Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

We report on the development of an instrument to measure attitudes to children’s human rights and diversity in schools. It was developed to investigate perceptions of human rights and diversity among students and then teachers in two contrasting areas of Norway. The instrument draws on human rights standards articulated in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. It is intended for use in future baseline studies, allowing for transnational and comparative analysis of child rights in education. The near-universal ratification of the United Nation Convention on the Rights of the Child provides an agreed international framework for evaluating rights implementation strategies over time. We contextualise the measurement instrument, focusing on rights provision, child protection, and participation in schools. We consider its strengths and possible limitations and discuss the need for a sound human rights conceptual model through which child rights in school settings can be interpreted.

Keywords

Human rights education measurement Norway child rights migration citizenship education democratic education child participation human rights indicators diversity

Introduction

This paper reports on quantitative research examining perceptions of human rights and diversity among students and teachers in two contrasting areas of Norway, focusing here on the measurement instrument and on students’ perspectives. The research aimed to develop and test an instrument that might be used in a future baseline study of teachers’ and students’ perceptions and experiences of child rights and diversity.

The 1989 United Nation Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) (UN, 1989) sets out agreed minimum international standards for children’s human rights, which include child rights in schools and, indeed, education in human rights. Although the CRC has been universally recognised and almost universally ratified, meaning that common standards might be applied in different global settings, we do not have baseline data against which we might measure the degree and quality of change or the effectiveness of implementation strategies designed to enable the realization of children’s human rights in schools or to assess and compare children’s human rights in schools in different jurisdictions.

In this paper, we set the context for a possible future baseline study. We contextualise our work by reviewing existing studies on children’s human rights and schooling, including previous efforts to measure human rights education (HRE), and identifying specific gaps in knowledge. Because our measurement instrument was tested in Norway, we report on previous research on child rights in education and diversity within Norway and neighbouring Scandinavian countries, but also refer to research in other settings to provide a wider frame of reference. We also consider the specific legal and policy frameworks that apply in the case of Norway.

Our research is intended to inform education policy-makers, practitioners, and teacher educators on the one hand, and smaller, in-depth qualitative research studies on the other. Our expectation is that the instrument we have devised might be applied in other locations, permitting transnational and comparative analysis. We seek to determine what sort of changes might be necessary and what sort of comparisons are needed to extend understanding of children’s human rights and diversity in schools.

Context: diversity, education and demographic change

Here we discuss constructions of homogeneity in Scandinavia, consider migration and changing demographics, and discuss how these and other political developments have impacted on education. Our focus is on the need for education for democracy and human rights in Europe, particularly in response to growing exclusion, the development of populist and ethno-nationalist discourses, concerns about terror and violent extremism, and barriers to the full participation of migrants and refugees. Societal problems may impact on how policy-makers perceive and differentiate students’ needs, according to socio-cultural background and migration status.

Across Europe, since the turn of the century, there has been increased interest in questions of diversity in education, in response to changing demographics. In Scandinavia, the broad pattern of inward migration was labour in the 1960s and 1970s, asylum seekers in the 1980s and 1990s, and, following European Union enlargement in 2004, increased labour from Eastern and Central Europe. War in Syria, together with other conflicts and hardships, has led from 2015 to the arrival of unprecedented numbers of refugees and migrants in Europe, seeking shelter and improved life chances. Over one million people each year have risked their lives crossing the Mediterranean, prompting what has been described as a refugee crisis, but what might equally be described as a crisis of human rights in Europe, with Norway and Denmark both among those European nations taking steps to tighten their laws so as so discourage or prevent asylum claims. In 2016, the Norwegian government tightened border controls and continued to offer financial incentives for asylum seekers to return home. A new law, strongly criticised by human rights organisations, allows border officials to reject asylum claims by anyone who does not come directly from conflict zones but has passed through other European nations on the grounds they have come from a ‘safe third country’ (Dearden, 2016).

Changing demographics mean that the term diversity, which was historically understood in Scandinavian contexts to refer primarily to social class, has now been extended to focus more directly on language, religion, ethnicity and culture (Bay et al., 2010). The new context across Europe is characterised as one of ‘super-diversity’ (Vertovec, 2007), where newcomers are no longer primarily from those countries that have colonial or other historical ties to their destination country. Although ethnic diversity is typically characterised as a relatively new phenomenon in Scandinavia, construction of historical homogeneity serves to make invisible the indigenous Sami people, and various national minorities, against whom there is a long history of state and institutional discrimination (Lile, 2011; Osler and Lybæk, 2014).

Norway, like other Nordic countries, has a proud tradition in democratic education. Norwegian students have tended to perform well on international studies testing knowledge, skills and attitudes related to civic competences, even though the evidence suggests that this knowledge and competence does not necessarily translate into adult political participation (Fjeldstad and Mikkelsen, 2004). Consequently, discussions as to whether citizenship education should be part of the core curriculum have come to nothing, with ‘politics and human rights’ remaining an elective subject for senior students.

Nevertheless, Norway, in common with other European nations, faces various challenges in guaranteeing human rights to all within its jurisdiction, in the changing European political climate (Osler, 2017). Norway is an active participant in the Council of Europe programme on Education for Democratic Citizenship (EDC) and Human Rights Education. The Declaration of the 2017 Council of Europe conference Learning to Live Together: A Shared Commitment to Democracy, that addressed the implementation of the Council of Europe (2010) Charter on Education for Democratic Citizenship and Human Rights Education, expressed concern at the serious challenges to democracy and human rights in Europe today, in particular the growing exclusion, discrimination and polarisation in our societies; the increasing use of populist and nationalist discourse; the disillusion with traditional democratic processes; the rise of terrorism and violent extremism; and the slow progress made in overcoming the barriers to the successful integration of migrants and refugees in our societies (Council of Europe, 2017).

Among the key actions recommended by this 2017 Conference on the future of EDC and HRE is to ‘Ensure quality, balanced provision of EDC/HRE in all areas and types of education, with specific attention paid to areas where EDC/HRE is less present such as pre-school education, vocational education and training, and higher education’ (Council of Europe, 2017; our emphasis).

The Norwegian Department of Education (Utdanningsdirektoret) states that human rights are relevant for the following programmes of study: Norwegian, English, other foreign languages, social studies, mathematics, history, sciences, religion and ethics, arts and craft, food and health, student council work, mother tongue for linguistic minorities, and physical education (Utdanningsdirektoratet (UDIR), 2010). In other words, the Department suggests that human rights content should extend across the curriculum and be experienced through student council work. The degree to which (children’s) human rights are incorporated into these areas of study depends to a large degree on the interests and expertise of the teacher, and the leadership of the school principal. In everyday discourse, the terms ‘human rights’ and ‘democracy’ are often conflated, and the emphasis is generally on democratic practices in schools. However, as Osler and Lybæk (2014) observe: ‘Education for democratic citizenship (EDC) in multicultural contexts may … require dispositions and experiences not consistently promoted in Scandinavian schools’ (p. 548).

Nevertheless, following the July 2011 far-right terrorist attack in Oslo and Utøya, and in response to the Council of Europe (2010) Charter on EDC and HRE, Norwegian policy-makers have re-emphasized the importance of HRE, translating the Charter into Norwegian (Kunnskapsdepartementet, 2012) and holding national conferences bringing together researchers, teacher educators and non-governmental organization representatives. In his address at a national conference on HRE and EDC, Torbjørn Røe Isaksen, then Minister of Education and Research, highlighted two areas where he felt HRE has a key role to play in contemporary Norway:

How do we … pass on or communicate values that may help prevent the recruitment of warriors to Syria? How do we provide citizens originating from countries without tradition for women’s rights the trust in women’s intrinsic value and personal integrity? (Isaksen, 2014; our emphasis).

Here, HRE is presented as necessary for two reasons: first to tackle Islamist radicalization amongst Norwegian youth and, second, to ensure that new citizens adopt Norwegian standards of gender equality. Norway’s deserved reputation as a nation with advanced standards for women’s rights is used to make the case for HRE for the ‘Other’. The reference to ‘citizens originating from countries without tradition for women’s rights’ and to the threat of Islamist recruitment plays to concerns within society that migrants from predominantly Muslim countries threaten ‘our’ values. In fact, 53% of migrants to Norway are from other parts of Europe, with Poland representing by far the greatest number. Only a small proportion of migrants (and Norwegian-born children of migrants) originate from a predominantly Muslim country (Statistics Norway, 2017). Despite the experience of far-right terrorist violence from ‘one of us’ (Seierstad, 2016), it is newcomers who are judged in need of HRE.

Nevertheless, the Minister’s recognition, elsewhere in his speech, that: ‘The prevalence of bullying in Norwegian schools indicates that we still have some way to go’ (Isaksen, 2014) and his reference to Dembra, a government-funded teacher professional development programme targeting lower secondary schools wishing to counter non-democratic attitudes, racism and anti-Semitism, presents a more complex picture of Norwegian HRE-based projects. Importantly, in 2014, the Norwegian constitutional bicentennial year, the Constitution was revised. A new Article 109 states that education shall promote respect for democracy, the rule of law and human rights. Effectively, from 2014 human rights education (HRE) has become a constitutional right (Osler, 2014) – it appears that Norway is the first nation-state to guarantee HRE as a constitutional right – with implications both for HRE in schools and for teacher education.

Although Norway scores well on international indicators relating to the integration of migrants in education (MIPEX, 2015), it is noteworthy that efforts to introduce multicultural education are targeted at newcomers, rather than all students, and that in the face of diversity the Norwegian curriculum re-emphasizes national values and traditions, commonly expressed as ‘Christian and humanistic’ values (Osler and Lybæk, 2014).

Measuring children’s human rights and diversity

In this context, it is critical to measure attitudes to both human rights and diversity in tandem. By bringing together issues of human rights and diversity in this study, we aim to better understand attitudes to rights and diversity at school among students and teachers in the current Norwegian socio-cultural context, namely, in a prosperous society with good social security provision, which has traditionally constructed itself as homogeneous, but which has seen significant demographic change over the last decade.

Our study is innovative on two counts: first, in that it seeks to explore the intersection of human rights and diversity; and second, because it draws directly on the human rights standards set out in the CRC to assess children’s human rights in schools. The CRC as a human rights treaty is itself unique as it has been (with the exception of the United States) universally ratified. Although phase one of the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA)’s Civic Education study included items measuring competences relating to rights, justice and social cohesion (IEA, 1995), subsequent phases of that study reduced the number of items addressing these issues (Torney-Purta et al., 1999), so that we do not have a recent measurement of these competences, nor one over time.

Since 1989, and the adoption of the CRC, there is an agreed international standard against which instruments to measure progress in various policy areas might be evaluated. Academic and policy studies have focused increasingly on children’s human rights. Education policy-makers, teachers, non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and teachers’ organisations have identified the school as a key site where children’s knowledge and awareness of their rights might be developed (Osler and Starkey, 2010).

Measuring human rights in education

Previous research measuring children’s rights tends to address rights broadly, rather than rights in education. Most education indicators address public spending and enrolment rates, rather than the attitudes and perceptions of educators or students.

In their comparative study, measuring children’s rights in three domains (welfare, education and health), Kim and Yoo (2016) note the significance of the CRC in increasing interest in monitoring child rights, but observe, as we do, that that the abstractness and interrelationships of rights (e.g. protection, participation) within the CRC make measurement difficult in practice. Using three types of indicators, that is, public efforts, basic needs fulfilment, and present condition, they find that economic inequalities are significant in determining the degree to which rights are fulfilled, with notable differences between wealthy countries. Their indicators for the right to education are: public education spending as a percentage of GDP, deficiency of the educational environment, and tertiary entry rates. The authors draw on the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s (OECD) Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) database (www.oecd.org/pisa) as their resource in assessing educational environment. PISA does not seek to measure democratic or human rights competences.

Across the three domains, the Nordic countries score highly, with Iceland ranked first, followed by Denmark, Sweden, Norway and Finland. The lower-ranked countries are Mexico, Japan, South Korea, and the USA which, the authors report, have low government efforts to support children, meaning children’s ability to access their rights depends more heavily on the family. Children from these jurisdictions whose families experience instability or economic difficulties are thus particularly at risk.

Two studies come closest to ours in seeking to measure perceptions and understandings of human rights among students (McPherson and Cheatham, 2015) and teachers (Lo et al., 2015). McPherson and Cheatham illustrate how measurement of human rights can be used to evaluate social work students’ professional learning. Following changes in accreditation by the US Council on Social Work Education in 2008, whereby human rights were listed among the core values of social workers, and the United Nations 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and human rights content became a course requirement, the authors integrated human rights content and a national arts-activism initiative into their university teaching and evaluated the impact, addressing two key questions: ‘How do we teach social work students to “advance human rights”? And how do we measure our success?’ (McPherson and Cheatham, 2015: 47). The realization of social and economic justice, and the prevention of conditions that limit human rights are an explicit purpose of social work. As in our study of attitudes to child rights in schools, McPherson and Cheatham were interested in measuring human rights exposure and human rights engagement. They did this against two quantitative scales, using pre-test and post-test measures. Students were presented with a human rights framework:

[P]overty, lack of access to health care, and domestic violence … were presented as human rights violations. Links were made between civil rights violations familiar to U.S. citizens (i.e., discrimination on the basis of race, gender, religion, ethnicity, disability, and sexuality) and human rights violations. … Students were further educated about economic factors that play a role in perpetuating mass violence and [given ethical] consumer strategies … and [strategies] for giving feedback to manufacturers and legislators. (McPherson and Cheatham, 2015: 51).

Targeted educational interventions using human rights campaigns and teaching were judged useful in increasing human rights exposure and engagement among social work professionals. This suggests that teachers might also benefit from targeted interventions that enable them to identify everyday injustices in schools as both a professional responsibility and an infringement of child rights. Such interventions would bring indirect benefits in raising child rights awareness among children and youth.

Lo et al. (2015) devised a scale to measure the attitudes of Hong Kong Liberal Studies teachers to human rights, arguing that because this subject is a key vehicle for HRE in senior secondary schools, these teachers’ attitudes are significant in ensuring HRE’s effectiveness. Their human rights scale has six dimensions: social welfare, civilian constraint, personal liberties, equality, privacy (school management), and privacy (other contexts). The Hong Kong study provides a useful summary of nine previous measurement scales (1985–2008) addressing attitudes to human rights, noting that just three scales draw directly the UDHR, whereas others take the US Bill of Rights or major themes in human rights literature as their reference point. Our measurement scale benefits from adopting the CRC as its reference point, because the universal recognition of the CRC permits the widest possible range of comparative studies. Because the CRC is legally binding, research findings can be used in subsequent processes that call governments to account in upholding child rights in schools.

The Hong Kong study found that Liberal Studies teachers’ attitudes to human rights are multidimensional. Interestingly, teachers ‘distinguished issues concerning privacy in school from issues related to privacy in other occasions’ (Lo et al., 2015: 99) suggesting perhaps that secondary school students are not yet accorded equal recognition as human rights-holders alongside adult citizens. The authors of an earlier US study (Thorin et al., 1988), measuring knowledge of citizenship rights and responsibilities (including human rights knowledge), suggest their scale might be applied to young people on leaving secondary education to establish how schools might more effectively teach youth the rights and responsibilities of adult citizenship. They appear to hold a deficit model of children as citizens.

Quantitative indicators may ‘reveal the human rights weaknesses of national education systems so as to allow for a correction of public policy and practice that meets human rights obligations’ (Beeckman, 2004: 71), but measurement cannot provide a full picture in monitoring children’s rights to and in education. Human rights principles and values cannot be necessarily expressed solely in numerical terms and there is an argument for using both educational and human rights indicators. Beeckman (2004) suggests that human rights measurement needs to incorporate a sound human rights conceptual model. She illustrates her argument by reference to Tomaševski’s (2001) 4As model of Availability, Accessibility Acceptability and Adaptability. The model (discussed below) offers a human rights lens through which data can be interpreted.

A further consideration is children’s role in measuring and monitoring their own rights and well-being. Ben-Arieh (2005) is among those making the case for children’s active engagement in research, recognising that their involvement is itself recognition of children’s human rights. As active participants, children are acknowledged as social actors rather than subjects for concern,

if a society accepts children as equal human beings then the study of their quality of life should accept that other human beings cannot simply by virtue of age decide what children’s well-being consists of, how it should be measured and analyzed.(Ben-Arieh, 2005: 575)

Drawing on research studies that involve children, he argues that it is possible to generate reliable findings and good response rates and that children (including those from minority and disadvantaged groups) should be involved in research design, to ensure that the study is relevant. Furthermore, children, not adults (parents, guardians), should be the source of the information and they can act as data collectors and engage in data analysis. Finally, children should be involved in utilizing the data. Ben-Arieh cites a Norwegian study on child well-being in which over 300 child respondents were subsequently asked about their thoughts and possible roles in studying children’s well-being. One important finding is that children want to be involved in research that matters.

Human rights education and international standard setting

The right to HRE was articulated in the UDHR. The preamble states that

Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in cooperation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms [noting that] a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge (our emphasis).

This ‘common understanding’ was to be realised through education, with Article 26 stating that: ‘Education shall be directed … to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms’. HRE, specifically human rights in and through education, was foreseen as a central part of the human rights project. The UN acknowledged the school as central in guaranteeing, protecting and promoting human rights, recognising the relationship between human rights knowledge and implementation. As Osler (2012) notes: ‘With the proclamation of the UDHR, education and human rights became inextricably linked’. Nevertheless, the UDHR is non-binding, acting as a moral rather than legal force. It is with subsequent legally binding instruments that the right to HRE has become firmly established.

The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (UN, 1966) and CRC (UN, 1989) are binding instruments that confirm the right to education in human rights, although the latter is better known to schools, in part because of its focus on children’s human rights and consequent professional relevance to teachers, and also because it is almost universally ratified. The CRC further developed the aims of education:

(a) The development of the child’s personality, talents and mental and physical abilities to their fullest potential;

(b) The development of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and for the principles enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations;

(c) The development of respect for the child’s parents, his or her own cultural identity, language and values, for the national values of the country in which the child is living, the country from which he or she may originate, and for civilizations different from his or her own;

(d) The preparation of the child for responsible life in a free society, in the spirit of understanding, peace, tolerance, equality of sexes, and friendship among all peoples, ethnic, national and religious groups and persons of indigenous origin; and

(e) The development of respect for the natural environment (UN, 1989: Article 29).

Here, specific links are made between education for human rights and human dignity (b), culturally responsive teaching (c), education for democracy (b), cosmopolitan values (c), and tolerance of difference across nations, racial groups, ethnicities and religions (d). There is also an emphasis on education for peace and gender equity (d), an educational focus not present in the Covenant on Economic and Social Rights. A central aim of education is to promote human rights and, following from this, to encourage respect and tolerance in contexts of diversity. Inter-group respect and tolerance is a prerequisite for human rights. Educational initiatives, which enable such respect, are fundamental to HRE. All these aims are seen to contribute to the realisation of the student’s full potential.

The references to the child’s own cultural identity, language and values, that of the country in which s/he lives, the country s/he may originate from and civilizations different from his or her own imply a form of intercultural education (Grover, 2007; Osler, 2010). Children cannot be educated in a ‘spirit of understanding, peace, tolerance, equality of sexes, and friendship among all peoples, ethnic, national and religious groups and persons of indigenous origin’ unless they are educated together and have curricula access to a range of cultures and experiences beyond those readily available in their family and communities. An environmental education that promotes an understanding of the relationship between human rights and respect for nature, perhaps connected to values long-held amongst indigenous peoples, is explicitly linked to these aims (29e).

In Europe, HRE was on the Council of Europe’s agenda from the mid-1980s. Recommendation R(85)7 on Teaching and Learning about Human Rights in Schools (Council of Europe, 1985), was not only important in standard setting but also included an appendix with practical guidance (Starkey, 1991). Not only is HRE a right, but education is an enabling right (McCowan, 2013), securing access to other rights, including health and well-being, an adequate standard of living, and political participation.

The end of the Cold War and the growing acknowledgement that all rights (civil, political, economic, social and cultural) are interdependent gave impetus to various international initiatives to put HRE onto government agendas. These include the UN Decade for Human Rights Education 1995–2004 and the subsequent World Programme for Human Rights (2005–ongoing); and United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO)’s higher prioritisation of HRE following the Declaration and Integrated Framework of Action on Education for Peace, Human Rights and Democracy (UNESCO, 1995). HRE has since received new impetus in UNESCO’s emphasis on ‘global citizenship education’, an area of strategic importance in UNESCO’s Education Programme (2001–2021; UNESCO, 2014). Global citizenship education is closely tied to UN Sustainable Development Goal 4.7. UNESCO’s work builds on earlier standard setting such as the recommendation on education for international understanding (UNESCO, 1974). The Council of Europe Charter on Education for Democratic Citizenship and Human Rights Education (Recommendation CM/Rec(2010)7; Council of Europe, 2010) also provides a useful tool for Member States, NGOs, youth, and education professionals in evaluating progress in HRE.

The adoption of the UN Declaration on Human Rights Education and Training (UN, 2011) is a key step in enabling HRE globally. It provides a working definition of HRE, against which Member States, NGOs, and other educational stakeholders can assess progress and demand change. Importantly, it defines HRE as encompassing education about, through and for human rights (UN, 2011: Article 2.2). Education about rights includes providing knowledge and understanding of human rights norms and principles, the values that underpin them and the mechanisms for their protection. Education through human rights includes learning and teaching in a way that respects the rights of both educators and learners. Finally, education for human rights is about empowering learners to enjoy and exercise their rights and to respect and uphold the rights of others.

The measurement scale we developed for this study, focusing on HRE and specifically child rights education and diversity, draws directly on the CRC. It builds on work by Osler and Starkey (2005), who developed a self-assessment tool: Does your school respect everyone’s human rights? (p. 195–198). The self-assessment tool aims to support students and teachers in assessing the degree to which school curriculum and organisation are in conformity with the standards in the CRC. Items in our scale have been adapted from this tool, which linked everyday elements of schooling to specific articles, largely addressing education about and through human rights. Evaluating the degree to which HRE is transformatory (education for rights), is a further process, beyond the scope of our measurement scale. Nevertheless, the scale aims, like that of McPherson and Cheetham (2015), to measure rights exposure (attitudes) and rights engagement (expressions of attitudes) in the limited context of the school and classroom environments.

This section provided a brief conceptualization of HRE from international human rights instruments and an overview of international standard setting since 1948. The next section looks at research on the application of human rights and diversity in schools, including qualitative studies that have adopted a child rights perspective and those centring on children’s perspectives within the research framework.

Research on children’s human rights and diversity in schools

As argued above, an understanding of diversity is fundamental to respect for children’s human rights in school and to child rights education. This is recognized in the CRC, implying an intercultural (multicultural) education where children are educated together and encouraged to recognize multiperspectivity. At the same time, education for democratic citizenship in a global and interconnected age implies ‘global citizenship education’ (Gaudelli, 2016; Gaudelli and Fernekes, 2004; Ibrahim, 2005; Moon and Koo, 2011; Myers, 2006; Noddings, 2005; Osler and Vincent, 2003; Pigozzi, 2006; Rapoport, 2009) or ‘education for cosmopolitan citizenship’ (Osler and Starkey, 2003, 2005, 2018) that invites students not only to consider sustainable citizenship at the local and global levels but also to reimagine the nation as both multicultural and cosmopolitan. A human rights framework that does not privilege the nation over other bonds of affinity, but recognizes our common humanity, is necessarily cosmopolitan. A human rights framework does not privilege one element of diversity, but incorporates the concept of intersectionality, recognizing multiple axes of differentiation (Osler, 2014). In exploring diversity, we build on the premise of intersectionality, recognizing that various strands of human experience and social life are necessarily interwoven.

Our discussion of HRE research below and our measurement instrument conceptualize children’s rights as those of provision, protection and participation, the ‘3 Ps’. These should not be understood as entirely separate rights categories. For example, children cannot be protected from abuse and their bodily integrity ensured, if we do not guarantee their right to participate, and especially their right to be heard. Children who lack a voice are inadequately protected. Likewise, children will have difficulty in claiming participation rights if basic provisions (e.g. housing, adequate nutrition) are not in place. So, full freedom of expression (Article 13) requires accessible education, and appropriate conditions that enable an individual to exercise this freedom, such as adequate social security and health care.

Provision

Education as a right, and various entitlements within education, can be understood as provision rights. Such rights address the right to education which is available, accessible, acceptable and adaptable to all (Osler, 2013; Tomaševski, 2001). Here, the emphasis is on the adaptability of education to meet learners’ diverse needs and its acceptability to all.

In 2003, the Centre for Peace and Conflict Management published a survey of HRE in a selection of schools across Norway (Cleven, 2003). Schools reported that human rights were addressed in the classroom, and in project and thematic studies, with the most common methods adopted being group work, film, and role play. HRE was understood as part of social skills training, and used to address conflict management, bullying, racism and discrimination. Although the CRC was referenced by many schools in the survey, it was not generally used in upper secondary schools. Child rights education was not necessarily available to all.

Vesterdal’s (2016) study of HRE in Norwegian upper secondary schools observed that teachers focused largely on human rights violations in distant places. They claimed that an examination of human rights concerns in Norway was less attractive to students, because these were minor in comparison with other nations. Rather than increase students’ democratic and critical engagement with rights locally or nationally, teachers risked promoting a sense of complacency in students. Vesterdal’s findings suggest that teachers did not necessarily ensure adaptable HRE, relevant to, and empowering in, students’ everyday lives.

Carter (Carter, 2002; Carter and Osler, 2000) and Hudson (2005, 2006) discuss the need for adaptability of school curricula and culture in their empirical studies of English schools, each stressing education that is compliant with human rights standards and meets students’ everyday concerns. Carter examined school ethos and culture in a boys’ secondary school in England, and the ways in which school culture impacted on students’ identities and behaviours, as well as relationships with teachers. Her aims were to examine the feasibility of adopting a human rights framework as a foundation for school life and to evaluate subsequent relationships and identities. She discovered that not only were rights routinely denied, but that this had a direct impact on the range of masculinities that could be enacted in school, limiting students’ expressions of identity. She proposed a model school community which reversed some of the trends in the school culture, emphasising transparency and accountability, to secure students’ rights.

Hudson (2006), who was studying the implementation of citizenship education in an inner-city London secondary school, concluded that a human rights framework gave legitimacy to new practices within the school community, strengthening school-community relations and the inclusion of students from diverse ethnic backgrounds. Using a framework developed by Wenger (2001) to analyse the school as a community of practice for citizenship, she found students began to see citizenship education explicitly founded on human rights as a means of enabling democratic representation and participative learning, and for challenging racism. Significantly, the introduction of citizenship learning activities in the local community, with students shadowing the roles of elected representatives, promoted students’ sense of agency and enhanced efficacy. This study suggests approaches to HRE that ensure it is available, accessible, acceptable and adaptable to learners’ needs.

Issues of children’s human rights and identities are raised by Skeie (2017) in his discussion of the impartiality of religious education (RE) teachers in Norway. Reporting that teachers struggle with issues of impartiality, but have few opportunities to discuss these, he argues that impartiality is essential ‘if religious education is to have democratic legitimacy and educational worth’ (p. 26). Following a move towards multi-faith RE in 1997, debate in Norway was framed by a group of secular parents who made a legal challenge to the revised curriculum. The group of secular humanist parents challenged Norway’s provision of religious education in a case that was finally settled in the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg in 2007. Norway was judged to have violated students’ human rights, because Christianity was judged to be too dominant in the multi-faith curriculum and the system of exemptions for students from non-Christian backgrounds was judged inadequate. Skeie observes that, across the Norwegian school curriculum there is a strong emphasis on a monolithic national identity and

[there is] hardly any critical reflection regarding [students’] multiple identities, hybrid identities and children as managers of their own identity, even in opposition to parents and teachers. On the other hand, there is a worry about ‘cognitive dissonance’, which is suspected to occur if children are exposed to many religions and beliefs (Skeie, 2017: 30).

Skeie (2017) thus raises questions about pedagogy and content extending beyond curriculum provision in RE, with implications for the exercise of children’s human rights at school and the acceptability of educational provision in a society where students (and their parents) have diverse beliefs and lifestyles. Small-scale qualitative studies provide insight into the contribution of HRE in ensuring inclusive learning environments where individual students are respected. Surveys of practice provide a snapshot of provision at a point in time. They do not however, reveal the effectiveness of HRE over time, or allow easy comparison between research settings.

Protection

Lundy (2007) makes an eloquent case for procedures and practices that enable voice, linking it explicitly to Article 12 of the CRC and to child protection. As she argues, a rhetorical or moral commitment to enabling student voice is not enough unless there are structures, processes and well-trained adults ready to support students in articulating their voice. An empirical research study on students’ perceptions of schooling, that builds on Lundy’s work, found that students had a keen sense of justice and empathy for those who encountered disadvantage and discrimination (Osler, 2010). They were aware of the importance of strong and supportive relationships between teachers and students, but also recognized the need for concrete interventions to ensure the interests of the most vulnerable were protected.

A cursory review of the research literature on school discipline reveals it is only infrequently viewed through the lens of children’s human rights and frequently operates with processes that fail to protect the most vulnerable students. A study of school exclusions across five English schools set out to investigate students’ own understandings of effective school discipline. It formed part of a broader research project to identify strategies to minimize the use of exclusion (expulsion) as a disciplinary measure. Students were asked about relationships in school, systems of rewards and sanctions, specific problems that they faced, and ways in which these might be effectively resolved. They were also invited to comment on the mechanisms within their school for raising concerns and for participating in decision-making (Osler, 2000). The students’ views and those of their teachers were used to identify practices and principles that schools might adopt to promote good discipline and a safe environment and guarantee the students’ rights under the CRC. The students’ suggestions for improvement included practices that educators might broadly recognize as sound, yet which students felt were (sometimes) missing in their schooling. Students stressed the principle of non-discrimination, asking that teachers: listen to pupils; take trouble to sort out the underlying causes of disputes instead of just dealing with the immediate effects of bad behaviour; recognize bullying, racial and sexual name-calling and abuse as real problems among students; care more; investigate before they punish; and show respect for all. They advocated more support for students who found work difficult, the disciplining of racist teachers, and improvements in the training of teachers.

A key issue relating to the protection of children’s rights is that of bullying. There is an extensive literature on bullying in the Nordic countries, where it is frequently explained using a psychological lens. Much of the literature addresses the detrimental (and often long-lasting) impact of bullying on victims, including its impact on academic achievement (Strøm et al., 2013).

Bjereld et al. (2015) examined parent-reported bullying victimization among children in the Nordic countries at two points in time, 1996 and 2011. They identify immigrant children’s higher risk of being bullied than native children, in each country. The authors recommend this be taken into consideration in developing anti-bullying strategies in schools. Minton (2014), examining the issue of bullying of minorities in Norway, suggests there needs to be a change of focus from viewing bullying as an outcome of aggression to viewing it as an expression of prejudice. This implies a specific school-focused element to the HRE curriculum. Our review of the literature on bullying, seen through a child rights lens and drawing on Tomaševski’s (2001) 4As framework, highlights how for victims it serves to make education inaccessible. Among those who engage in bullying behaviour are a number who bully to cover up their academic difficulties. This issue of child protection therefore also relates to the adaptability of schooling to meet the needs of all.

Participation

The emphasis on children’s participation or political rights is what distinguishes the CRC from previous efforts to codify children’s human rights. Items on participation in our measurement scale provide us with the possibility of assessing whether, from the perspective of students, effective measures are in place to guarantee children’s provision and protection rights and to express their views about matters that concern them. Because participation rights enable students to claim other rights and speak out when these rights are being infringed, they are of considerable significance in schools, where regardless of whether democratic practices are adopted, there remain asymmetrical power relationships between adults and children.

There are many studies of student participation and democratic learning, but relatively few that focus on participation from a child rights perspective. A growing number of researchers engage children as researchers or co-researchers in various studies and/or give emphasis to student voice in qualitative research data collection and analysis (see Alderson, 2000; Fielding 2004; Lundy and McEvoy, 2012; Osler, 2010; Starkey et al., 2014; Rudduck et al., 1996). Researchers have questioned whether young people benefit directly in such studies, particularly when the primary purpose of the exercise is to collect data for the use of the adult researcher (Alderson and Morrow, 2011). Nevertheless, such studies do, to a greater or lesser degree, address the principle enshrined in Article 12 of the CRC, namely children’s right to be consulted in matters affecting them.

Important conceptual insights into student participation, set explicitly within the framework of children’s human rights, are made by Lundy (2007), who critically examines commonly held notions of voice. Her model for implementing Article 12 encompasses four key elements: space (opportunity), voice, audience, and influence. Influence relates to the opinion of the child being given ‘due weight’ as stated in Article 12. Audience implies that teachers are trained, ready and disposed to listen to young people. She points out that children need to know they have the right to speak freely (CRC Article 19) and emphasises the overarching principle of non-discrimination (Article 2) so that voice is extended to all.

Our scale

This paper addresses specifically sections A–C on our measurement instrument that sets our research within a child rights framework: child rights provision, protection, and participation. The complete list of items on the measurement instrument is included as an Appendix to this paper. The instrument continues with items addressing individual student variables, where we draw on items from the Munroe Attitude Scale Questionnaire (Munroe and Pearson, 2006) (sections D–H). Further sections (I–J) address the student’s personal motivation and personal effort and school contextual variables (K–P), drawing particularly on D’Acci’s (2011) work on student well-being to develop indicators. These aspects of the measurement scale are discussed in our initial report of our findings (Solhaug and Osler, 2018). For items A–C below, the items are followed with the number of the CRC article(s) to which they relate.

Provision

Six items in our survey relate to provision rights.

A1. Students have opportunities to learn about the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and discuss what it means for schools (Article 29).

A2. All teaching takes into account that students can be very different and have very diverse backgrounds (Articles 2, 28, 29.1c, 30).

A3. When nations’ histories are taught, it is usually in the context of different groups’ perceptions of it, such as minorities or women (Articles 2, 13, 28, 29.1c and d, 30).

A4. I know I can choose not to participate in learning activities that are contrary to my religious convictions (Article 14).

A5. Instruction is structured so that I can request in advance not to participate in teaching activities that are against my religious convictions (Article 14).

A6. Correct spelling and pronunciation of students’ names is strongly emphasized (Article 7).

A1 is a about the fundamental right to HRE, as articulated in the CRC, Articles 29 (aims of education, discussed above) and Article 42: ‘States Parties undertake to make the principles and provisions of the Convention widely known, by appropriate and active means, to adults and children alike’. A2 addresses Article 2 (non-discrimination), Article 28 (right to education), and Article 29.1c (aims of education, specifically, respect for cultural identity). Likewise item A3, addressing history education and multiperspectivity, relates to Article 2, Article 28 and Article 29.1 c and d (aims of education: specifically, respect for cultural identity and inter-group respect and tolerance), and Article 30 (rights of minorities and indigenous people to enjoy their own culture, religion and language).

Protection

Five items on the scale address protection rights:

B1. Posters, pictures, or drawings with racist or discriminatory content are never displayed at this school (Articles 2,17, 29.1b, c and d).

B2. Students and teachers at school encourage each other to show tolerance, especially toward those who are different (Article 29).

B3. When an incident could lead to a student being expelled, the case is always examined thoroughly (Articles 28.2, 40).

B4. When a student prevents another student from accessing what he or she is entitled to (e.g. help with learning), it is expected that the situation will be put right (Articles 2 and 19).

B5. When an adult prevents students from accessing what they are entitled to (e.g. help with learning), it is expected that the situation will be put right (Articles 2 and 19).

B1 relates to the child’s human dignity, addressed in the Preamble of the CRC, Article 2 (non-discrimination), and Article 13 (freedom of expression) and particularly 13.2 (limitations to freedom of expression). We present Article 13 in full, as freedom of expression is not an absolute right but carries limitations.

The child shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of the child’s choice.

The exercise of this right may be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary:

(a) For respect of the rights or reputations of others; or

(b) For the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals (UN, 1989: Article 13).

Freedom of expression may be in tension with other rights, namely, protecting the rights of others in the school community, guaranteeing their psychological security, and protection of others’ human dignity, particularly that of minorities. If the principle of non-discrimination is applied, then a school environment is one where all should have the opportunity to succeed and not be impeded by fear or exclusion.

B2 relates to tolerance, and again addresses Article 29, the aims of education, which includes the development of tolerance and respect. All three of the other items relating to protection rights address a fundamental basis of human rights, the child’s human dignity, and the overarching principle of non-discrimination (Article 2) in the CRC. Although these principles might be found in the school systems of any democratic state that has a humanising vision of schooling, here they are explicitly linked to the provisions of the CRC and are important in any jurisdiction, not least because the CRC has been almost universally ratified.

B3, B4 and B5 relate to whether there are procedures and practices in place ensuring that when an injustice takes place at school there is a process for seeking redress. B3, addressing exclusion of a student from school, is directly linked to CRC Article 28.2, which places responsibility on States Parties to the Convention to ensure that school discipline is administered with due regard to the child’s human dignity and in conformity with the Convention. It also alludes to Article 40, which strictly speaking, addresses the penal code, and the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. An assumption of innocence guaranteed in the penal code should, we would argue, also apply in codes of practice at the level of the school. B4 and B5 both relate to the principle of non-discrimination and to that of protecting children from unfavourable treatment based on personal characteristics and identity (Article 2). Perhaps one of the main benefits of using the CRC framework for our survey is that the research does not only examine issues from a student’s perspective but also from a child rights perspective, whether or not the students in question are aware that these are, in fact, child rights issues.

Participation

Six of the items in our instrument relate to participation rights:

C1. In their schoolwork, students are free to express what they think about religious and political issues, even though the teachers may have different opinions (Articles 12, 13, 14, 17).

C2. At this school, students can freely voice their opinions without fear of being bullied (Articles 12, 13, 14, 17).

C3. At this school, students are shown as much respect as adults (Articles 12, 19, 29.1c).

C4. At this school, students can express their opinions freely, even though many others may disagree with them (Articles 12, 13, 14, 17).

C5. At this school, everyone is expected to conform to the majority (Articles 12, 13, 14, 17).

C6. At this school, everybody can be themselves without fear of being discriminated against, mobbed, or bullied (Articles 2, 3).

Five of these items (C1, C2, C4, C5, C6) each address participation rights relating to freedom of expression and engagement in decision-making processes: Article 12 (the child’s right to express views freely in all matters affecting the child and for the views to be taken into account), 13 (freedom of expression), 14 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion), and 17 (access to mass media and information). Additionally, item C6 explicitly addresses Article 2 (the principle of non-discrimination) and Article 3 (the protection and care of the child). Item C3 also addresses Articles 12, 19 (protection from harm and abuse) and 29.1c (respect for cultural identity), dealing essentially with the child’s human dignity. We see here the inter-relationship among participation rights, protection rights (Article 19), and rights of provision (respect for cultural identity within the context of education entitlement). Item C5 is expressed in a negative fashion, with an emphasis on conformity, which of course, may require the denial of identity (Article 7, the right to a name; Article 8, right to an identity; and Article 9 aims of education, including cultural rights).

Student and teacher responses to the measurement scale

We tested our scale with 1006 students in two upper secondary schools and three lower secondary schools in two different regions of Norway. We also adapted the scale for teachers and invited the teachers at these five schools to respond to it. We have published our initial findings relating to intercultural empathy among students and the possibilities for inclusive citizenship. Importantly, we found that higher levels of intercultural empathy were moderately associated with students’ perceptions of successful human rights/child rights implementation at their school (Solhaug and Osler, 2018).

We also gleaned some feedback on students’ responses to the questionnaire from some of our research assistants who administered the questionnaire. Not only was the student response rate between 85 and 94%, one we consider to be high, but research assistants reported that students took great care over completing the questionnaire, and that several students showed a high level of interest in how their responses would be used to improve schools. Interestingly, students appeared comfortable in addressing items relating to diversity, including cultural diversity. This was not always the case among teachers, some of whom felt that the questionnaire was intended for schools that were ‘more multicultural’ than their own. These teacher responses are discussed further elsewhere (Lindquist and Osler, 2016; Osler and Lindquist, 2018).

Conclusions

As teachers work to respond to diverse students and educate them for human rights and democracy, they do so in a political context in which human rights have been called into question, particularly for minoritized groups, in the face of populist fears and anxieties about terror. We have presented a measurement instrument for evaluating child rights within the school setting and discussed arguments for using both educational and human rights indicators to assess progress in rights implementation. The school remains a key site where children’s understanding of child rights and human rights can be developed. The possibility of measuring the effectiveness of such education over time, and of developing indicators that reflect the principles embedded in the Convention on the Rights of the Child, allows policy-makers and school administrators to evaluate the impact of their work.

By drawing directly on the CRC, an international and universally recognised set of standards addressing child rights and diversity, the measurement instrument enables and legitimises comparative study between jurisdictions. We are aware of certain limitations in the development of the instrument, particularly that children were not involved in these processes. The various items were informed, however, not just by the CRC, but also by our past experiences of conducting research in cooperation with children. Our measurement instrument has been developed in such a way that students might participate in research processes and voice their opinions about their experiences of school, in keeping with the spirit of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Engagement in such research also enables both students and teachers to engage (hopefully together) in self-evaluation concerning the processes of teaching and learning.

We have tested an instrument that we hope might be useful to international and comparative education researchers concerned with education for human rights and democratic citizenship who wish to conduct base-line research on children’s human rights in school. In extending the instrument to a range of jurisdictions, and enabling comparative analysis through a human rights lens, we propose analysing data on children’s provision, protection and participation rights using Tomaševski’s (2001) model, to assess whether students perceive their schools and human rights-based curricula to be available, accessible, acceptable and adaptable to all. This model offers a sound human rights framework through which child rights in school settings can be interpreted.

A single methodological approach to the study of child rights is rarely likely to be sufficient, but an evaluation of implementation strategies for realising child rights in education might inform and perhaps inspire future qualitative studies into child rights and child rights education in schools, as well as support future comparative work in this field.

Footnotes

Appendix: Survey of child rights and diversity in schools

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author biographies

Audrey Osler is a Professor of Education at the University of Southeast Norway, Norway and at the University of Leeds, UK.

Trond Solhaug is a Professor of pedagogy and teaches social studies at the Institute for Teacher Education, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Norway.

References

Alderson

(2000) Children as researchers: the effects of participation rights on research methodology. In: Christiansen

James

(eds) Research with Children. London: Routledge, pp. 241–225.

Alderson

Morrow

(2011) The Ethics of Research with Young People: A Practical Handbook. London: SAGE.

Bay

A-H

Strӧmblad

Bengtsson

(2010) An Introduction to diversity, inclusion and citizenship in Scandinavia. In: Bengtsson

Strӧmblad

Bay

A-H

(eds) Diversity, Inclusion and Citizenship in Scandinavia. Newcastle-upon-Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

Beeckman

(2004) Measuring the implementation of the right to education: educational versus human rights indicators. The International Journal of Children’s Rights 12(1): 71–84.

Ben-Arieh

(2005) Where are the children? Children’s role in measuring and monitoring their well-being. Social Indicators Research 74(3): 573–596.

Bjereld

Daneback

Petzold

(2015) Differences in prevalence of bullying victimization between native and immigrant children in the Nordic countries: a parent-reported serial cross-sectional study. Child: Care, Health and Development 41(4): 593–599.

Carter

(2002) Schools ethos and the construction of masculine identity: do schools create, condone and sustain aggression? Educational Review 54(1): 27–36.

Carter

Osler

(2000) Human rights, identities and conflict management: a study of school as experienced through classroom relationships. Cambridge Journal of Education 30(3): 335–356.

Cleven

(2003) Mapping Human Rights Education in a Sample of Norwegian Schools [Kartlegging av Menneskerettighetsundervisning i et Utvalgav Norske Skoler]. Oslo: Senter for Fredsbygging og Konflikthåndtering (CMM).

10.

Council of Europe (1985) Recommendation R (85) 7 on Teaching and Learning about Human Rights in Schools. Adopted by the Council of Minsters 14 May at the 385th Meeting of Ministers’ Deputies. Retrieved from http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/education/historyteaching/Source/Results/AdoptedTexts/Rec(85)7_en.pdf (accessed 20 July 2017).

11.

Council of Europe (2010) Council of Europe Charter on Education for Democratic Citizenship and Human Rights Education (Recommendation CM/Rec (2010)7). Retrieved from https://rm.coe.int/16803034e5 (accessed 20 May 2018).

12.

Council of Europe (2017) Learning to live together: a shared commitment to democracy. Conference on the Future of Citizenship and Human Rights Education in Europe. Strasbourg 20–22 July 2017. Declaration and Expected Outcomes on Education for Democratic Citizenship and Human Rights. DGII/EDU/CIT (2017). Retrieved from https://rm.coe.int/declaration-key-actions-and-expected-outcomes-on-education-for-democra/1680734485 (accessed 20 May 2018).

13.

D’Acci

(2011) Measuring well-being and progress. Social Indicators Research 104(1) 47–65.

14.

Dearden

(2016) Refugee crisis: number of asylum seekers arriving in Norway drops by 95%. The Independent, 1 July 2016. Retrieved 24 July 2017 from https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/refugee-crisis-number-of-asylum-seekers-arriving-in-norway-drops-by-95-a7114191.html

15.

Fielding

(2004) Theoretical underpinnings, recalcitrant realities. British Educational Research Journal 30 (2): 295–311.

16.

Fjeldstad

Mikkelsen

(2004) Strong democratic competence does not automatically lead to strong engagement and participation. International Journal of Educational Research 39: 621–632.

17.

Grover

(2007) Children’s right to be educated for tolerance: minority rights and inclusion. Education and the Law 19(1): 59–70.

18.

Gaudelli

(2016) Global Citizenship Education: Everyday Transcendence. New York: Routledge.

19.

Gaudelli

Fernekes

(2004) Teaching about global human rights for global citizenship. The Social Studies 96(1): 16–26.

20.

Hudson

(2005) Citizenship Education and Students’ Identities: a school-based action research project. In Osler

(ed), Teachers, Human Rights and Diversity: Educating Citizens in Multicultural Societies. Stoke-on-Trent: Trentham, pp. 115–132.

21.

Hudson

(2006) Implementing citizenship education in a secondary school community. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Leeds. Retrieved from http://etheses.whiterose.ac.uk/293/ (accessed 20 May 2018).

22.

Ibrahim

(2005) Global citizenship education: mainstreaming the curriculum? Cambridge Journal of Education 35(2): 177–194.

23.

International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA) (1995) National Case Studies Final Guidelines. Amsterdam: IEA.

24.

Isaksen

(2014) Welcome address. Conference on Human Rights Education and Education for Democratic Citizenship. Oslo, 14 October 2014.

25.

Kim

Yoo

(2016) A comparative study on the level of realizing children’s rights: a focus on rich countries. Child Indicators Research 9(3): 855–872.

26.

Kunnskapsdpartementet (2012) Council of Europe’s Covenant for Human Rights Education and Training for Democratic Citizenship [Europarådets Pakt for Menneskerettighetsundervisning og Opplæring til Demokratisk Medborgerskap.] Retrieved from http://www.regjeringen.no/upload/KD/Vedlegg/Internasjonalt/Europa/Europaradspakt2010.pdf (accessed 20 May 2018).

27.

Lile

H K

(2011) UN Convention on the Rights of the Child Article 29(1). The purpose of education: a sociological study of what children learn about the Sami people [FNs barnekonvensjon artikkel 29(1). Om formålet med opplæring: en rettssosiologisk studie om hva barn lærer om det Samiske folk]. PhD thesis, University of Oslo. Retrieved from http://www.jus.uio.no/smr/forskning/arrangementer/disputaser/hadi_lile.html (accessed 20 May 2018).

28.

Lindquist

Osler

(2016) Navigating race and ethnicity in research: reflections on working with Norwegian schools. Race Equality Teaching 33(3): 12–18. Retrieved from http://ingentaconnect.com/contentone/ioep/ret/2016/00000033/00000003/art00004 (accessed 20 May 2018).

29.

Leung

Chow

(2015) Construction and validation of an instrument measuring attitudes towards human rights of liberal studies teachers in Hong Kong. Citizenship, Social and Economics Education 14(2): 87–102.

30.

Lundy

(2007) ‘Voice’ is not enough: conceptualizing Article 12 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. British Education Research Journal 33 (6): 927–942.

31.

Lundy

McEvoy

(2012) Children’s rights and research processes: assisting children to (in)formed views. Childhood 19(1): 129–144.

32.

McCowan

(2013) Education as a Human Right: Principles for a Universal Entitlement to Learning. London: Bloomsbury.

33.

McPherson

Cheatham

L P

(2015) One million bones: measuring the effect of human rights participation in the social work classroom. Journal of Social Work Education 51(1): 47–57.

34.

Minton

(2014) Prejudice and effective anti-bullying intervention: evidence from the bullying of ‘minorities’. Nordic Psychology 66(2): 108–120.

35.

MIPEX (2015) Norway: Key findings. http://www.mipex.eu/norway (accessed 20 May 2018).

36.

Moon

Koo

J-W

(2011) Global citizenship and human rights: a longitudinal analysis of social studies and ethics textbooks in the Republic of Korea. Comparative Education Review 55(4): 574–599.

37.

Munroe

Pearson

(2006) The Munroe Multicultural Attitude Scale Questionnaire: a new instrument for multicultural studies. Educational and Psychological Measurement 66(5): 819–834.

38.

Myers

(2006) Rethinking the social studies curriculum in the context of globalization: education for global citizenship in the US. Theory & Research in Social Education 34(3): 370–394.

39.

Noddings

(2005) (ed) Educating Citizens for Global Awareness. New York: Teachers College Press.

40.

Osler

(2000) Children’s rights, responsibilities, and understandings of school discipline. Research Papers in Education 15 (1): 49–67.

41.

Osler

(2010) Students’ Perspectives on Schooling. Maidenhead: Open University Press.

42.

Osler

(2012) Universal declaration of human rights and education. In: Banks

(ed) Encyclopedia of Diversity in Education. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.

43.

Osler

(2013) Bringing human rights back home: learning from ‘Superman’ and addressing live political issues at school. The Social Studies 104(2): 67–76.

44.

Osler

(2014) Human rights, scholarship and action for change. In: Grant

Zwier

(eds) Intersectionality and Urban Education: Identities, Policies, Spaces and Power. Charlotte: Information Age.

45.

Osler

(2014) Norway’s quiet revolution. Times Higher Education. Retrieved 24 July 2017 from http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/comment/opinion/norways-quiet-revolution/2014481.article

46.

Osler

(2017) Citizenship education, inclusion and belonging in Europe: rhetoric and reality in England and Norway. In: Banks

(ed) Global Migration, Structural Inclusion, and Citizenship Education across Nations. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association, pp. 133–160.

47.

Osler

Lindquist

(2018) Race and ethnicity, two concepts we need to talk more about [Rase og etnisitet, to begreper vi må snakke mer om.] Norsk Pedagogisk Tidsskrift 102(1): 26–37.

48.

Osler

Lybæk

(2014) Educating ‘the new Norwegian we’: an examination of national and cosmopolitan education policy discourses in the context of extremism and Islamophobia. Oxford Review of Education 40(5): 543–566. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2014.946896 (accessed 20 May 2018).

49.

Osler

Starkey

(2003) Learning for cosmopolitan citizenship: theoretical debates and young people;s experiences. Educational Review 55(3): 243–254.

50.

Osler

Starkey

(2005) Changing Citizenship: Democracy and Inclusion in Education. Maidenhead: Open University Press.

51.

Osler

Starkey

(2010) Teachers and Human Rights Education. Stoke-on-Trent: Trentham/IOE Press.

52.

Osler

Starkey

(2018) Extending the theory and practice of education for cosmopolitan citizenship. Educational Review 70(1): 31–40.

53.

Osler

Vincent

(2002) Citizenship and the Challenge of Global Education. Stoke-on-Trent: Trentham.

54.

Pigozzi

(2006) A UNESCO view of global citizenship education. Educational Review 58(1): 1–4.

55.

Rapoport

(2009) A forgotten concept: global citizenship education and state social studies standards. Journal of Social Studies Research 33(1): 91–112.

56.

Rudduck

Chaplain

Wallace

(1996) Pupil voices and school improvement. In: Rudduck

Chaplain

Wallace

(eds) School improvement: What Can Pupils Tell Us? London: David Fulton.

57.

Seierstad

(2015) One of Us: The Story of a Massacre in Norway and its Aftermath. London: Virago.

58.

Skeie

(2017) Impartial teachers in religious education - a [perspective from a Norwegian context. British Journal of Religious Education 39(1): 25–39.

59.

Solhaug

Osler

(2018) Intercultural empathy among Norwegian students: an inclusive citizenship perspective. International Journal of Inclusive Education 22(1): 89–110.

60.

Starkey

(1991) The Challenge of Human Rights Education. London: Cassell.

61.

Starkey

Akar

Jerome

Osler

(2014) Power, pedagogy and participation: ethics and pragmatics in research with young people. Research in Comparative and International Education 9(4): 426–440.

62.

Statistics Norway (2017) Key figures for immigration and immigrants. Updated 20 June 2017. Retrieved 27 July 2017 from http://www.ssb.no/en/innvandring-og-innvandrere/nokkeltall/immigration-and-immigrants

63.

Strøm

Thoresen

Wentzel-Larsen

et al . (2013) Violence, bullying and academic achievement: a study of 15-year-old adolescents and their school environment. Child Abuse & Neglect: The International Journal 37(4): 243–251.

64.

Thorin

Browning

Irvin

(1988) Measuring knowledge of citizenship rights and responsibilities. Research in Developmental Disabilities 9: 85–92.

65.

Tomaševski

(2001) Human Rights Obligations: Making Education Available, Accessible, Acceptable and Adaptable. Right to Education Primers No. 3. Lund: Raoul Wallenberg Institute. Retrieved from http://www.right-to-education.org/sites/r2e.gn.apc.org/files/B6g%20Primer.pdf (accessed 20 July 2017).

66.

Torney-Purta

Schwille

Amadeo

J-A

(1999). Civic Education across Countries: 24 National Case Studies from the IEA Civic Education Project. Amsterdam: IEA.

67.

United Nations (1948) Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). Retrieved from http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/ (accessed 20 May 2018).

68.

United Nations (1966) International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR). Adopted and opened for signature, ratification and accession by General Assembly resolution 2200A (XXI) of 16 December 1966. Retrieved from http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CESCR.aspx (accessed 20 May 2018).

69.

United Nations (1989) Convention on the Rights of the Child. Adopted and opened for signature, ratification and accession by General Assembly resolution 44/25 of 20 November 1989. Retrieved from http://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/crc.aspx (accessed 20 May 2018).

70.

United Nations (2011) United Nations Declaration on Human Rights Education and Training. Final adoption by the General Assembly, 19 December 2011. Retrieved from http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Education/Training/Pages/UNDHREducationTraining.aspx (accessed 20 May 2018).

71.

UNESCO (1974) Recommendation Concerning Education for International Understanding, Co-Operation and Peace and Education Relating to Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Retrieved from http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=13088&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html (accessed 20 May 2018).

72.

UNESCO (1995) Declaration and Integrated Framework of Action on Education for Peace, Human Rights and Democracy. Declaration of the 44th Session of the international Conference on Education (Geneva, October 1994). Endorsed by the General Conference of UNESCO, Paris November 1995. Retrieved from http://www.unesco.org/education/nfsunesco/pdf/REV_74_E.PDF (accessed 20 May 2018)

73.

UNESCO (2014) Global citizenship education: preparing learners for the challenges of the 21st century. Retrieved from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0022/002277/227729E.pdf (accessed 20 May 2018).

74.

Utdanningsdirektoratet (UDIR) (2010) Mapping of topics related to human rights and democratic understanding in the curriculum. Ministry of education. [ Kartlegging av temaer knyttet til menneskerettigheter og demokratiforståelse i læreplanverket. Kunnskapsdepartementet. ] Retrieved 24 July 2017 from https://www.udir.no/Upload/Rapporter/2011/5/menneskerettigheter_og_demokratiforstaelse_lp.pdf

75.

Vertovec

(2007) Super-diversity and its implications. Ethnic and Racial Studies 30(6): 1024–1054.

76.

Vesterdal

(2016) The roles of human rights education in Norway: a qualitative study of purposes and approaches in policy and upper secondary schools (PhD dissertation). Trondheim: Norwegian University of Science and Technology.

77.

Wenger

(2001) Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning and Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Children’s human rights and diversity in schools: Framing and measuring

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Context: diversity, education and demographic change

Measuring children’s human rights and diversity

Measuring human rights in education

Human rights education and international standard setting

Research on children’s human rights and diversity in schools

Provision

Protection

Participation

Our scale

Provision

Protection

Participation

Student and teacher responses to the measurement scale

Conclusions

Footnotes

Appendix: Survey of child rights and diversity in schools

Declaration of conflicting interests

Funding

Author biographies

References