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).
|
Daily Overview |
| Session | ||
25 SES 05 A: Children Learning about their Rights
Paper Session | ||
    | ||
25. Research on Children's Rights in Education
Paper School Programme Impact on Students’ Knowledge About Their Human Rights 1: Örebro University, Sweden; 2: Karlstad University, Sweden Presenting Author:The concept of human rights education was introduced in the 1990s (Coysh, 2017). Since then, the UN has launched a series of initiatives to encourage governments to incorporate such education into their formal school curricula. However, education on human rights for children has been recognised as a complex area for schools to manage (Parker, 2018; Struthers, 2015). Earlier research has indicated that teachers are largely unaware of human rights education and the responsibilities it involves, and their knowledge of human rights seem unsatisfactory (Glover, 2022; Perry-Hazan & Tal-Weibel, 2020). Human rights are also regarded as a complex and sensitive subject to teach, which leads teachers to hesitate about introducing the topic until later school years (Rinaldi, 2017; Author, 2019). The challenges associated with human rights education for children have led schools and teachers to seek guidance from external actors recognised for their expertise in human and child rights issues. Collaboration between schools and NGOs has a long-established history, and these organisations have provided support programmes to assist schools in their efforts (Covell et al., 2010; Author, 2022). Previous studies examining the effects of using a programme in schools’ children’s rights work have not provided definitive answers about the impact of such models. Early studies showed positive results, mainly in social aspects of school life, such as school climate, relationships, behaviour, bullying, and student influence, all of which improved. They also indicated an increase in students’ knowledge of their rights (Sebba & Robinson, 2010; Covell et al., 2010). However, these researchers expressed doubts about the longevity of the positive effects. Further research has shown that learning about rights is positively associated with respectful behaviour towards others and a high sense of perceived participation (Jerome et al., 2015), but also that the evidence supporting these positive effects is weak. Actual educational outcomes are seldom examined. Several later studies continue to present results supporting positive effects on school life (Winch, 2020; Woods & Bond, 2020; Webb, 2014). These studies indicate that most students in schools running programmes are satisfied with their school life and social relationships, and that teachers observe students’ increased willingness and ability to engage in discussions and decision-making. Overall, the research conducted so far has mainly focused on social effects and participation issues, indicating positive outcomes, while little attention has been given to the impact on students’ knowledge of their human rights. The study reported in this paper aimed to assess the impact of implementing a school support programme for children’s rights on students’ knowledge of their human rights. It is based on a longitudinal study comparing students in schools that use a support programme with those that do not. Two research questions guided the study.
The study is grounded in rights theorising. Children’s rights are seen as part of human rights, meaning the same rights apply to children as to adults—human rights are universal. Drawing on Bobbio (1996), the rights theory perspective in this study is that children are rightful holders and practitioners of universal human rights, but at the same time, these rights should be understood as embedded within children’s and young people’s real lives. This theoretical foundation shapes the research by first informing the perspective on rights for children and how we conceptualise them: children’s human rights. Secondly, it influences the analysis, as students’ statements are interpreted within this theoretical framework. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used The findings presented here are part of a research-based evaluation using a longitudinal design to monitor changes over time. Six schools using a children’s rights school programme participated. Five schools had just started implementing the programme (called new schools) and one school had been using it for eight years (called established school). Students from classes 2, 5, and 8 were interviewed in pairs over three consecutive years (2021-2023). Comparative data from five schools that do not utilise any support programme for children’s rights were also collected during the final project year, 2022/2023 (called non-programme schools). In these schools, interviews were conducted with students in years 2, 5, and 9. Overall, the data includes 269 student interviews (208 in programme schools and 61 in non-programme schools), involving approximately 530 individual students. The analysis involved a multi-step process. First, an initial qualitative content analysis was conducted on a sample of the data to develop a coding scheme. The content analysis was of a conventional type; inductive and aimed at identifying both explicit expressions in the interviews of the studied aspects and relevant latent meanings within utterances (Bengtsson, 2016; Hsieh & Shannon, 2005). In this process, recurring expressions were identified and transformed into initial codes. After further testing on a larger dataset and revisions, the final coding scheme was applied to all the data. Students knowledge was initially coded into five rights-areas, and thereafter subcoded. To answer the first research question regarding the impact of a school support programme on the spread of knowledge about children’s human rights, a univariate quantitative analysis was performed on the proportion of interviews in which students demonstrated knowledge across five rights-areas, or showed no knowledge at all. To answer the second research question regarding the programme’s impact on the breadth of students’ rights knowledge, a second qualitative content analysis was carried out on each of the five rights-areas to identify which concrete rights students mention within the five rights areas. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings The analysis of the proportions of students in programme and non-programme schools demonstrating rights knowledge by mentioning rights in five rights areas indicates a positive programme effect. A general increase in knowledge spread in the new programme schools over the three years was observed. Fewer students in non-programme schools could mention rights, and in fewer rights areas. Surprisingly, an opposite trend was seen in the established programme school, where the spread of human rights knowledge decreased over the three years. Programme fatigue, which may have led to reduced attention and lower activity levels in the school, could explain these results. Overall, the analysis indicates that implementing the school programme positively influenced the spread of students’ knowledge of children’s rights: a larger proportion of students could mention rights across more rights areas. The analysis of which concrete rights students in programme and non-programme schools are aware of showed that a limited range of rights are broadly known by students. Overall, students in all schools mentioned 25 different rights, but only seven of these were cited in half or more of the interviews. These include the rights to go to school, to influence and decide matters, to speak one's mind, to have opinions, to be provided with basic necessities, and to be equally valued and treated. The other 18 rights were mentioned in only a few interviews and were therefore not widely known. A positive programme effect was observed for only a few rights: only the right to hold opinions and beliefs, and to be treated with equal value and respect were stated more often in programme than in non-programme schools References Bengtsson, M. (2016). How to plan and perform a qualitative study using content analysis. NursingPlus Open, 2, 8-14. Covell, K., Howe, R. B., & McNeil, J. K. (2010). Implementing children’s human rights education in schools. Improving Schools, 13(2), 117-132 Coysh, J. (2017). Human rights education and the politics of knowledge. Taylor & Francis. Gollifer, S. E. (2022). Challenges and possibilities for transformative human rights education in Icelandic upper secondary schools. Human Rights Education Review, 5(3), 4-20. Hsieh, H. F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277-1288. Jerome, Lee; Emerson, Lesley, Lundy, Laura & Orr, Karen. (2015) “Teaching and learning about child rights: A study of implementation in 26 countries. Queens University Belfast/Unicef. Parker, W. C. (2018). Human rights education’s curriculum problem. Human Rights Education Review, 1(1), 05-24. Perry-Hazan, L., & Tal-Weibel, E., (2020). On legal literacy and mobilization of students’ rights from a disempowered professional status: The case of Israeli teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 90, 103016. Rinaldi, S. (2017). Challenges for human rights education in Swiss secondary schools from a teacher perspective. Prospects, 47(1-2), 87-100. Sebba, J., & Robinson, C. (2010). Evaluation of UNICEF UK’s rights respecting schools award (RRSA). London: UNICEF UK. Struthers, A. (2015). Human rights education: Educating about, through and for human rights. The International Journal of Human Rights, 19(1), 53-73. Webb, R. (2014). Doing the rights thing: An ethnography of a dominant discourse of rights in a primary school in England. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Sussex). Winch, A. (2020). Our voices matter: How student voice is understood, enacted and experienced explored through case studies of ‘Rights Respecting Schools’ in England. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Exeter) Woods, F., & Bond, C. (2020). How does a Level 2 Rights Respecting School facilitate play for children with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND)? International Journal of Playwork Practice, 1(1), 1. 25. Research on Children's Rights in Education
Paper Knowing and Acting: Democracy Learning and Participation in Schools in Times of Poly-Crisis University of Education Upper Austria, Austria Presenting Author:Amid overlapping “poly-crises” such as democratic backsliding, geopolitical conflicts, and digital misinformation, schools face renewed pressure to strengthen young people's democratic competencies and agency (Kalev et al., 2025; OeAD, 2025). This paper argues that schools must therefore be active arenas of democracy, in which cognitive learning about democratic values as “knowing” must go hand in hand with participatory experiences through democratic practice as “acting” (Dewey, 1907; Himmelmann & Lange, 2005). However, current developments, such as the planned introduction of democracy education as a school subject in Austria or the constitutional quarter hour already implemented in Bavaria, draw on learning about and for democracy (ISB, 2026). Also, practice in civic and children’s rights education often separates these dimensions: learning for and about democracy (knowledge and attitudes) versus learning through democracy (participatory decision-making). Yet, this dualism obscures how students’ everyday experiences of voice, influence and fairness shape their democratic efficacy. Building on Dewey’s (1907) pragmatic philosophy of experiential learning and Biesta’s (2020) notion of the “subjectification” dimension of education, the paper reframes democracy education as a combined cognitive, ethical, and performative process that depends on rights-based structures enabling genuine participation. This approach is structured by the Children's Rights Frameworks (UNCRC Article 12; Council of Europe, 2016) and, for Austria, the “Schulorganisationsgesetz” and the “Erlass zur Politischen Bildung”, which legally bind schools to guarantee such participatory learning conditions (Polis, 2026; Welty & Lundy, 2013). The study, situated in the Austrian context, reflects European standards of student voice and co-determination. It integrates two strands of research that have often been treated separately and uses young people’s perspective as indicators of schools’ democratic functioning. The analysis argues that democracy learning in schools is still often limited to teaching about values, while participatory agency remains constrained by hierarchical school structures – a tendency symptomatic of what has been called the depoliticization (Hedtke, 2016, Feichter, 2020) of schooling. Or, in other words, despite advanced rights, schools often narrow democracy education to “knowing” principles, neglecting “acting” through influence, a pattern relevant amid democratic erosion and crisis, demanding resilient youth competencies. Addressing this gap, the proposal pursues three interrelated research questions: 1) Extent: To what degree do students experience their schools as spaces of democracy learning and participatory decision-making? 2) Alignment: To what extent does democracy learning occur through participation, i.e. when knowing and acting coincide? 3) Determinants: Which individual (socio-economic background, political interest, performance), and contextual (teacher behaviour, school type) factors explain variation in implementation? By combining right-based theory and empirical evidence, this study seeks to identify structural levers for democratic school development. It argues that democracy education represents not only a pedagogical ideal but a legal and ethical obligation requiring collective responsibility at the school level. The paper thus contributes to European discourse by empirically testing whether the promise of children’s participatory rights materialises in classroom reality and how teacher practices mediate this relationship. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used The study draws on a representative subsample (n = 4.848) of students in grades 8 to 10 across various school types in Upper Austria (lower secondary, vocational middle schools and colleges, general and vocational upper secondary schools). The dataset, part of the national youth values study “Lebenswelten 2026 – Werthaltungen junger Menschen in Österreich”, is using an online questionnaire administered in class. Proportional stratified random sampling by school type and gender ensures population representativeness. Democracy learning is measured using an adapted seven-item scale from the German BLK-programme “Demokratie lernen und leben” (Abs et al., 2007; four-point Likert scale, Cronbach’s alpha = 0.88) assessing perceptions of school as a site for core principles such as fairness, pluralism, equality, and transparency. Participation is operationalised through an eight-item measure based on Hart’s ladder and Wetzelhütter and Bacher’s (2015) adaptation (five-point Likert scale), distinguishing between sufficient participation (e.g., co-decision, self-solution), symbolic participation (consultation without influence), and non-participation (e.g., top-down decisions). Explanatory variables include individual factors such as socio-economic status (HBSC Family Affluence Scale), political interest (single item), self-assessed performance, and perceived teacher behaviours (9 items, justice, psychosocial support, learning engagement). Analysis employs descriptive statistics (frequencies), bivariate analyses (χ² tests, Pearson correlations), and complex sample adjustments to test links among democracy learning, participation modes, and factors. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings Preliminary analyses reveal an ambivalent picture. Most students recognise elements of democratic learning, such as fairness or equality. However, a sizeable minority does not experience their school as a space of democratic learning. And fewer experience real influence in decision-making processes. This indicates that democracy education in schools is often narrowed to democracy learning, while the more demanding dimension of participation as shared decision-making is only partially realised. First analyses of the relationship between democracy learning and participation show that in schools where democratic principles are more strongly experienced, students also report greater sufficiency and less insufficiency in their participation. Nevertheless, there are schools where democracy learning is present without corresponding participatory opportunities, pointing to an “entpoliticised” understanding of democracy education that leaves hierarchical decision structures intact. Individual characteristics such as socioeconomic background play almost no role. The strongest effects stem from perceived teacher behaviour: where many teachers display psychosocial engagement, justice-related and achievement-promoting behaviour, students report more democratic learning and more sufficient, and less insufficient, participation. To translate legal obligations into lived democratic experience, these findings highlight the importance of democracy education. It must evolve from an instructional domain toward a whole-school approach. As a cross-cutting task of school development, it cannot be delegated to individual teachers alone but requires structural changes in decision-making and participatory structures at the school level. The findings also question whether existing legal frameworks and curricula in Austria are sufficient to guarantee students’ rights to participate. Hence, the paper offers empirically grounded insights into how schools can better align democracy learning and participation, and discusses implications for strengthening democratic school cultures in times of poly-crisis and pressures on democratic institutions. References Abs, H. J., Roczen, N. & Klieme, E. (2007). Abschlussbericht zur Evaluation des BLK-Programms "Demokratie lernen und leben". Materialien zur Bildungsforschung. Gesellschaft zur Förderung Pädagogischer Forschung. Biesta, G. (2020). Risking Ourselves in Education: Qualification, Socialization, and Subjectification Revisited. Educational Theory, 70(1), 89–104. https://doi.org/10.1111/edth.12411 Council of Europe. (2016). Strategy for the Rights of the Child (2016-2021): Building a Europe for an with children. Dewey, J. (1907). The school and social progress. University of Chicago Press. Feichter, H. (2020). Die Grammatik der Schule als Partizipationshindernis. Organisationstheoretische und schulkulturelle Überlegungen. In S. Gerhartz-Reiter & C. Reisenauer (Hrsg.), Partizipation und Schule (S. 25–40). Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden. Hedtke, R. (2016). Partizipation als politisches und pädagogisches Problem. In W. Friedrichs & D. Lange (Hrsg.), Demokratiepolitik: Vermessungen-Anwendungen-Probleme-Perspektiven (S. 133–146). Springer VS. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-11819-8_10 Himmelmann, G., & Lange, D. (Hrsg.). (2005). Demokratiekompetenz. VS Verlag für Sozialwissen¬schaften. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-322-83389-1 ISB - Staatsinstitut für Schulqualität und Bildungsforschung (2026, 20. January). Verfassungsviertelstunde. https://www.politischebildung.schule.bayern.de/verfassungsviertelstunde/ Kalev, L., Hytti, M., Hallik, M. & Sandström, N. (2025). Citizenship Education for Contemporary Democracy: Challenges and Gaps in Six European Countries. Societies, 15(12), 355. https://doi.org/10.3390/soc15120355 OeAD. (2025, 11. September). Democracy education in schools is more necessary than ever. https://presse.oead.at/en/press-releases/news~democracy-education-in-schools-is-more-necessary-than-ever Polis (2026). The basic principles of citizenship education in Austrian schools. https://www.politik-lernen.at/basic_principles Welty, E. & Lundy, L. (2013). A children’s rights-based approach to involving children in decision making. Journal of Science Communication, 12(03), C02. https://doi.org/10.22323/2.12030302 Wetzelhütter, D. & Bacher, J. (2015). How to Measure Participation of Pupils at School. Analysis of Unfolding Data Based on Hart’s Ladder of Participation. methods, data, analyses, 9(1), 111–136. https://doi.org/10.12758/MDA.2015.004 25. Research on Children's Rights in Education
Paper From Moral Development to Legal Subjectivation: An Ecosystemic Scoping Review 1: University of Lausanne, Switzerland; 2: University of Geneva, Switzerland; 3: Université Lumière Lyon 2, France Presenting Author:Moral development constitutes a central field for understanding how individuals learn to evaluate normative situations, coordinate considerations of justice, well-being and rights, and regulate their behavior in relation to others (Smetana, 2013; Turiel, 2007). Within the field of children’s rights, these processes can be mobilized to support participation, progressive autonomy and the recognition of the child as a rights-holder, particularly with regard to the principle of evolving capacities (Lansdown, 2005) and the right to be heard (United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child [UN CRC], 2009). However, the developmental foundations of this legal subjectivation remain rarely explicated in a systematic manner, especially from an interdisciplinary perspective articulating developmental psychology, educational sciences and children’s rights. This lack of conceptual clarification has direct implications for educational contexts, where children’s participation and rights education are sometimes postponed or underestimated on the basis of questionable assumptions about children’s moral and normative capacities. This leads to inappropriate discursive constructions of the child's (moral) development in legal texts, even in the general comments of the Committee on the Rights of the Child, for example (Velez, 2016), or to ‘hampering effects’ in educational contexts (Quennerstedt, 2010). The literature on moral development is characterized by strong theoretical and disciplinary heterogeneity, drawing in particular on developmental psychology (Smetana, 2013; Turiel, 2007), contemporary approaches to developmental and societal change (Killen, 2021), as well as contributions from developmental neuroscience focusing on the progressive integration of affective, cognitive and social components in moral information processing (Decety, 2011; Decety & Cowell, 2014). Part of this literature has often privileged age-based or hierarchically, sometimes linearly, interpreted levels of development, despite contemporary work emphasizing the contextual, dynamic and multidimensional nature of morality (Killen, 2021; Turiel, 2010). In the current context of polycrisis and transformations in the production and use of knowledge in education (ECER 2026: Knowing and Acting), understanding how children construct moral and normative agency is crucial for informing educational practices and policies that respect rights, without either denying or absolutizing children’s capacities (Lansdown, 2005; UNCRC, 2009). This paper therefore presents a scoping review aiming to map moral development processes from birth to 18 years (legal end of childhood) within an ecosystemic perspective (Bronfenbrenner, 1979), and to examine how these processes constitute developmental foundations for the progressive construction of the subject as a moral actor and as a rights-holder (Lansdown, 2005; UNCRC, 2009). The ecosystemic approach makes it possible to articulate complementary levels of analysis: (a) individual (neurodevelopmental maturation and affective-cognitive integration: Decety, 2011; Decety & Cowell, 2014), (b) relational (social interactions and situated normative learning: Smetana, 2013; Turiel, 2007), (c) institutional/educational (conditions of normative socialization and recognition of children’s voice: Covell & Howe, 2001; UNCRC, 2009), and (d) socio-cultural and historical (variability of norms and practices: Turiel, 2010). Three research questions structure the review: Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used The study adopts a scoping review methodology in accordance with the foundational framework of Arksey and O’Malley (2005) and its methodological extensions (Levac et al., 2010), as well as PRISMA-ScR reporting recommendations (Tricco et al., 2018). The databases PsycINFO, ERIC and Scopus/Web of Science are searched using search strings combining terms related to moral development (i.e., moral development, moral reasoning, moral judgment, prosocial moral, social domain) with terms related to lifespan development (i.e., infancy, childhood, adolescence, emerging adulthood), as well as contextual dimensions (i.e., education, school, socialization, culture, neuroscience) (Arksey & O’Malley, 2005; Tricco et al., 2018). Included studies are peer-reviewed empirical or theoretical publications explicitly addressing developmental processes related to morality from birth to adulthood (Smetana, 2013; Turiel, 2007) in English, French, Italian, Spanish, German, and Swiss German. They comprise: (a) research identifying moral development processes/levels and their conditions (Killen, 2021; Turiel, 2010), (b) studies articulating moral development with socialization/education (Covell & Howe, 2001; Smetana, 2013), and (c) developmental neuroscience contributions elucidating affective–cognitive integration in moral sensitivity (Decety, 2011; Decety & Cowell, 2014). Exclusion studies are those without explicit developmental grounding, purely prescriptive contributions lacking discussion of developmental mechanisms, or studies not allowing documentation of processes/conditions (Arksey & O’Malley, 2005; Levac et al., 2010). Standardized data extraction documents theoretical framework, population, moral concepts mobilized (justice, well-being, rights, equity), described processes, methods, and contextual variables (relationships, school, culture/history) (Bronfenbrenner, 1979; Tricco et al., 2018). Data is subjected to thematic analysis aimed at identifying families of transversal processes (emergence, coordination, integration) and at explicating developmental building blocks of legal subjectivation, such as the capacity to distinguish moral norms from conventions, to coordinate perspectives, to justify normative positions, and to perceive oneself as a legitimate actor (Lansdown, 2005; Smetana, 2013; UNCRC, 2009). Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings This presentation highlights that the construction of the rights-holder cannot be understood as a legal status attributed independently of development, but rather as a progressive process rooted in moral development and shaped by individual and contextual conditions (Bronfenbrenner, 1979; Lansdown, 2005; UN CRC, 2009). It will be structured as follows: (1) an integrative mapping of key moral development processes from birth to adulthood (Smetana, 2013; Turiel, 2007); (2) identification of individual (i.e., empathy–morality integration: Decety & Cowell, 2014) and contextual (i.e., socialization and educational frameworks: Covell & Howe, 2001) conditions associated with their emergence and consolidation; and (3) a critical synthesis of age- or maturation-centered readings, highlighting the situated and multidimensional dynamics of moral development (Killen, 2021; Turiel, 2010). From a children’s rights perspective, we will clarify implications for participation and the right to be heard, in line with the principle of evolving capacities (Lansdown, 2005; Moody, 2020; Moody et al., 2024; UNCRC, 2009). Children’s rights education is grounded in the recognition of children as holders of human rights (Verhellen, 1993) and constitutes an explicit mission assigned to educational systems by the Convention on the Rights of the Child (art. 42), which calls for the dissemination and knowledge of these rights among children and adults (Louviot, 2020). From an educational perspective, reference points for designing environments and practices that foster the progressive recognition of the child as a rights-holder, will be provided, within a logic of rights, respect and responsibility (Covell & Howe, 2001). References Arksey, H., & O’Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(1), 19–32. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development. Harvard University Press. Covell, K., & Howe, R. B. (2001). Moral education through the 3 Rs. Journal of Moral Education, 30(1), 29–41. Decety, J. (2011). The developmental neuroscience of moral sensitivity. Emotion Review, 3(3), 305–307. Decety, J., & Cowell, J. M. (2014). The complex relation between morality and empathy. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 18(7), 337–339. Killen, M. (2021). Moral reasoning enables developmental and societal change. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 16(6), 1203–1223. Kohlberg, L., & Hersh, R. H. (1977). Moral development. Theory into practice, 16(2), 53-59. Lansdown, G. (2005). The evolving capacities of the child. UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre. Levac, D., Colquhoun, H., & O’Brien, K. K. (2010). Scoping studies. Implementation Science, 5, Article 69. Louviot, M. (2020). Enjeux autour de l’implémentation de l’éducation aux droits de l’enfant en Suisse romande. Schweizerische Zeitschrift für Bildungswissenschaften, 42(1), 108-126. Moody, Z. (2020). Children's Rights to, in and through Education. Solsko Polje, 31(3/4), 11-251. Moody, Z., Perry-Hazan, L., & Darbellay, F. (2024). Children’s human rights education. Cambridge Journal of Education, 54(6), 681-699. Quennerstedt, A. (2010). Children, but not really humans? The International Journal of Children's Rights, 18(4), 619-635. Smetana, J. G. (2013). Moral development: The social domain theory view. In P. D. Zelazo (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of developmental psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 832–858). Oxford University Press. Tricco, A. C., Lillie, E., Zarin, W., O’Brien, K. K., Colquhoun, H., Levac, D., … Straus, S. E. (2018). PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR. Annals of Internal Medicine, 169(7), 467–473. Turiel, E. (2007). The development of morality. In W. Damon & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology (6th ed., Vol. 3, pp. 789–857). Wiley. Turiel, E. (2010). The development of morality. In R. M. Lerner (Ed.), Handbook of life-span development (Vol. 1, pp. 387–421). Wiley. United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child. (2009). General comment No. 12 (2009): The right of the child to be heard (CRC/C/GC/12). United Nations. Velez, G. (2016). Children's human rights: Psychological assumptions in comments on the Convention of the Rights of the Child and a phenomenological critique. Psychology & Society, 8(2), 95–118. Verhellen, E. (1993). Children's rights and education: A three-track legally binding imperative. School Psychology International, 14(3), 199-208. 25. Research on Children's Rights in Education
Paper Assessing Adult's Children's Rights Consciousness and Educational Practices: a Comparative Study Between Teachers, Principals, and Parents 1: University of Geneva, Switzerland; 2: University of Lausanne, Switzerland; 3: University Lumière Lyon 2, France Presenting Author:The Convention on the Rights of the Child mandates that ratifying countries disseminate its content to both adults and children (Art. 42). This implies a legal obligation to provide children with Children’s Human Rights Education (CHRE). The knowledge developed through such education aims to foster a rights consciousness in children, defined as the capacity to perceive and interpret the world and its obstacles through the lens of rights (Perry-Hazan, 2021). It is essential for enabling children to mobilize their rights, beginning with the ability to identify and name specific violations (Perry-Hazan, 2024). Despite the critical role of CHRE in children’s agency and respect of their rights (Bajaj, 2011), children receive limited exposure to such education, regardless of the context. Child development is influenced by a multitude of interconnected systems (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2007), including the microsystem - which encompasses the child’s immediate environment such as family and school. This influence occurs notably through vicarious learning (Bandura, 1977). Adults act as role models: children observe adult behaviors, extract the underlying values, and are subsequently more likely to reproduce them. This mechanism can be applied to the acquisition of attitudes, values, and behaviors that uphold children's rights. In the school setting, this responsibility rests not only on teachers but more broadly on all adults involved in a child’s life, including principals and parents, whose stances and practices contribute to shaping the experience and understanding of rights (Isenström, 2020; Louviot, 2021; Nurhayati et al., 2021). This idea aligns with the model of CHRE proposed by Moody et al. (2025). One component of the model, the rights-conscious educator, emphasizes that practitioners must demonstrate knowledge of and respect for children’s rights, and a deliberate intention to transmit these rights to children. Furthermore, a rights-conscious educator must be capable of implementing rights-based educational processes—a second component of the model. Thus, CHRE is integrated into adult educational practices and, by extension, into the child’s daily lived experiences. The influence of educational actors on children’s appropriation of rights depends on their own rights consciousness and their ability to adopt practices consistent with these principles (Isenström, 2020). This effect is further amplified if the child experiences congruence across all their interactions with adults (Isenström, 2021). However, training on children's rights remains marginal in the professional development of teachers and principals (Louviot, 2020) and research suggests that parents also require greater access to CHRE (Nurhayati et al., 2021). This limited knowledge hinders the recognition and respect of children's rights; therefore, it appears essential to further expand CHRE among these populations. In order to provide relevant support on these themes to teachers, principals, and parents – as the primary systems directly involved with children, it is necessary to establish a nuanced understanding of the current situation—specifically to understand their children’s rights consciousness and how this is expressed in their educational practices. As few standardized tools exist to obtain such measurements across large populations, we sought to develop and validate questionnaires evaluating the consciousness of children's rights and associated educational practices among these three stakeholder groups. The objective of this presentation is to describe the different dimensions evaluated by these questionnaires and to present a comparative analysis of the results from an initial study conducted with the three aforementioned populations. Ultimately, we aim to answer the following questions: What is the level of children's rights consciousness among teachers, principals, and parents and through which educational practices is it expressed? A focus is also placed on similarities and differences among the three populations, and what are their specific needs to promote respect for children's rights and children's rights consciousness. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used Three distinct questionnaires were developed to assess rights-based educational practices among three adult populations: teachers, school principals and parents. Each instrument follows a common structure while being adapted to the specific roles and educational contexts of each population. The scales consist of 35 to 37 items and operationalize the two components of the Moody et al. (2025) model that center on the educator’s attitudes and behaviors: the rights-conscious educator and rights-based educational processes. The (1) rights-conscious educator component is defined across four dimensions: (a) knowledge, (b) behaviors, (c) attitudes, and (d) intention (Isenström, 2020, 2021; Moody et al., 2025). Furthermore, (2) rights-based educational processes have been divided into two dimensions: (a) the mobilization of rights and (b) active, cooperative, and participatory pedagogy (Lundy, 2007; Moody et al., 2025; Perry-Hazan, 2021). The development of the questionnaires is based on a content validity approach. Items were developed from the scientific literature, notably the model proposed by Moody et al. (2025). The data collection phase involved a sample of approximately 750 participants (250 per population), recruited in France and French-speaking Switzerland. Participant recruitment was primarily conducted via social media and professional networks, in order to ensure a diverse range of teacher, school principal, and parent profiles, as well as varied family contexts. The construct validity of the instruments will be assessed through exploratory factor analysis (EFA) conducted separately for each questionnaire, in order to identify the underlying factor structure of the items, examine their statistical coherence, and confirm the relevance of each item within the retained dimensions. Inter-questionnaire correlation analyses will then be performed to examine convergence between conceptually related dimensions, by assessing the strength and direction of associations between scores. Finally, a multilingual confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) will be conducted to test the factorial structure of the three scales in an intercultural context (France and French-speaking Switzerland) and to establish a European validation of the questionnaires for adults. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings Although data processing is still ongoing, we hypothesize that children's rights consciousness and associated educational practices will be relatively low, due to the traditional view of the child as being subordinate to the adult (Moody et al., 2024). We anticipate that children's rights consciousness will be positively correlated with the implementation of rights-based educational practices. However, we expect overall scores regarding educational practices to be lower, due to a gap between conceptual endorsement and practical application. The analysis is also expected to reveal distinct need profiles among parents, teachers, and principals. These differences between populations are essential to consider, as they will allow for the optimal tailoring of children's human rights interventions to the specificities and needs of each group. These results will enable a better understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of teachers, principals, and parents regarding children's human rights education. This comprehensive overview offers the possibility of designing targeted interventions adapted to the specificities of each educational figure, whose influence is decisive in shaping the child as a subject of rights. By accounting for necessary cultural adaptations, these questionnaires could be used in other contexts and would serve as a robust instrument for future international comparative research on children's human rights education across various educational settings. References Bajaj, M. (2011). Human Rights Education : Ideology, Location, and Approaches (SSRN Scholarly Paper No. 2143410). Social Science Research Network. https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2143410 Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. (Prentice-Hall). https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1979-05015-000 Bronfenbrenner, U., & Morris, P. A. (2007). The Bioecological Model of Human Development (W. Damon & R. M. Lerner, Éds.; 1re éd.). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470147658.chpsy0114 Isenström, L. (2020). Children as Growing Rights Subjects – The Significance of Teachers’ Actions. https://doi.org/10.1163/15718182-02802012 Isenström, L. (2021). Teachers’ Rights-Teaching Mentalities—What Teachers Do and Why. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 66(2), 275‑289. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2020.1869075 Louviot, M. (2020). Enjeux autour de l’implémentation de l’éducation aux droits de l’enfant en Suisse romande. Schweizerische Zeitschrift für Bildungswissenschaften, 42(1), 108‑126. Louviot, M. (2021). L'éducation aux droits de l'enfant : participation des élèves et enjeux de la forme scolaire. Etude de cas en Suisse romande [Thèse de doctorat en sciences de l’éducation, Université de Genève]. 10.13097/archive-ouverte/unige:159232 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. https://doi.org/10.1080/01411920701657033 Moody, Z., Gawlicz, K., Gillett-Swan, J., Perry-Hazan, L., & Quennerstedt, A. (2025). A theory of children’s human rights education. European Educational Research Journal. https://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:oru:diva-123792 Nurhayati, S., Nugraha, W. A., & Solihah, H. (2021). Needs analysis of children’s right curriculum for parenting education. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Early Childhood Education (ICECE 2020) (pp. 278–282). Atlantis Press. https://doi.org/10.2991/assehr.k.210322.059 Perry-Hazan, L. (2021). 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., Kirma, R., & Shoshana, A. (2024). Rights consciousness, sense of constraint and the reproduction of inequalities : Perceptions of rights among pupils of low socioeconomic status who completed a human rights education unit. Cambridge Journal of Education, 54(1), 53‑69. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305764X.2023.2281674 | ||