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, 21:30:07 EET
|
Daily Overview |
| Session | ||
25 SES 03 A: The Right to Education, to Play, to Privacy and to Protection
Paper Session
| ||
    | ||
25. Research on Children's Rights in Education
Paper Political Manipulation of the Right to Education: The Cases of Haredi Education in New York and Israel University of Haifa, Israel Presenting Author:This study explores the political tactics through which states manipulate education laws over time across different stages of the policy process, thereby diluting the content of the right to education. It focuses on Haredi education in New York and Israel. Haredi society is characterized by strong communal boundaries, hierarchical religious authority, and a worldview that prioritizes intensive religious study for boys while minimizing secular education (Author et al., 2024; Berger, 2014). Schools affiliated with ultra-religious enclave communities frequently constitute a focal point of conflict between states and minority groups. Debates over the regulation of ultra-religious education have emerged across jurisdictions, including Amish schools in the United States (Wisconsin v. Yoder, 1972), Muslim schools in the United Kingdom and Singapore (Parker-Jenkins et al., 2017; Tan, 2010), and Haredi Jewish schools in Israel, New York, the United Kingdom, and Belgium (Author, 2015; Rocker, 2022; Franken & Levrau, 2020). Ultra-religious communities cultivate educational institutions that preserve religious values and limit exposure to broader society (MacMullen, 2009), while states are expected to ensure that all children receive education that develops their personality, talents, and mental and physical abilities to their fullest potential, develop respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and prepare them for responsible life in a free society (UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, 1989, Article 29(1)). This conflict reflects tensions between the acceptability and adaptability dimensions of the right to education (UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 1999), as well as between parental rights and state interests in democracy and workforce participation. A substantial body of legal and philosophical scholarship addressed these issues through normative debates on the balance between children’s rights, parental rights, and collective interests, or through analyses of judicial reasoning (e.g., Chiang & Killian, 2024; Dwyer, 2001; MacMullen, 2007; Rothschild, 2019; Tampio, 2023). However, this literature has largely underplayed the political processes through which legal rules governing the content and implementation of the right to education are diluted or selectively applied over time (Sivertsen, 2004). Empirical research on Haredi education has begun to illuminate these dynamics. A large-scale study conducted in Israel documented persistent under-teaching of core curricular subjects and identified patterns of coupled institutional maintenance, whereby schools and inspectors tacitly preserve noncompliance and institutional autonomy (Author et al., 2024). Research on conditional funding policies in Israel and Belgium demonstrated how such policies shape schools’ decisions to adopt educational standards (Author, 2014; Other & Author, 2019). Additional studies examined Haredi activism, revealing both efforts to promote secular education in Israel (Other & Author, 2023a, 2023b) and discursive strategies that legitimize noncompliance and sustain institutional autonomy in New York (Lichtenstein, 2022). Despite these contributions, existing scholarship largely focused on schools, inspectors, or courts, leaving the political level under-theorized. The current study addresses that gap by foregrounding political power in the analysis of Haredi education in Israel and New York, where Haredi communities wield disproportionate influence due to demographic concentration, coalition politics, and bloc voting. Building on this context, the study advances a theoretical framework that conceptualizes state behavior toward Haredi education as political manipulation of law across the policy cycle. By foregrounding political agency and drawing on political science theories (e.g., Dewey & Di Carlo, 2022; Holland, 2016; Manna & Moffitt, 2021; Short, 2019), the framework reframes conflicts over the right to education in ultra-religious schools not merely as legal or cultural disputes, but as instances of active governance through manipulation that allow states to maintain formal recognition of the right to education while diluting its substantive content. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used The study draws on the cases of Haredi education in New York and Israel and adopts a qualitative research approach. The cases were selected for several reasons. First, both jurisdictions impose legal requirements concerning core curricular content intended to guarantee the right to education in private schools, while simultaneously exhibiting long-standing and well-documented deviations in the enforcement of these requirements in Haredi schools. Second, in both New York and Israel, Haredi communities wield significant political leverage. Third, both cases reveal similar patterns of political tactics used to manipulate the legal rules governing Haredi education. Fourth, these cases exemplify two domains in which states can manipulate law with relative ease: educational rights and religious freedom. Education policy is characterized by broad, vague, and sometimes conflicting goals, multiple enforcement authorities, and implementation by heterogeneous institutions, making it particularly prone to loose coupling between formal rules and organizational practices (Lichtenstein, 2022). This tendency toward loose coupling enables political actors to manipulate legal rules while maintaining formal commitments to the right to education (Manna & Moffitt, 2021). Religious freedom is a highly contested political domain in many countries, embedded in broader right–left conflicts and constituting one of the most prominent arenas for legal exemptions (Rothschild, 2021). The timelines of the case studies begin when the regulation of Haredi education reached the agendas of decision-makers due to external pressures. The New York case study begins in 2015, whereas the Israeli case study begins in the early 2000s. Data collection for both cases concluded in November 2025. Data sources included documentary materials and political discourse. Most documents were produced by official bodies or recorded politicians’ public statements, including legislative and regulatory materials, judicial decisions, parliamentary records, supervision and accountability documents, and statements by senior political actors in the media. The analysis also drew on academic studies, policy reports, and news articles that provided contextual information or revealed facts not available in official documents. Materials were collected from government and court websites, media outlets, and lawyers and civil society organizations active in the field of Haredi education. The analysis of the findings drew on a constructive grounded theory approach (Charmaz, 2008). The analysis proceeded in two stages, combining chronological process tracing with iterative coding and theoretical sampling to identify and compare recurring tactics of legal manipulation, recognizing that different legal rules moved through multiple, non-linear phases over time. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings The analysis identified a recurrent repertoire of political tactics through which New York and Israel have manipulated education law over time, thereby diluting the right to education of Haredi children. During the formation of education law, both jurisdictions employed legal ambiguity, tailor-made legislation, and policy inaction or delay to accommodate powerful Haredi communities. In both cases, core curricular requirements were framed in vague terms, leaving key concepts, such as “substantial equivalence” in New York or the content of the core curriculum in Israel, open to interpretation. When ambiguity proved insufficient, legislators enacted tailor-made laws that created de facto exemptions while preserving the appearance of generality. Prolonged regulatory delays, often justified through consultation processes, further postponed the realization of educational rights. At the enforcement stage, the analysis revealed systematic forbearance, manifested in weak supervision, under-resourced enforcement bodies, avoidance of data collection, and selective non-enforcement. In both jurisdictions, education authorities refrained for years from enforcing existing legal obligations despite evidence of noncompliance. Forbearance functioned as a politically expedient strategy, allowing governments to maintain formal legal standards while minimizing conflict with Haredi communities. When policy failure became publicly visible, Israeli politicians shifted manipulation to the legitimation phase, relying on blame avoidance and washing. Senior political actors portrayed budgetary expansions as tools for strengthening core education and supervision, despite the absence of corresponding enforcement changes. This legitimation phase has not yet fully emerged in New York, where high-level politicians can still largely avoid public engagement with the infringement of educational rights despite growing criticism. Taken together, the findings demonstrate how states sustain long-term departures from children’s educational rights without formally abandoning them. The comparative analysis of similar political tactics that emerged across distinct institutional settings, offers a conceptual lens applicable to other domains where education, children’s rights, and political power intersect. References Berger, J. (2014). The pious ones: The world of Hasidim and their battles with America. Harper Collins. Charmaz, K. (2008). Grounded theory as an emergent method. In S. Hesse-Biber & P. Leavy (Eds)., Handbook of emergent methods (pp. 155-170). Guilford. Chiang Jr, T., & Killian, C. (2024). Child education rights versus parental preferences: A paradox between United Nations conventions and alternative schooling methods. Educational Policy, 38(5), 1176-1199. Dewey, M., & Di Carlo, D (2022). Governing through non-enforcement: Regulatory forbearance as industrial policy in advanced economies. Regulation & Governance, 16(3), 930–950. Dwyer, J. G. (2001). Religious schools v. children's rights. Cornell University Press. Franken, L., & Levrau, F. (2020). Rejecting “controversial” issues in education: A case study of ultra-Orthodox Jewish schools in Belgium. Religions, 11(4), 1-16. Holland, A. C. (2016). Forbearance. American Political Science Review, 110(2), 232-246. Lichtenstein, M. (2022). Legitimizing tactics: Hasidic schools, noncompliance, and the politics of deservingness. American Journal of Sociology, 127(6), 1860-1916. MacMullen, I. (2009). Faith in schools? Autonomy, citizenship, and religious education in the liberal state. Princeton University Press. Manna, P., & Moffitt, S. L. (2021). Traceable tasks and complex policies: When politics matter for policy implementation. Policy Studies Journal, 49(1), 190-218. Parker-Jenkins, M., Francia, G., & Edling, S. (2017). Education for the other: Policy and provision for muslim children in the UK and swedish education systems. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 47(2), 257-270. Rocker, S. (2022). New schools bill introduces move to regulate Yeshivot. The Jewish Chronicle. https://www.thejc.com/family-and-education/all/new-schools-bill-introduces-move-to-regulate-yeshivot-69CkyWZ7VHltmUyuJImA5Q Rothschild, Z. (2019). Free exercise’s outer boundary. Columbia Law Review, 119(6), 200-232. Short, J. L. (2021). The politics of regulatory enforcement and compliance: Theorizing and operationalizing political influences. Regulation & Governance, 15 (3), 653–685. Sivertsen, K. (2024). Compelling compliance: An analysis of methods for enforcing New York's compulsory education law as applied to haredi yeshivas. Fordham Law Review, 93, 1071-1098. Tampio, N. (2023). Time for religion? Liberalism, Haredi Jews, and state regulation of nonpublic schools. Politics and Religion, 16(2), 248-265. Tan, C. (2010). Contesting reform: Bernstein’s pedagogic device and Madrasah education in Singapore. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 42(2), 165–182. UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1999). General comment no. 13. U.N. Doc. E/C.12/1999/10. UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989). U.N. Doc. A/RES/44/25. Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972). 25. Research on Children's Rights in Education
Paper The Forgotten Right to Play in Schools: Rethinking Behaviour Management, Character, and Educational Purpose in Schools Australian Catholic University, Australia Presenting Author:This paper critically examines a widely normalised yet rarely problematised practice in schooling: the use of punitive behaviour management strategies that restrict children’s access to play. Drawing on children’s rights scholarship and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), the paper focuses in particular on Article 31, which affirms the child’s right to rest, leisure, play, and recreational activities. While play is frequently recognised in educational discourse as developmentally valuable, it remains one of the first aspects of children’s school experience to be withdrawn in response to behavioural concerns. The paper engages directly with the aims of the NW 25 Special Call by interrogating the assumptions, norms, and power relations that shape how children’s rights are understood and enacted in educational practice. It argues that the continued restriction of play as a disciplinary response represents a controversial tension between formal commitments to children’s rights and the everyday realities of schooling. These practices are controversial not because they are exceptional, but because they are so deeply embedded and largely unquestioned. Central to this paper’s argument is the claim that punitive behaviour management practices reflect a systemic absence of children’s rights education within teacher preparation and professional learning. In many education systems, engagement with the UNCRC in teacher education is limited, selective, or absent altogether. Where children’s rights are addressed, emphasis is often placed on participation or voice, while other substantive rights, including the right to play, remain marginal or invisible.This paper extends this argument by suggesting that such practices also reveal a wider neglect of character, flourishing, and moral agency in how behaviour is understood. As a result, teachers may be unaware that routine disciplinary practices conflict with children’s rights obligations, and play is commonly positioned as a conditional privilege rather than a fundamental right. Drawing on the UNCRC, General Comment No. 17, and international literature on behaviour management and schooling, the paper analyses how practices such as detention, withdrawal of recess, and restricted leisure time sit uneasily with Articles 29 and 31 of the Convention. It demonstrates how these practices can undermine children’s wellbeing, social development, and engagement with education, while also limiting opportunities for children to be recognised as moral and rights-bearing participants in school life. In doing so, this paper argues that behaviour management cannot be separated from broader educational questions about what schooling is for, what kinds of persons schools seek to cultivate, and whether children are treated as interpreters of flourishing or merely as subjects of regulation. By locating behaviour management within broader debates about rights knowledge, professional responsibility, character formation and the gap between rights rhetoric and rights realisation, this paper contributes to ongoing international discussions about accountability in children’s rights in education. It challenges researchers, teacher educators, and policymakers to reconsider how children’s rights are taught, interpreted, and operationalised, and argues that without substantive rights education for teachers, schooling will continue to reproduce practices that erode children’s rights in routine and largely invisible ways. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used This paper adopts a conceptual and normative analytical approach, drawing on international children’s rights instruments, General Comments of the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, and peer-reviewed education literature on behaviour management and play. Primary sources include the UNCRC, particularly Articles 29, 31, and 42, and General Comment No. 17, which clarifies the scope and non-negotiable nature of the child’s right to play. These texts are examined alongside international research on punitive discipline, classroom management, and teacher beliefs about behaviour and control. The analysis focuses on how behaviour management strategies are taught, justified, and normalised within education systems, and evaluates their compatibility with children’s rights obligations. Particular attention is given to the absence of explicit rights education in teacher preparation and how this absence shapes teachers’ understandings of acceptable disciplinary practice. Rather than presenting new empirical data, the paper synthesises legal, theoretical, and applied research to expose a recurring pattern: where rights awareness is limited, punitive practices flourish, and the restriction of play becomes an unexamined default response to behavioural challenges. This approach enables international relevance by highlighting structural issues common across jurisdictions, rather than attributing rights-disrespecting practices to individual teachers or local policy anomalies. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings The paper concludes that the widespread use of play restriction as a behaviour management strategy reflects a systemic failure to embed children’s rights education within teacher education and professional practice. Without explicit understanding of the UNCRC, and particularly Article 31, teachers are unlikely to recognise that routine disciplinary practices may constitute rights violations. The analysis demonstrates that punitive approaches grounded in restriction and withdrawal are inconsistent with the aims of education articulated in Article 29 and undermine children’s wellbeing, social development, and engagement with schooling. These practices persist not because teachers reject children’s rights, but because they have not been supported to understand them. The paper argues that promoting positive behaviour requires a deliberate shift toward rights-aware teacher education, where the UNCRC is treated as a foundational framework rather than an optional or peripheral consideration. Play must be understood as essential to learning and development, not as a reward for compliance. By explicitly linking behaviour management practices to the absence of rights awareness in teacher education, the paper contributes to international debates on accountability, ethics, and the everyday realisation of children’s rights in schools. It calls for education systems to move beyond rhetorical commitments to children’s rights and to embed substantive rights education as a prerequisite for rights-respecting practice. References Covell, K. (2010). School engagement and rights-respecting schools. Cambridge Journal of Education, 40(1), 39–51. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057640903567021 Gillett-Swan, J. K., & Lundy, L. (2022). Children, classrooms and challenging behaviour: Do the rights of the many outweigh the rights of the few? Oxford Review of Education, 48(1), 95–111. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2021.1924653 Goldschmidt-Gjerløw, B. (2019). Children’s rights and teachers’ responsibilities: Reproducing or transforming the cultural taboo on child sexual abuse? Human Rights Education Review, 2(1), 25–46. https://doi.org/10.7577/hrer.3079 London, R. A. (2019). The right to play: Eliminating the opportunity gap in elementary school recess. Phi Delta Kappan, 101(3), 48–52. https://doi.org/10.1177/0031721719885921 Mitchell, R. C. (2005). Postmodern reflections on the UNCRC: Towards utilising Article 42 as an international compliance indicator. International Journal of Children’s Rights, 13(3), 315–331. https://doi.org/10.1163/157181805775007567 Reynaert, D., Bouverne-De Bie, M., & Vandevelde, S. (2012). Between ‘believers’ and ‘opponents’: Critical discussions on children’s rights. International Journal of Children’s Rights, 20(1), 155–168. https://doi.org/10.1163/157181812X626417 Sargeant, J. (2025). Promoting positive behaviour and play in schools: A rights-based perspective. In N. Lott (Ed.), The interdependence of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Springer. Sargeant, J., & Gillett-Swan, J. K. (2019). Voice-inclusive practice: A charter for authentic student engagement. International Journal of Children’s Rights, 27(1), 122–139. https://doi.org/10.1163/15718182-02701002 United Nations. (1989). Convention on the Rights of the Child. United Nations. UN Committee on the Rights of the Child. (2001). General comment No. 1: The aims of education. CRC/GC/2001/1. UN Committee on the Rights of the Child. (2013). General comment No. 17 on the right of the child to rest, leisure, play, recreational activities, cultural life and the arts (Article 31). CRC/C/GC/17. UN Committee on the Rights of the Child. (2016). Concluding observations on the fifth periodic report of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. CRC/C/GBR/CO/5. 25. Research on Children's Rights in Education
Paper EdTech use and Children’s Rights to Privacy and Protection from Commercial Exploitation: Findings from a UK study London School of Economics and Political Science, United Kingdom Presenting Author:Rapid changes in and the ubiquity of technology are evident in the increasing integration of education technologies (EdTech) in schools. EdTech, including AI, has become a cornerstone for managerial, administrative and teaching tasks, and is being widely used by and with children, with claims around personalised learning, instant feedback and accessibility. Yet, regulation and comprehensive guidance in the UK are lacking, and research is falling behind in providing robust evidence on the impact of EdTech on children’s learning and rights, including their rights to privacy, data protection and protection from commercial exploitation. This paper presents findings from the Better EdTech Futures for Children, a study funded by the Rothschild Foundation and Garfield Weston Foundation, conducted in partnership with a child rights advocacy organisation, and co-designed with a Youth Advisory Board. The study aims to investigate how EdTech impacts children’s learning and rights in diverse contexts across the UK, to stimulate a national conversation that draws directly on children’s voices and is built on robust evidence on EdTech policies, uses, and potential benefits. This paper presents children’s own views on their rights to privacy and protection from commercial exploitation in relation to EdTech and presents children’s calls for change. It addresses the following research question:
Taking on a child rights lens, this paper is framed by the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC, 1989), General Comment 1 on the aims of education (Committee on the Rights of the Child, 2001), and General Comment 25 on children’s rights in relation to the digital environment (Committee on the Rights of the Child, 2021). It focuses specifically on children’s rights to privacy (Article 16) and protection from commercial exploitation (Article 32). Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used Considering the fast-changing education landscape, and in recognition of children’s right to share their views in matters that affect them and for those views to be given due weight (Article 12), this study was co-designed, developed and conducted with children. Over 450 children aged 6-17 years from across 11 UK schools participated in child consultations (n=56). Participatory research methods were employed to gain children’s views on and experiences with EdTech and encourage discussion regarding what EdTech they used for schoolwork and homework, how they used it, what features benefited or hindered their learning, and what changes they would like to see. Participatory data collection methods with primary school children included vignettes depicting a range of EdTech school experiences, a drawing activity, and a magic bag activity (drawing on the Magic Bag described by Arnott and Mevawalla, 2024). Secondary school children participated in a range of activities including listing the EdTech products they used in school and at home on sticky notes, using happy and sad face stickers to identify which products they considered most or least beneficial for learning, drawing screenshots of popular EdTech apps and annotating what they liked and disliked about them, and writing down and discussing their calls for change. The consultations were supplemented by semi-structured interviews with 20 teachers, a UK-wide teacher survey and EdTech walkthroughs with children. The research was approved by the university’s Ethics Committee. Informed consent was received from all participants, and all data were anonymised. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings Findings indicate that children’s rights to privacy (Article 16) and protection from commercial exploitation (Article 32) were impacted in a range of ways, with implications for their learning experiences. Surveillance/privacy Children's data was routinely collected via EdTech apps, raising concerns about children's privacy and data protection rights. Schools used monitoring systems to track children's activity and capture screenshots, flagging inappropriate content, search terms, or banned websites (Livingstone et al., 2024). While schools informed children that their school devices would be monitored, some children were unaware when screenshots were taken, while others encountered intimidating warning messages. Children received requests to share their data with third-party companies but struggled to understand the terms and conditions. Behaviour tracking Children used apps that combined behaviour tracking with practical features like homework and timetable access. In some cases, children could not check their homework or timetable without first being shown their behaviour charts, affecting children’s sense of self, especially when their behaviour chart depicts negative behaviour. Children argued that apps' pre-set descriptions for why behaviour points were assigned were often unclear and inaccurate. Commercial pressures Children were inundated with advertisements, especially when using free versions of apps. Children sometimes signed up for free trials to access the full range of app features, but were then charged if they forgot to cancel before the trial period ended. Call for Change In line with their right to protection from commercial exploitation, children requested reminders before free trials ended, removing advertisements from apps, and terms and conditions available in accessible language. Children wanted transparency about data storage and use, respecting their right to privacy and data protection. They proposed design changes to behaviour tracking apps and motoring systems to inform rather than intimidate and accuse, and provide clear explanations consistent with their rights. References Arnott, L. & Mevawalla, Z. (2024). Participatory methods for understanding 0-3s’ technology use in family homes. Early Years Educator, 24(9), 1–3. Committee on the Rights of the Child. (2001). General Comment No. 1 (2001): Article 29(1): The aims of education (CRC/GC/2001/1). https://www.refworld.org/legal/general/crc/2001/en/39221 Committee on the Rights of the Child. (2021). General comment No. 25 (2021) on children’s rights in relation to the digital environment (CRC/C/GC/25). https://www.ohchr.org/en/documents/general-comments-and-recommendations/general-comment-no-25-2021-childrens-rights-relation Livingstone, S., Pothong, K., Atabey, A., Hooper, L., & Day, E. (2024). The Googlization of the classroom: Is the UK effective in protecting children's data and rights? Computers and Education Open, 7, Article 100195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeo.2024.100195 United Nations. (1989). Convention on the Rights of the Child. UN | ||