduction, this study shows that the unequal treatment of students’ rights contributes to the reproduction of classed educational trajectories. VET students are not trained to act as rights-bearing citizens within the school; instead, they are subtly prepared for a future in which compliance outweighs participation. Addressing this requires rethinking how rights are enacted in daily school life, not only taught as content, but practised as a lived educational experience. References Bittnerová, D., Doubek, D., & Levínská, M. (2011). Stigma in school. Journal of Pedagogy, 2(1), 11-28. Bourdieu, P. and Passeron, J.C. (1990). Reproduction in education, society and culture (Vol. 4). Sage. Bourdieu, P. (2018). Cultural reproduction and social reproduction. In Knowledge, education, and cultural change (pp. 71-112). Routledge. Brubaker, R., & Cooper, F. (2000). Beyond" identity". Theory and society, 29(1), 1-47. Foucault, M. (2000). Dohlížet a trestat: kniha o zrodu vězení. Dauphin. Goffman, E. (2009). Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity. Simon and schuster. Grannis, J. C. (1967). The school as a model of society. Harvard R and D Center on Educational Differences. Hanushek, E. A., & Wößmann, L. (2006). Does educational tracking affect performance and inequality? Differences‐in‐differences evidence across countries. The Economic Journal, 116(510), C63-C76. Jarkovská, L., & Slezáková, K. (2021). Dětská skupina jako kolektivita. Sociologicky Casopis, 57(5), 557-580. Jenkins, R. (2014). Social identity. Routledge. Jukić, R., & Kakuk, S. (2019). Socialization role of school and hidden curriculum. In EDULEARN19 Proceedings (pp. 3404-3412). IATED. Kaščák, O. (2009). Rituály a skryté kurikulum, alebo, Kam v pedagogike zaradiť rituálne štúdie?: teoretická (a biografická) rekonštrukcia. Studia paedagogica, 14(2), 29-40. Kaščák, O., & Pupala, B. (2012). Škola zlatých golierov: vzdelávanie v ére neoliberalizmu. Sociologické nakladatelství (SLON). Katrňák, T. (2004). Odsouzeni k manuální práci: vzdělanostní reprodukce v dělnické rodině (Vol. 39). Sociologické nakladatelství (Slon). Kohout-Diaz, M., Bittnerová, D., & Levínská, M. (2018). Limity inkluze ve vzdělávání romských dětí v České republice: boj o identitu žáka. Pedagogická orientace, 28(2), 235-268. Korbel, V., & Münich, D. (2021). Společenský status učňovského vzdělávání v České republice: vývoj posledních 15 let a srovnání se zahraničím. Národohospodářský ústav AV ČR, vvi. Liessmann, K. P. (2018). Vzdělání jako provokace. Academia. Lojdová, K. (2015). Skryté kurikulum, žité příbĕhy. Narativy studentů učitelství o škole. Pedagogická orientace, 25(5). Mattsson, C., & Johansson, T. (2020). Nenávistný druhý: Neonacisté ve školách a strategie učitelů pro zvládání rasismu. Britský časopis sociologie vzdělávání, 41(8), 1149-1163. Obrovská, J. (2016). Frajeři, rapeři a propadlíci: Etnografie etnicity a etnizace v desegregované školní třídě. Sociologický časopis/Czech Sociological Review, 52(01), 53-78. Ogbu, J. U. (1981). School Ethnography: A Multilevel Approach 1. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 12(1), 3-29. Sennett, R. & Cobb, J., (2023). The Hidden Injuries of Class. Cambridge University Press. Willis, P. E. (1977). Learning to labour: how working class kids get working class jobs. ASHGATE. Woods, P. (1983). Coping at school through humour. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 4(2), 111-124. | ||