rights to the front child rights-based pedagogies in early

JournalofEarlyChildhoodEducationResearchVolume10,Issue1,2021,139–165

©2021FrancescaZanattaandSheilaLong.Peer-reviewunderresponsibilityoftheeditorialboardofthejournal.PublicationofthearticleinaccordancewiththeCreativeCommonsNon-Commerciallicense.ISSN2323-7414;ISSN-L2323-7414online.EarlyChildhoodEducationAssociationFinland

RightstothefrontChildRights-basedpedagogiesinearly

childhooddegrees

FrancescaZanattaa &SheilaLongb

aUniversityofEastLondon,correspondingauthor,e-mail:[email protected]

ABSTRACT: As critical pedagogues committed to social justice, in this paper wediscussthetheoreticalopportunitiesandchallengesoftwopedagogicalmodelsfortheteachingandlearningofChildren’sRightsonearlychildhoodeducationandcaredegrees.Ourdiscussionstemsfromtheexplorationandanalysisofandreflectionontheeducationalcultures,relationsanddynamicswhichinformbothourteachingandresearchpractice.Inthepaper,weanalysethedifferentlayersofexperiencesofbothstudents and educators as co-constructors of pedagogy in the two curriculapresented.Throughaprocessofthematicsynthesisanalysisofthesalientfeaturesofeach curriculum, this paper proposes four shared areas of pedagogical dilemmas.Thesedilemmasareexploredanddiscussedinrelationtotheirimpacttothelearningand teaching of Children’s Rights on early childhood education & care degreeprogrammes.Drawingonourempiricalresearchandpedagogicalreflections,wethenproposefouraspirationalpedagogicalfeaturestoachievetransformativeChildren’sRightsEducationinearlychildhoodeducation&caredegrees.

Keywords:children’srights,pedagogy,curriculum,highereducation

Introduction

ParticipationisatthecoreofdemocraticpedagogiesinEducation.Article12oftheUnitedNations Convention of the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) (United Nations [UN], 1989)consolidatesparticipationasoneofthethreepillarsoftheconvention(James&Prout,1997;Kanyal,2004;O’Kane,2003), alongsideprovisionandprotection (Habashi et al.

140

Zanatta&Long.JournalofEarlyChildhoodEducationResearch10(1)2021,139–165.http://jecer.org

2010).Someauthorshavearguedthatprovisionandprotectionareregardedaslimitedto addressing social rights of children (Archard, 1993). Conversely, the concept ofparticipation,forwhichdefinitionsaremultifacetedandfluid,iscelebratedasconnectingelements of civil and political rights and citizenship (Hart, 1992; Tisdall et al., 2009).Initially associated primarily to the act of consultation (Hart, 2008), and individualdecision-making practices (Wyness, 2012), the understanding of participation hasexpandedtoamultidimensional,complexactivityrequiringdynamicrelationshipsandsharedpractices(Spyrou,2011;Theobaldetal.,2011).

The ongoing problematisation of both the definition (Tisdall & Punch 2012) and the(under)theorisationofparticipation(Kjørholt,2011)hasopenedupnewopportunitiesfortherecognitionofunstructuredandnon-institutionalformsofparticipation(Larkins,2014). With more emphasis placed on the importance of bringing awareness andunderstandingofrightsinchildren’severydayrealities(Horganetal.,2016),Children’sRightsEducation(CRE)hasbeenidentifiedasthecrucial‘pathway’(Howe&Covell,2005)torecognisingandenablingchildren’sactivecitizenries(Lundy&MartínezSainz,2018).Jerome’s (2018) thoughtful reflections on the delivery and implementation of HumanRightsEducation(HRE),extendsthequestionoftheroleofpractitionerstotherealmofCRE. Unsurprisingly, educators’ knowledge (Gillett-Swan & Sargeant, 2018; Jerome,2018)and/orpersonalbeliefs(Alderson,2008)havebeenidentifiedasinstrumentalinensuringameaningfullearningexperience.Assuch,thetrainingandnurturingofrights-informed and respecting educators (Lloyd & Hallet, 2010) is recognised an essentialcomponentforthemeaningfulparticipationandactivecitizenshipofchildren(MartínezSainzetal.,2019).

ThepicturepaintedthusfarmightsetanexpectationforRightsEducation(regardlessofwhether it is framed as children’s or human) to feature in educational programmesdesignedforeducatorsandpractitionersoperatinginthebroadfieldofchildhood(s).Therealitysuggestsdifferent.Jeromeandcolleagues(2015)revealed,inareportconductedforUNICEFand investigatingthestatusof teachingand learningofchildren’srights intwenty-sixnations, thatonlyScotlandhadspecific requirements for children’s/humanrightstofeatureintheirinitialteachertrainingprogrammes.Itisthereforeofparticularimportance to open spaces for reflections and discussions on the development anddeliveryofrightstraining/curriculaforpractitionersandeducators.

In ourwork as lecturers on two different early childhood education and care degreeprogrammes,wehavecommonexperiencesofdevelopinganddeliveringadedicatedCREcurriculum,aimedatbuildingstudents’knowledgeandunderstandingofchildren’srightsinresearchandpractice.Thetwocurriculasitwithindifferentpolicyandlegalcontexts,IrelandandEngland,andweredevelopedthroughdifferenttheoreticalparadigms.Whilstdiverse pathways led us to the development and delivery of these curricula in both

141


instances, students’participationandexperiencesoccupiedacentral role.As such,webothconductedindependentresearchprojectsinvestigatingstudents’experiencesoftheteachingandlearningmodelsinourCREmodules(Long,2017,2019;Zanatta,2020).

Inthisarticleweoutlinesomeofthenarrativesdiscussedinourstudies,withtheaimofidentifyingsharedexperiences,asconceptualisedinDewey(1938),ofbotheducatorsandstudents.Throughaprocessofthematicsynthesisanalysis(vanLeeuwenetal.,2019)oftheseseparatesetsofinvestigations,weidentifyanumberofsharedopportunitiesandchallenges in the two curricula. These common threads in the teaching and learningexperiences are organised in four pedagogical dilemmas: agency, performativity,knowledgeandtime.Intheconcludingsectionofthepaper,wedeveloprecommendationsfor four aspirational features for the development of transformative CRE for earlychildhoodeducationandcarepractitionersandeducators.

AChildren’sRightsEducationforchildrenandadultsalike

Children’sRightsEducation:Acomplexpicture

Withanunderpinningparadigmthatconstructschildrenasactiveagents(James&Prout,1997;Wyness,2015),Children’sRightsEducation(CRE)isapedagogicalapproachwhichteachesabout,through,andforchildren’srights.Includedinthewiderumbrellaof‘CivicEducation’ approaches (Torney-Purta et al., 1999), CRE is a form of Human RightsEducation(HRE)whichfocusesforemostontheteachingandlearningabouttherightsofthechild,asarticulatedintheUNCRC(UN,1989).DuetoitscloseaffiliationtoHRE,CREscholarsoftenrefertoandadoptHREscholarshipandpractices.

The focusofHRE, and thereforeofCRE,hasbeen summarisedunder threeheadlines:knowledgeandskills,attitudesandvalues,andactions(Thelander,2016).DifferentformsofCRE(Howe&Covell,2010)havebeendevelopedtoincorporaterightsandcivicmattersin the curriculum. Tibitts (2002; 2017) identifies three core approaches to HRE: theValuesandAwarenessModel,theAccountabilityModelandtheTransformationalModel.Thecurriculadiscussedinthispaper,intheformofCREforearlychildhoodeducationand care students, draw and refer to the latter approach, the transformational ortransformativemodel(Tibitts,2002).

ScholarshipinthefieldofHREandCREhasidentifiedvariousareasfordevelopment.Anareaforurgentdevelopmentisthelackofchildren’sparticipationandengagementintheconstruction of the curriculum, and most frequently also in its delivery of activities(Alderson,1999;Howe & Covell, 2010;Quennerstedt&Quennerstedt,2014).Asecondpressingconcern,whichweexamineinthispaper,isthelimitedandunregulatedrights-

142


basedtrainingofteachersandrelevantprofessionals,combinedwithinundemocraticandoppressiveeducationsystems(Jeromeetal.,2015;Jerome,2018;Reynaertetal.,2010).

Children’sRightsEducationinearlychildhoodeducationandcare

In the field of early childhood education and care, interdisciplinary children’s rightsscholarshiphashighlightedalackofclearandstrongtheoreticalunderpinning,limitedandunregulatedrights-basedtrainingofprofessionals,andlimitedreflectionandcritiqueofexistingundemocraticandoppressiveeducationsystems(Alderson,1999;Jeromeetal.,2015;Quennerstedt&Quennerstedt,2014;Reynaertetal.,2010).

Children’s Rights Education and early childhood share some foundational frames ofreference,butalsohavemanypointsofdivergenceinrelationtomattersofbothpracticeandtheory(Reynaertetal.,2010).Inpractice,effectiveengagementwithCREcurriculaishinderedbythelackofconfidenceofpractitioners.Onamoretheoreticallevel,CREmightclash with the beliefs and values of pedagogical approaches. These very issues arehighlightedbyMacNoughton,HughesandSmith (2007) in their reflectivepieceon thechallengesthattraditionalearlychildhoodpedagogiesandphilosophiesmightposeintherealisationofchildren’srights,aspresentedinGeneralComment(GC)7.Asaresult,theauthorsencouragethefieldtonotonly‘reaffirmtheirstatusasexperts,but(also)redefinetheir expertise’ (MacNoughton et al., 2007, p.162). Similarly, Woodhead (2006)emphasisesthatameaningfulimplementationofchildren’srightswouldrequireashiftinthewaychildhood(s)andchildrenareconceptualisedwithinthefield.

Inresponsetothechallengesexperiencedintheimplementationofrightswithinthefieldofearlychildhood,agrowingnumberofscholars(Alderson,2017;Quennerstedt,2016;Smith,2007;Theobald,2011)hasdrawnattentiontotherolethattheUNCRC(UN,1989)couldandshouldhave,asaguidingprincipleforbothresearchandpractice.

The UNCRC as guiding principle for Children’s Rights Education in earlychildhoodeducationandcare

Boththeconceptandtherealisationofhumanrightsarefarfromunproblematic(Brown,2004;Moyn,2018).Children’srightsspecificallyareperhapsoneofthemostcontentiousandcontestedsub-categoriesofrights(Alderson,2017),asfrequentlyjuxtaposedagainstaparental/adultrights’perspective(Guggenheim,2005).Critiquesstemalsofromwithinthe children’s rights field, where fruitful discussions explore issues such as culturalrelativism(Montgomery,2008;Moosa-Mitha,2005),applicability,andtherisksoftop-downapproaches(Liebel,2012).Incontrasttotheexternalchallenges,whichhavethetendency to stem from stale and unimaginative points of argument (Alderson, 2017),internalconstructivecriticismsoftherightsframeworkhaveopenednewopportunities

143


fordevelopment,researchandexploration(Hart,2008;Horganetal.,2017;Liebel,2014).In addition, these internal constructive criticisms have allowed for a new wave ofengagementandconsiderationoftheroleoftheconventionasalegalandtheoreticalbasis(Lundy&MartinezSainz,2018;Robson,2016).Itisonthesegroundsthatwetaketheopportunitytore-engageinexploringtheguidanceprovidedintheUNCRC(UN,1989)topromotechildren’sknowledgeandunderstandingoftheirrights,askeyelementforsocialjustice.

TheGeneralComment(GC)5(UN,2003)offersapracticalstartingpointforexplorationofsetrequirements,asitspecificallyidentifies‘education,awarenessandtraining’asoneof the five ‘general measures of implementation’. In paragraph 53, the Committeespecifiesthattheroleof‘education,awarenessandtraining’isto‘emphasizethestatusofthechildasaholderofhumanrights, to increaseknowledgeandunderstandingoftheConventionandtoencourageactiverespectforallitsprovisions’(UN,2003,p.39).Thedocumentidentifiesinarticle4,42and44oftheUNCRC(UN,1989)helpfulreferencestoconsolidate understanding of governments’ obligations in regard to education andtraining.

Wearguethat,oncloserexploration,otherarticlesintheUNCRC(UN,1989)provideameaningful contribution in clarifying the role of education, in the broad sense, as apathwaytorealisationofrights.Specifically,animportantclarificationismadeinarticle28.2(UN,1989),inrelationtoeducatorsandpractitionerstakingappropriatemeasuresfordiscipline ‘inamannerconsistentwiththechild'shumandignityandinconformitywiththepresentConvention’.AsalsodiscussedinAlderson(2017),inreferencetotheresearchconductedbyPelicarnoandcolleagues(2015cited inAlderson,2017)ontheexperiencesofchildrenwithadditionalneedsanddisabilities inschools,practitioners’awarenessofandcapacitytoactwithintheConvention’sguidancevary,dependingontheirknowledgeoftheConventionitself.Inresearchwithearlychildhoodeducationandcare practitioners’, Robson (2016) observes thatmanypractices are rights compliant,althoughoftenwithnodirectawarenessofthis.Itcouldbearguedthattheimportanceofsuchawarenessishighlightedinarticle42(UN,1989),whichspecificallysetsgroundsfortherighttoknowledgeofallrights,both inprinciplesandprovisions, forchildrenandadultsalike.ItishoweverinArticle29(UN,1989)thatonecanperhapsfindthestrongestargument for the importance of CRE. The article emphasises the role of education insupportingchildren’sknowledgeandunderstandingofHumanRightsanddignities, inpreparing‘thechildforresponsiblelifeinafreesociety’(UN,1989).Itisinthistaskthata rights-based education enabled and delivered by rights-aware and respectingpractitionerscouldleadtoameaningfulresult(Jerome,2018).

144


Most importantly for the purpose of our arguments, General Comment 7 (UN, 2005)provides furtherguidanceonthespecificobligations inrelationtotheearlychildhoodsectorwith:

1. Paragraph14,furtherclarificationofArt.12andmeaningofactiveparticipationasrightsholders

2. Paragraph17,Expansionofdefinitionofevolvingcapacities(Lansdown,2005)toinclude‘acquiringunderstandingabouttheirrightsandabouthowtheycanbestberealized’(p.8)

3. Paragraph23,Clearindicationofrequirementsforallpractitionersinvolvedinworkingwithearlychildhood‘isessentialthattheyhavesound,up-to-datetheoreticalandpracticalunderstandingaboutchildren’srightsanddevelopment’(UN,2005,p.11)

Closeattention togovernmentobligationsunderarticles28,29and42of theUNCRC,alongside the relevant sections of GC 7 (UN, 2005), reveals a number of gaps in theprovisionofCREinthefieldofearlychildhood.Inthenextsection,weexploreargumentsonthepossibleroleofcomprehensiveandsystematicCREinitiatives(Tibbitts,2002)forearlychildhoodeducation&carestudents,developedatHigherEducationinstitutesinclosingthesegaps.

Children’sRightsEducationfortheeducators

Research indicates that Children’s Rights are rarely explicitly articulated in earlychildhood practice (Jerome et al. 2015; Pardo & Jadue, 2018; Robson, 2016). Earlychildhood education and care degree students are primarily engaged in developingknowledgeandunderstandingofthecognitive,metacognitive,affectiveandbehaviouraldomains of children’s experiences and everyday lives. In these contexts, students arefrequentlyinvitedtoengageandexplorevaluesandorientationsthatunderpinelementsofCRE.Robson(2016)raisesquestionsinrelationtothelackofestablishedteachingofCREinearlychildhoodtraining,inwhichtheknowledgeofrightsisdilutedintothewidercurriculum, rather than explicitly presented in its own right. Similarly, Curtis (1996)questionswhethertheunexplicitnatureofteachingofrightsmightbe ‘cursory’.Curtis(1996) suggests that in this form, CRE fails to enable the possibility of nuanceddiscussionsofcomplexconceptsandprinciplesandfailstoprovidestudentswithrelevantpractice-basedexperienceofadvocacyandgeneralapplicationofchildren’srights.Thelackofaclearcurriculum,particularlyintermsofcontent,isalsoidentifiedasalimitingfactorbyTibbittis(2002).

IndiscussingtheneedforCREtobeincludedinthetrainingofhealthprofessionals,Lake(2014)suggeststhreecoreprinciplestoformtheminimumrequirementofknowledge:participation,consent,andrespectforevolvingcapacities.Theauthorjustifiesthischoice

145


onthegroundsthatthesethreeprinciplesformtheknowledgebasenecessarytomakeashift towards a rights and consent provision (Lake, 2014). In discussing HRE forprofessionals inpublic services, such aspolice and themilitary,Andreopoulos (2002)questions the efficacy of a knowledge driven curriculum, favouring the exploration ofcomplexprinciplesandnotionsthroughengagementwithcasestudiesandothercreativetechniques,whichallowforamoredirectformofparticipationofstudents.

The risk in rigid forms of CRE (orHRE),which focus on the acquisition of ‘minimumrequiredprinciples’,isthereproductionofatop-downapproach,ineffectreplicatingtheissuesmeant to be tackled throughCRE itself (Tibbitts, 2002). The importance of thecurriculumbeingalignedwithandsupportedbythepedagogiesandthepracticesoftheeducationalsettingishighlightedbyÖztürkandcolleagues(2019)andInagaki(2002)intheirexplorationofCRE incountriesexposed tohigh levelofhumanrightsviolations.Elsewhere, discussions on pedagogical models lose significance in the face of thechallengesexperiencedbyprofessionalsintheimplementationoftheirlearning.

ResearchinthisareaindicatestheincongruencybetweentheteachingsofCREandtheestablished practices and beliefs in settings as a major challenge experienced bypractitioners(Jerome,2018;Tibbitts,2002;Öztürketal.,2019).IndiscussingCREitisthereforeimpossibletoignoreasymmetricalpowerdifferencesandcontrastingagendasreproducedinthespecificcontext,throughlocalandnationalpolicyandprovisionofearlychildhoodeducationandcare.

Contextmatters:Research,policy&practice

Rights under the UNCRC (UN, 1989) are universal, yet it is important for them to becontextualisedandincorporatedwithinrelevantlocalrealities,discoursesandpractices.Beyondtheculturalnormsandlocaldynamics,contextalsoimpactschildren’srightsonpractical levels, such as in terms of research priorities, policy guidelines and practiceapplications.Itisthereforeofimportancetobrieflyexplorethestatusofchildren’srightsinthetwocontextsofthetwostudiesindiscussion,EnglandandIreland.

Thelasttwodecadeshavewitnessedsignificantdevelopmentsinchildren’srights-framedand -informed research (Quennerstedt, 2013). On a broader childhood studies levelresearchhasfocusedprimarilyonthreemainaims:therecognitionofchildrenasactiveagents, the establishmentof children’s rights as a legal framework, and asserting thatchildren’s rights arenotofdetrimentofparental rights (Reynaert et al., 2010). In thespecificity of the early childhood field, research has however focused primarily onchildrenasactiveagents.Theelementmostexploredinresearchinearlychildhoodisinfactparticipation,whether inconducting research,exploringpedagogies,ordelivering

146


practice(Quennerstedt,2016).TheseminalworkofLundy(2007)andAlderson(2008),among others, advanced the knowledge and understanding of children’s participationbeyond the practice of consultation, towards ameaningful recognition of agency andactivecitizenriesinearlychildhood.Theacknowledgmentandappreciationofchildren’scapabilities for active participation have facilitated the development of researchwithyoungerchildren(O’Sullivan&Ring,2016)andofstudiesexploringmorecomplexandnuancedtheoreticalconceptualisationsofchildren’slivedexperiences(Kernan&Devine,2010).Theadoptionofprinciplesof the children’s rights framework in researchhavetherefore opened new opportunities for critical engagement with more traditionalontologies of childhood(s) rooted in principles of protection (Moore, 1997) anddevelopmentallyappropriatepractices(Woodhead,2006).

The translation of research into practice is however still complex and uneasy, andfacilitationofencountersbetweenthetwoworldsisacomplexexercise(Zanattaetal.,2019).Whilstononehandweareencouragedtopushthecriticalengagementwithideasand principles of children’s rights to expand and further our field of knowledge andpossibilities(Alderson,2017;Quennerstedt,2013);ontheother,weoughttonourishthedevelopmentofstrongerlinksbetweenresearchandpractice(MacNaughtonetal.,2007).Oneoftheargumentswewilldevelopfurtherinthispaperistheroleofthetrainingandeducationofpractitionersinpromotingengagementandexplorationofcriticalthinkinginbothresearchandpractice,throughchildren’srightsinformedpraxis.

Fromapolicyperspective,acomparativereviewofthetwocontextsindicatesdifferentpatternsofpriorities. InIrelandtheprincipleofparticipation(Article12)hasfeaturedprominently in childhood policy (Department of Children and Youth Affairs [DCYA],2015).ConstitutionalchangeshavealsoseenthedirectincorporationoftwoUNCRC(UN,1989)articles,Article3(bestinterestofthechild)andArticle12(participationandviewsofthechild)intotheIrishConstitution(Bunreachtnah-Eireann).Anotherpointinfavourof children’s rights in Ireland is the clear presence of a series of Ministerial figuresdedicatedtoworkingonissuesimpactingchildren’srightsdirectly.WhilstinIrelandtheMinister forChildrenandYouthAffairsheadsadedicatedDepartmentofChildrenandYouthAffairs, in the English government theMinister for Children, YoungPeople andFamiliessitswithinthelowestofthetiersofParliamentwiththetitleofSecretaryofState,withintheDepartmentofEducation.TheeffectivedowngradeoftheministerialroleinEnglandhasbeendescribedbythechiefexecutiveofaleadingorganisationworkingwithchildrenasbothsymptomaticoflowcommitmentandanalarmbellfortheweightgivento children, their lives and experiences in Parliament (Feuchtwang, 2018).Unsurprisingly, inEnglandthestatusofchildren’srightsinpolicymakingis low.Since2008,theUNcommitteeontheRightsoftheChildhasmadenumerousrecommendationsfor theBritishgovernment toenhance its realisationofandcommitment to children’srights. The most recent Concluding Observation report (UN, 2016) contained over a

147


hundredandfiftyrecommendationsforimprovingimplementationofchildren’srightsinEngland.Inrelationtothefieldofearlychildhood,theCommitteemaderecommendationswithregardstotheneedforexpansioninservicesandincreasedattentioninrelationtovulnerablechildren(UN,2016).WithregardstoparticipationtheCommitteeidentifiedlimited opportunities for themeaningful participation of children in the decision andpolicymakingprocesses(UN,2016).TheissuehasconsequentlybeenhighlightedintheannualreportontheStateofChildren’sRightsinEngland.

Theintroductionofarights-basedandunifiedcurriculuminIreland(Aistear)andoftheEarlyYearsFoundationStage(EYFS)inEngland(DepartmentforEducation[DfE],2018)hasopenedwideropportunitiesforintroductionofrights-basedapproachesinpractice.Whilst the curriculum in Ireland includes a curricular entitlement to children’s rightseducationforyoungchildrenaged0-6(NCCA,2009),theEarlyYearsFoundationstageinEnglandhasrefocusedthedeliveryofservices towardsachild-centredapproach(DfE,2018).Thepossibleefficacyofachild-rightsbasedcurriculumwasobservedinexamplesof practice based in Aotearoa/New Zealand by a study conducted by Hedges andcolleagues (2010). Nevertheless, the opportunity to translate critical rights-informedresearch into everyday practices is impacted by a wider range of obstacles faced bypractitionersandeducatorsinthefieldofearlychildhood.

Whilstthechallengesfacedbypractitionersinthetwocontextsvary,acommonthreadidentified is the ongoing issue of a lack of appropriate funding and the de-professionalisationof theroleofearlychildhoodpractitionersandeducators(Lloyd&Hallett, 2010;Murphy,2015;Osgood,2012).The issuesarising from theexpansionofprovisionofearlychildhoodeducationandcare,withlimitedconsiderationsforquality,bothintrainingandprofessionalizationofpractitioners,havebeendiscussedindetailina 2012 OECD report and by Moloney and colleagues (2019) in a six-nations studyconducted with the support of the European Early Childhood Education ResearchAssociation(EECERA).

Thestudy

In light of the challenges and gaps in training and development of early childhoodeducationandcarepractitionersdiscussedthusfar,inthiscomparativestudyweaimtoidentify common threads in the pedagogies of the two different Children’s RightsEducationcurriculainHigherEducation.

In theanalysisof the teachingand learningexperiences,wewereguidedby twomainresearchquestions,detailedbelow.Twoquestionswereidentifiedinlinewiththeoverallobjectiveofthestudy:

148


● Whatarethesharedopportunitiesandchallengesidentifiedinthepedagogiesofthetwocurricula?

● WhatrecommendationstofurthertheTeachingandLearningofCREareidentifiedinthepedagogiesofthetwocurricula?

Throughreflectiononthethemesemergingthroughthisanalysis,thestudyoffersasetofrecommended pedagogical features to further develop transformative teaching andlearningofCREinearlychildhoodeducationandcaredegrees.

Contextforthestudy:Twoearlychildhoodeducationandcaredegrees

Inthefollowingsectionweprovideabriefoverviewofthetwopedagogicalapproachesexploredinourdiscussionoffindings.Bothcurriculahavebeenpresentedinmoredepthinotherpublicationsbytheauthors(Long,2017;Long,2019;Zanatta,2020)focusingonthecontent,ratherthanonthepedagogiesofteachingandlearning.ItisimportanttonotethatbothcurriculaengagewithCREthroughatransformativeapproach(Tibitts,2017).WhilstdevelopingknowledgeoftheUNCRC(UN,1989)anditsarticles,thisapproachalsoaims to support the exploration of and critical engagement with contextualisedinterpretationandapplicationoftherights-basedelementsandprinciples(Bron&Thijs,2011;Gill & Howard, 2009).This approachencourages theengagementof learners asagenticselves(Tibitts,2017),boththroughandforpersonalandsocialtransformation,the latter in the form of activism. Lastly, themodel is grounded in the principle thatknowledgeofrightswillultimately leadto furtheringtheirrealisation(Reyneartetal.,2010).

Forthepurposeofthisarticle,wewilllimittheoverviewtopedagogicalelementsofthecurricula.

TransformativelearninginIreland

Drawing on findings from Long’s doctoral study (2017), this is the first intentionallytransformativechildren’srightseducationpedagogicalmodelof itskinddevelopedforearlychildhoodstudentsintheRepublicofIreland.Oneofthemainpurposesofchildren’srights education is to ensure early childhoodeducation and care studentsunderstandtheir obligations in helping to realise the rights of all young children in their care.Consequentlyitisimportantthatstudentsreceiveathoroughandexplicitgroundingintheinternationalchildren’srightsframeworkasitappliestoyoungchildreninordertoappreciatehowtheUNCRCinteractswithnationallaw,policyandpractice.ThismodelhasbeenembeddedinaBA(Hons)EarlyChildhoodProgramme,whileamoreexplicitandintentionalmodulehasbeendesignedtobedeliveredaspartofanMAinLeadershipinearlychildhoodentitledTransformativeChildren’sRightsEducation.Usingparticipatory,

149


experiential,democraticandcriticallyreflectivepedagogiesandpracticesfoundedonthetheoretical traditions of Freire (1970) and Mezirow (1991), students are enabled toinvestigateandcritiquelaw,policyandpracticethroughadoptingachildren’srightslens.By provoking critical thinking and nurturing practices and confidence to cope withdilemmas, complexity and ambiguity (Quennerstedt, 2013) students are facilitated toworkthroughthevarious‘disorientatingdilemmas’(Mezirow,1991)theymayencounter.The rights-based pedagogical principles of Osler and Starkey (2010) ensure theencounters are respectful and rights-based and can help to contain any cognitivedissonance.Comprehensive, systematicand interdisciplinary innature, thismodelhasthepotentialtoenablestudentstobecomeconfidentandknowledgeableaboutchildren’srights issues, while also experiencing a nurturing and empowering learning processthemselves. In effect, transformative children’s rights education builds students’ skillsandconfidencetonotonlyknowabout,butalsototakeactionforchildren’srights.

DeconstructingknowledgeinEngland

ThesecondCREpedagogicalapproach(Zanatta,2020)wasdevelopedwithinatheoreticalframework built upon the teachings of bell hooks (1994) and Burman (2008). Bothauthorsprovideasoundgroundingforthelearningethosinthemodule,inthewordsofW.H.Auden ‘growing chary/of emphaticdogmas’. Students are invited to explore theunfoldingoftheirknowledgeandexperiencethroughaseriesoftheoreticalquestioningsandcritiques(bellhooks,1994)ofontologiesofchildhood(Burman,2008;Mayall,2006)andofcategoriesofchildhood(Valentine,2003).Acoreaimofthispedagogyistosupportthedevelopmentofavocabularyandasetoftheoreticalandpracticaltoolstodeconstructchildism(Wall,2012;Young-Bruehl,2012).Studentsareinvitedtoreflectcriticallyonthefigure of the adult as either friend, expert, or authority (supervisor, leader, observer)(Fine & Sandstrom, 1989), and to identify novel relational possibilities for liberatorypractices(bellhooks,1994).Questioningandreviewingisconductedthroughaseriesofspecific issues impacting children’s rights in the local and international communities.Theseareunpackedwithstudentstobothapplyprinciplesandtoexperiencetheactof‘stayingwiththetrouble’(Haraway,2016).Inthisprocess,theinvitationistobemindfulofthedualnatureofrightsofeducationandineducation(Lundy&MartinezSainz,2018).StudentsapplyCREtodevelopapieceofactivismandadvocacyonaspecificcurrentissueimpacting children’s rights. In thisprocess, students are guided throughapathwayofexperientiallearning,sothattheirworkremainsaction-oriented(Burman,2019).There-acquired ownership of knowledge production and the engagement with activism arepresentedinthismodelasnecessaryelementssupportingtheuncoveringandanalysisofstructural forms of oppression, experienced both by children and, intersectionally, bystudents. In thisawareness, studentsareencouraged toalwaysplacerightsandsocialjusticebeforepersonalbeliefs(MartinezSainz,2018;Moyn,2018).

150


Dataandmethodology

Thecomparativeanalysispresentedinthispaperinvestigatesthefindingsobtainedfromtwoseparatesetsofdatacollection,conductedindependently.

ThefirststudyconductedbyLong(2017;2019),intheIrishcontext,wasamixedmethodsinvestigationonknowledgeandunderstandingsofCRofearlychildhoodeducationandcarestudents.Throughfivedifferentresearchquestions,thestudyfocusedprimarilyonstudents’ existing knowledge of Children’s Rights. An important element of thisinvestigationwasthediscussionwithstudentsontheirperspectivesonthevaluethatCREwouldhaveinrelationtotheirpracticeandroleasearlychildhoodeducationandcarepractitioners.

The second study conductedbyZanatta (2020), in theEnglish context,was apieceofactionresearchfocusingonthespecificdeliveryoftherelevantChildren’sRightsModule.Bothlecturerandstudentsengagedinaseriesofreflectionsonthelearningprocess,thenanalysed these throughaScholarshipofTeachingandLearningmodel (Kreber,2005),exploringexperiencesinrelationtoinstruction,pedagogyandcurriculum.

Inthispaperweusenarrativeasamethodtouncoverawayofknowing-being(Barrett&Stauffer,2009),ratherthanastory. In thisnarrativemethod, the focusshifts fromthegeneralaccountstothespecificexperientialelementsthathavecontributedtotheprocessofmeaning-making.Narrativeformsbecomeanopportunityfor‘re-presenting’(Barrett& Stauffer, 2009, p. 10) through a relational mode the constitution of knowledge, asinformed by experience. Embedded within an educational context and informed bytransformativemodelsofCREastheoreticalparadigms,thismethodologicalframeworkconsidersexperiencesthroughaDeweyanmodel.Experiencesarethereforeunderstoodas relational and transactional, and informed by emotions, actions, cognition andcommunications(Dewey,1938).Theadoptionofthisdefinitionpromotestheinclusionofboth internal and external factors, alongside past and future experiences. Students’learningexperiencesareconsideredtobeshapedbytheeducationalengagementwiththemodule,bytheirfuturecareerplans,andalsobytheirpriorknowledge,theirpractice-experiences,andtheireverydaylives.

In the specifics of this study, the experiences of students and of the two authors, aseducators,areincorporatedasdataprovidinginsightonsocialpracticesandengagementinmeaningmakingwithin the curricula studied (Clandinin,&Connelly, 1992).As perDewey’smodel(1938),therelationaldynamicsinwhichtheexperiencestakeplacearealsoconsideredasfactorsofinfluenceandrelevance.

151


The analysis presented in this article is not based on the raw data presented in theauthors’ other publications on the two curricula (Long, 2017, 2019; Zanatta, 2020).Rather,inthispaperweengageinathematicsynthesisanalysiscomposedofthreesteps(van Leeuwen et al., 2019): individual review of the sets and identification of corepedagogical features, shared discussion and review of these pedagogical features,identificationofsharethemes.

Thefirststepwasaseparatereviewoftheresultsproposedinthestudiesadoptedasdata.Eachauthorindependentlyreviewedtheresultsrecordedintheirstudyandidentifiedthemainpedagogicalfeaturesthatrepresentedeachcurricula’sopportunitiesandchallenges,as emerging from the narratives of students and staffs’ experience. The pedagogicalfeatureshadtoincorporateexperientialnarrativesreflectingbothonthestudents’data(presentedinotherpublications)andournarrativeexperiences(Connelly&Clandinin,2006). Through this stage, across the two curricula, we identified fifteen points ofpotential opportunities and challenges emerging from the review of the narrativeexperienceswiththecurricula(sevenfromthestudyoncurriculum1andeightforthestudyoncurriculum2,seetable1).

Forthesecondandthirdsteps,weheldsharedstructuredreflections,viaonlinemeetings.Firstly,theaimofthesereflectivemomentswastodiscussthefifteenpedagogicalfeaturestothenidentifyandreviewsimilaritiesandconvergences,intermsofopportunitiesandchallenges, emerging from the two curricula. This first reflection functioned asopportunitytodiscussandexplorethefifteenpedagogicalfeaturesidentifiedacrossthetwo curricula. In the third and final step of the process, we proceeded to conduct athematicanalysisofthesefifteenpedagogicalfeatures.Theprocessofidentificationofthethemes was led through an interpretative approach, through the abstraction of theexperiences (presented as opportunities and challenges) into four key pedagogicaldilemmas.

Thesefourcorepedagogicaldilemmasare:agency,performativity,knowledgeandtime.

Having concluded the analysis, we then identified a series of pedagogicalrecommendations,orwishlist,stemmingfromthepedagogicaldilemmas,toinformandguidethedevelopmentoftransformativepedagogiesofCRE.

Results

Fourpedagogicaldilemmas

Inthefollowingsection,wepresentthefourpedagogicaldilemmas,asinformedbytheprocessed detailed above. Each area offers an insight into both opportunities and

152


challenges identified in the pedagogies of the two curricula. As discussed in themethodology section, these fourdilemmasderive from theabstractionof experiences,bothintermsofopportunityandchallenges,associatedwiththefifteencorepedagogicalfeaturesidentifiedforeachcurricula,aspresentedbelow.

Table1Corepedagogicalfeaturesineachcurricula(resultofstep1ofanalysis)

CURRICULUM1TRANSFORMATIVELEARNINGINIRELAND

CURRICULUM2DECONSTRUCTINGKNOWLEDGEINENGLAND

Transformative

Workingwithandthroughdisorientingdilemmas

Participatoryandexperiential,

Dialogical,problem-posing,personalandinterpersonal

IntentionalfocusontheUNCRC

Tailor-madetotheearlychildhoodeducationandcareprofessionalcontext

Head,hands,heartandfeetapproach.

Rights-basedprinciples

Mindfulofdemocraticaccountabilityandprivilege

Developingavocabularytodeconstructchildism

Criticaloffigureofadultaseitherfriendor

authority

FocusonrightsOFeducationandrightsINeducation

Theoryasliberatorypractice

Actionoriented

Rightsbeforevalues

Throughthesecondstepofthethematicsynthesisanalysis(vanLeeuwenetal.,2019),weabstracted these pedagogical features into four emerging areas. These are areas ofpedagogicaldilemmas,incorporatingbothopportunitiesandchallenges.Thesedilemmasarerelatedtomattersof:agency,performativity,knowledgeandtime.

Agency:Friendorfoe?

The first pedagogical dilemma emerging from the two CRE curricula, in terms ofunderpinningpedagogyandmodeofdelivery,offersanopportunitytoquestiontheroleofeducators/students/pupilsaspromotedinthetwomodels.Inbothmodels,agreatdealof the learning process is aimed at creating an environment which promotes activeagency. Students’ prior knowledge is not only acknowledged, but also included asopportunityforcircularandspiralreflection(Long,2020),orfortracingdevelopmentsinthinking(Zanatta,2020).Informedbytheoreticalparadigmsunderpinningbothmodels(bellhooks,1994;Mezirow,1991),thispedagogicalstrategyleadstoanenhancedsenseofchallengeforstudentsparticipatinginthelearning.Asenseofuneasinesstranspires

153


fromstudents’narratives,particularlyinrelationtotheirroleasactiveconstructorsofknowledgebothintheclassroomandinpractice.Thenotionofagencyitselfconstitutesachallengingvariationtothefieldofeducation,wherethebankingmodelprevailsasnorm(Freire,1970).Inthissense,CREcurriculumintheformationofearlychildhoodeducationand care practitioners might constitute a crucial opportunity to break the cycle oftraditionalprocessesofeducation.Topromoteasimilarshiftinfavourofagencyinthefieldofpractice,achangeintheroleandstatusofpractitionerswouldberequired.

The perceived low status and lack of professional recognition feature as internalizednarratives in students’ experiences, both in discussing their current and prospectivepractice.Asexploredinpriorsections,theongoingdevaluationofthefigureoftheearlychildhoodeducationandcareeducatorisdominantinthefieldofearlychildhoodacrossboth Ireland and England (Lloyd & Hallett, 2010; Murphy, 2015; Osgood, 2012). Theissuesofbothlowpayandlowrecognitionofprofessionalstatusplacespractitionersonthereceivingendofasimilarunfairtreatmentandunrecognitionofsocio-economicstatustothoseofchildren.Thisquasi-sharedstatusofinjusticecouldbeusedasacatalystforstudents’ active engagement with their Transformational Potential (Jemal, 2017), anaction-orientedextensionofFreire’s ideaofCriticalConsciousness.Apoint for furtherreflection emerges: could the, albeit tenuous, correlation of low status and low socio-economicrecognitionbetweenchildrenandpractitionershavepedagogicalimportance?Couldthewishforareconceptualizationofthepractitionerasaprofessionalrole,supportengagementinthereconceptualizationofchildhoodasacategory?Orwouldthestatusofprofessional/experthinderthepossibilityfordemocraticengagementsbetweenstaffandchildren?

TheIssueofperformativity

This second theme relates closely to the issue of authentic engagement andperformativity, also explored by Jerome (2018). As already mentioned, criticalscholarshiphashighlightedthechallengesandtheproblematicaspectsofrights-basedapproaches(Brown,2004;Moyn,2018).

Alevelofuneaseidentifiedinstudents’narrativesisoftendescribedincorrelationwiththe clashing of children’s rights with pre-existing beliefs, both of personal andprofessionalnature.Specifically,someconceptsareidentifiedbystudentsasparticularlydissonantwiththeirpriorknowledgeandviews.Forexample,challengestothenotionofchildren’s purity and innocence (Bernstein, 2011) are often contested by students aspossibledangerstothechildren’swelfare.Inotherinstances,theEurocentricnatureofdiscourses(Montgomery,2018;Moosa-Mitha,2005) is identifiedasa limitation to theinclusiveness of children’s rights. It is in the encounter with these ‘disorientatingdilemmas’(Mezirow,1991)that therealpotentialof transformative,participatoryand

154


criticalpedagogiescomesintoview.Failingtoapplytheseprinciples,posestheriskofCREbecomingyetanother‘intervention’(MacNaughton,2004),aneducationalhylomorphism(Deleuze&Guattari,2004),theenforcementofyetanotherregime,masqueradingunderdemocraticpretences.

TheissueofperformativityemergesalsothroughthecontextualizationofCREaspartofamandatoryeducationcurriculum,whichisnotonlyassessed,butalsoatriskofbeinghijacked and conflated with performance management and other neoliberal agendas.Tibbitts (2002) also explored the problematic nature of accountability and standard-basedrecognitions.Tokenisticengagementwithrightsdiscoursesiswidelycriticisedandoften called out. A tokenistic and superficial approach to the exploration andimplementationof rights reinforcespost-structuralist interpretationsof theseasmereformofcontrol(Foucault,1979).

Introducinganelementofhope/possibility inrelationtoperformativity,Lundy(2018)challenges educators to appreciate the possible positive outcomes that mightinadvertently emerge from tokenistic practices, such as heightened awareness,unexpectedinterest,andcuriosity.Afalsestartisbetterthannostartatall.Jerome(2018)concursthatevenwithinthehighlyperformativenatureofHRE,onecanfindthespaceandthemeansforrevolutionarymodelsthatsubvertauthoritarianpracticesandpower.Alerting aperson toof their rights,whether in a tokenistic/performativeor authenticmanner,leadstosomeextentofknowledgeandawareness,andhencecouldbecelebratedstill.

Knowledge:CanyoulivewithoutPiaget?

A preoccupation already raised by MacNaughton and colleagues (2007) in theirreflections on the suggestions made in GC7, is the incongruency between traditionalpracticesandtheoriesofearlychildhoodandchildren’srights.

Students’ narratives reveal the discomfort and confusion emerging from having tonavigate dissonant realitieswithin the field.Whilst Jerome (2018)warns of the risksderivingfromadissonantsetting,itisimportanttorecognisethataclassiceducationinearly childhood education and care prepares students for a very specific way ofapproachingchildrenandunderstandingchildhood. Indiscussingmattersofchildren’srights, students would regularly make reference to theorists and theories that haveproclaimedthelimitednessofchildhood,asstateofincompetencyandneed.Forexample,student’snarrativeshighlight the existing imbalance in early childhoodeducationandcare curricula through questioning why traditional theories are still taught andcelebrated, althoughno longer of relevance (Zanatta, 2020). Inmany cases, the initialencounters with early childhood traditional theories pose the risk of situating the

155


studentswithinadeficitmodelofchildhood,wherewhatchildrencannotdohasmorebearingthanwhattheycan(Long,2019).Thepopularityandestablishmentofrightsandagencyinfringingtheories,suchasdevelopmentallyappropriatepractices,performancedrivenlearning,andexclusionarypractices,activelyimpactstherangeofactionofCRE.ItisinlightofthisimbalancethatwearguethatCREinavacuumwillnotsuffice(norbesustainableormeaningful). It is likelythatmanyearlychildhoodprogrammeshaveanimplicitorembeddedorientationtowardschildren’srights,humanrightsorsocialjustice,and itcouldbearguedthatsuchavaluesystemdoesnotnecessarilyhavetobemadeexplicit.However,ifwetaketheUNCRCtobethelegalarticulationandguidingprincipleofchildren’shumanrights,itthenbecomesclearthatvagueawarenessofchildren'srightsisnotenough(Lundy&MartinezSainz,2018),nor isanemphasisonvalues (Robson,2018).

Indepthknowledgeistherequiredstandard(art42,UNCRC:UN,1989).Scholarshavecalledforradicalrevision/rejectionofexistingtheories(Burman,2007),pedagogies,andideologies(Wood&Hedges,2016).Thequestionremains,‘canyoulivewithoutPiaget?’(Penn,2004).

Time(aftertime)

Transformative approaches in higher education contexts are difficult, time-consumingand emotionally draining. Students’ narratives discussed thus far have unveiled theuneasiness, discomfort, mistrust and disorientation experienced in engaging withtransformative learning strategies. What is yet to be discussed is the potential forachievement (not only in the academic or performative sense), empowerment, andliberationthatCREcurriculahold.

In their narratives, students revealed they had uncovered and challenged injusticeswitnessedintheireverydayexperiences,becausebeingbothrights-informedandrights-respecting had empowered them to action (Zanatta, 2020). A student shared havinggainedfurtherunderstandingofwomen’srightsandgenderinequality,throughstudyingchildren’srights;whilstanotherreportedbeingabletoadvocatefortheirchildatschool(Zanatta,2020).Studentsprotestedthenegativeimplicationsofpaternalisticapproaches(Long, 2020), and described the challenges faced in attempting to overthrow suchpracticesasaclearobstacletoflourishingintheirrole.Incomparingprogressinstudents’knowledge,Long(2020)alsoidentifiesasignificantshifttowardsamorechildren’srightsinformedconceptualizationofchildhood,withfocusoncapabilitiesandrightsratherthanondeficits.Inalimited,yetimportant,numberofnarratives,studentssharedhavingalsoexperienced a sense of liberation from their own ghosts of childhood through thepossibility of naming the discrimination/injustice experienced as abuse (Lundy &MartinezSainz,2018;Zanatta,2020).

156


A crucial recurrent feature in the collected narratives is the struggle, longing, anddeterminationto findawaytodevelopwhatTaylor(2018)definesasacommunityofpractice. Students shared what could perhaps be described as a sense of pride andaspirationinengagingwithchildrenthroughachildren’srightsperspective.PerhapsthisisanindicationofthepotentialenshrinedinCREforpractitioners.Perhaps,CREcouldbetheopportunityforreconsideringnotonlytherelationaldynamicswithchildren,butalsothestatusofearlychildhoodatlarge,anecessaryrequirementforashiftinqualityandmeaningfulnessofthefieldwidely(Zanattaetal.,2019).

ConclusionsEnvisioningtransformativeCREforearlychildhoodeducationandcarepractitioners

WhilstweappreciateCREisnotthesolutionforallthechallengesfacedinthefieldofearlychildhood,webelieveitrepresentsagoodstartingpoint.Afterall,justaswithchildren’sparticipation,atokenisticattemptisbetterthannoattemptatall(Lundy,2018).

We believe that the discussion of the four pedagogical dilemmas suggests thatparticipatoryandtransformativerights-basedpedagogiesarefilledwithopportunitiestoopenupnewspacesforstudents,andpractitioners.Intheserights-basedspaces,studentsandpractitionerscanseekout,contestandexplorepowerandidentifygaps,dilutions,barriers,resistances,andcontradictionsastheyengagewithpolicy,theoryandpracticecontexts.

The four dilemmas offer also a clear indication of themany challenges faced by botheducatorsandstudentsinengagingwithCREanditsprocesses.Therefore,ratherthanproposingaspecificapproach,asetofminimumthresholdconcepts(Taylor,2018),oraquality-checkprocess(Tibbitts,2002),wewishtooutlinefouraspirationalpedagogicalprinciples we believe to be fundamental for CRE programmes for practitioners to bemeaningfulandofimpact.

Interdisciplinaryandintegrated

Childhood(s) are interdisciplinary and complex realities; as such, they requiremultifaceted and nuanced engagement and the taking into account of the numerousperspectives and experiences of children. CRE offers a further opportunity for earlychildhoodeducationandcareprogrammestobeinterdisciplinaryintheircurricula.Thiswould also promote the ongoing call for the development of novel intersectionalapproachesinCRE/HRE(Osler,2016).Aninterdisciplinarycurriculumwouldallowfor

157


CREtobeintegratedwithinthewholedegreeprogramme,whilstalsoremainingaclearlyidentifiedandintegralelementofearlychildhoodformation.

Mandatoryandcontextualised

Inlightofparagraph41ofGC7(UN,2005)CREoughttobeamandatoryrequirementinalltrainingofprofessionalswhoworkwithchildren.Thismandatorynaturewouldneedtoallowforcontextualisedformsofimplementationanddelivery.ThisrelatestoJeromeand colleagues’ (2015) suggestion for a ‘locally negotiated solution’. In this scenario,HigherEducation instituteswouldassume the responsibility forbuildingCRE supportaround the student using the existing legislative and policy framework and statutoryguidance alongside early childhood knowledges, practices and values to the greatestextentpossible.

Theneedforabalancedapproach,whichconsidersboththelocalandtheuniversal, ishighlightedalsobyBurman(1996)whowarnsagainst thecreationofanewgroupof‘experts’, commissioned to determine and regulate what constitutes normative andacceptablechildhood.Similarly,asforthemodelsofCREdesignedtoengagechildren,itcould be argued that a transformational approach, aimed at questioning and shiftingconceptualisationsofchildhood(s)(Covelletal.,2010;Özbek,2017)wouldleadtoamoredynamicandlesstokenisticlearningopportunity.Movingawayfromaknowledge-onlybased curriculum would also mean rejecting the calls for assessment of quality andeffectivenessofCRE(Curtis,1996),onthegroundsthatthesewouldriskfocusingonaseriesofsuperficialcompetences,ratherthanin-depthbeliefs.

Theoreticalinshapingpraxis

RespondingtothecallsforChildren’sRightsscholarshiptofurtheritsgroundingintheory(Quennerstedt, 2016; Quennerstedt & Quennerstedt, 2014), CRE should support athoroughprocessofde-constructionandre-engagementwithall theoriesofchildhood(Burman,1996).

The integratednatureof therights-basedcurriculuminearlychildhoodeducationandcaredegreeswouldleadtocriticalquestioningandunpackingoftraditionaltheoriesofchildhood,particularlyofthosethatfailthe‘rights-respecting’testoftime.Themovementtodecolonisethecurriculum(Nxumalo&Cedillo,2017)offershereagreatexampleforpossible developments of practice in this direction. CRE represents an opportunity toovercome traditions and habits, to allow for interdisciplinary and intersectionalchildhood(s)(Louviotetal.,2019).

158


Political/daring

Crucially,astherights-basedagendaanddiscoursesprogress,expandandmutate,CREought to participate in the dynamic conversations beyond rights. Curricula shouldthereforenotonlypromotetheadvancementofchildren’srights.CREshouldprimarilyenableengagementinpoliticalandsocialdiscoursesthatchallengealienation,oppressionandsocialinjustices/inequalities.Theshiftneededisnotsolelyfromprotection/needstorights,butalsofromrightstodemocracyandfairandsustainableliving.

Acknowledgements

WewishtothankourcolleaguesatBrightonUniversity,DrTimRudd,DrJoolsPageandDrJodiRoffey-BarentsenfortheirworkinorganisingtheSecondEducationResearchandEnterpriseConferenceinJune2019,fortheopportunitytodiscussandexploreourinitialideas for thispaper in suchavibrantevent.Wealsowish to thank the reviewersandeditorsforthepaperwhohaveprovidedcopious,insightfulandconstructivefeedbacktostrengthenthepaperbothmethodologically,theoreticallyandintermsofaccessibilityofitswritten form. Very special thanks fromFrancesca toRuthHunt, University of EastLondon,fortranslatingherItalian-Englishintocomprehensiblereadingmaterial.

References

Alderson,P.(1999).Humanrightsanddemocracyinschoolsdotheymeanmorethan``pickinguplitterandnotkillingwhales''?TheInternationalJournalofChildrensRights,7(2),185–205.https://doi.org/10.1163/15718189920494336

Alderson,P.(2008).Youngchildren'srights:exploringbeliefs,principlesandpractice.JessicaKingsley.

Alderson,P.(2017).CommoncriticismsofChildren’sRightsand25yearsoftheIJCR.TheInternationalJournalofChildren’sRights,25(2),307–319.doi:10.1163/15718182-02502001

Andreopoulos,G.(2002).Humanrightseducationandtrainingforprofessionals.InternationalReviewofEducation,48(3/4),239–249.www.jstor.org/stable/3445364

Archard,D.(1993).Children:Rightsandchildhood.Routledge.

BarrettM.S.,&StaufferS.L.(2009).Narrativeinquiry:Fromstorytomethod.InM.S.Barret&S.L.Stauffer(Eds.),NarrativeInquiryinMusicEducation(pp.7–17).Springer.

Bernstein,R.(2011).RacialInnocence.PerformingAmericanChildhoodfromSlaverytoCivilRights.NewYorkUniversityPress.

Bron,J.,&Thijs,A.(2011).Leavingittotheschools:citizenship,diversityandhumanrightseducationintheNetherlands.EducationalResearch,53(2),123–136.doi:10.1080/00131881.2011.572361

Brown,W.(2004).“Themostwecanhopefor...”:Humanrightsandthepoliticsoffatalism.SouthAtlanticQuarterly,103(2-3),451–463.doi:10.1215/00382876-103-2-3-451

159


Burman,E.(1996).Local,globalorglobalized?Childdevelopmentandinternationalchildrightslegislation.Childhood,3(1),45–66.doi:10.1177/0907568296003001004

Burman,E.(2007).Developments:Child,image,nation.Routledge.

Burman,E.(2008).Deconstructingdevelopmentalpsychology(2nded.).Routledge.

Burman,E.(2019).Fanon,education,action:Childasmethod.Routledge.

Clandinin,D.J.,&Connelly,F.M.(1992).Teacherascurriculummaker.InP.Jackson(Ed.),Handbookofresearchoncurriculum(pp.363–401).Macmillan.

Connelly,F.M.,&Clandinin,D.J.(2006).Narrativeinquiry.InJ.L.Green,G.Camilli&P.Elmore(Eds.),Handbookofcomplementarymethodsineducationresearch(3rded).LawrenceErlbaum.

Covell,K.,Howe,R.B.,&McNeil,J.K.(2010).Implementingchildren’shumanrightseducationinschools.ImprovingSchools,13(2),117–132.https://doi.org/10.1177/1365480210378942

Curtis,A.(2003).Dowetrainourearlychildhoodeducatorstorespectchildren?InC.Nutbrown(Ed.),Respectfuleducators–Capablelearners:Children'srightsandearlyeducation(pp.69–80).Sage.

Deleuze,G.,&Guattari,F.(2004).AthousandPlateaus.Continuum.

DepartmentforEducation(2018).StatutoryFrameworkfortheEarlyYearsFoundationStage.https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/early-years-foundation-stage-framework--2

DepartmentofChildrenandYouthAffairs(2015).NationalStrategyonChildrenandYoungPeople’sParticipationinDecisionMakingProcesses2015–2020.TheStationaryOffice.

Dewey,J.(1938).Experienceandeducation.MacmillanCompany.

Feuchtwang,A.(2018,January18).Downgradingminister'sroleshowschildrenareslippingdownthepoliticalagenda.TheGuardian.

Fine,G.A.,&Sandstrom,K.L.(1989).Knowingchildren:Participantobservationwithminors.Sage.

Foucault,M.(1979).Disciplineandpunish:Thebirthoftheprison(TransA.Sheridan).Vintage.

Freire,P.(1970).Pedagogyofoppressed.Continuum.

Gill,J.,&Howard,S.(2009).Knowingourplace:Childrentalkingaboutpower,identityandcitizenship.AcerPress.

Gillett-Swan,J.,&Sargeant,J.(2018).Assuringchildren’shumanrighttofreedomofopinionandexpressionineducation,InternationalJournalofSpeech-LanguagePathology,20(1),120–127.doi:10.1080/17549507.2018.1385852

Guggenheim,M.(2005).What'swrongwithchildren'srights.HarvardUniversityPress.

Habashi,J.,Driskill,S.T.,DeFalco,P.L.,&Lang,J.H.(2010).Constitutionalanalysis:Aproclamationofchildren’srighttoprotection,provision,andparticipation.TheInternationalJournalofChildren’sRights,18(2),267–290.doi:10.1163/157181809x12615514762046

Haraway,D.(2016).Stayingwiththetrouble:MakingkinintheChthulucene.DukeUniversityPress.

160


Hart,R.(1992).Children’sParticipation:FromTokenismtoCitizenship.UNICEFInnocentiEssays,No.4,Florence,Italy:InternationalChildDevelopmentCentreofUNICEF.

Hart,R.(2008).Steppingbackfrom‘theladder’:Reflectionsonamodelofparticipatoryworkwithchildren.InA.Reid,B.B.Jensen,J.Nikel,&V.Simovska(Eds.),ParticipationandLearning(pp.19–31).Springer.

Hedges,H.,Cullen,J.,&Jordan,B.(2011).Earlyyearscurriculum:fundsofknowledgeasaconceptualframeworkforchildren’sinterests,JournalofCurriculumStudies,43(2),185–205.doi:10.1080/00220272.2010.511275

hooks,b.(1994).Teachingtotransgress.Educationasthepracticeoffreedom.Routledge.

Horgan,D.,Forde,C.,Martin,S.,&Parkes,A.(2016).Children’sparticipation:movingfromtheperformativetothesocial.Children’sGeographies,15(3),274–288.doi:10.1080/14733285.2016.1219022

Howe,R.B.,&Covell,K.(2010).Miseducatingchildrenabouttheirrights.Education,CitizenshipandSocialJustice,5(2),91–102.https://doi.org/10.1177/1746197910370724

Howe,R.B.,&Covell,K.(2005).Empoweringchildren:Children'srightseducationasapathwaytocitizenship.UniversityofTorontoPress.

https://www.theguardian.com/social-care-network/2018/jan/18/downgrading-ministers-role-children-slipping-down-political-agenda

Inagaki,A.(2002).TeachingHumanRightsEducationinIndonesianSchools.InternationalReviewofEducation/InternationaleZeitschriftFürErziehungswissenschaft/RevueInternationaleDeL'Education,48(3/4),279–280.https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020365712268

James,A.,&Prout,A.(1997).Anewparadigmforthesociologyofchildhood?Provenance,promiseandproblems.InA.James&A.Prout(Eds),Constructingandreconstructingchildhood:Contemporaryissuesinthesociologicalstudyofchildhood(pp.7–33).FalmerPress.

JemalA.(2017).Criticalconsciousness:Acritiqueandcriticalanalysisoftheliterature.TheUrbanreview,49(4),602–626.https://doi.org/10.1007/s11256-017-0411-3

Jerome,L.(2018).Hypocritesorheroes?Thinkingabouttheroleoftheteacherinhumanrightseducation.HumanRightsEducationReview,1(2),46–64.doi.org/10.7577/hrer.2873

Jerome,L.Emerson,L.Lundy,L.,&Orr,K.(2015).Teachingandlearningaboutchildren’srights.UNICEF.http://www.unicef.org/crc/files/CHILD_RIGHTS_EDUCATION_STUDY_11May.pdf.

Kanyal,M.(2004).Children'sRights0-8:Promotingparticipationineducationandcare.Routledge.

Kernan,M.,&Devine,D.(2010).Beingconfinedwithin?ConstructionsofthegoodchildhoodandoutdoorplayinearlychildhoodeducationandcaresettingsinIreland.Children&Society,24,371–385.doi:10.1111/j.1099-0860.2009.00249.x

Kjørholt,A.(2011).Rethinkingyoungchildren’srightsforparticipationindiverseculturalcontexts.InM.Kernan&E.Singer(Eds.),Peerrelationshipsinearlychildhoodeducationandcare(pp.38–48).Routledge.

Kreber,C.(2005).Reflectiononteachingandthescholarshipofteaching:Focusonscienceinstructors.HigherEducation,50,323–359.https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-004-6360-2

161


Lake,L.(2014).Children’srightseducation:Animperativeforhealthprofessionals.Curationis,37(2).doi:https://doi.org/10.4102/curationis.v37i2.1268

Lansdown,G.(2005).Theevolvingcapacitiesofthechild.UNICEFInnocenti.

Larkins,C.(2014).Enactingchildren’scitizenship:Developingunderstandingsofhowchildrenenactthemselvesascitizensthroughactionsandactsofcitizenship.Childhood,21(1),7–21.https://doi.org/10.1177/0907568213481815

Liebel,M.(2012).Framingtheissue:Rethinkingchildren’srights.InM.Liebel(Ed.),Children'srightsfrombelow:Cross-culturalperspectives(pp.9–28).PalgraveMacmillan.

Liebel,M.(2014).Fromevolvingcapacitiestoevolvingcapabilities:Contextualizingchildren’srights.InD.Stoecklin&J.M.Bonvin(Eds.),Children’srightsandthecapabilityapproach:Challengesandprospects(pp.67–84).Springer.

Lloyd,E.,&Hallet,E.(2010).ProfessionalisingtheearlychildhoodworkforceinEngland:workinprogressoramissedopportunity?ContemporaryIssuesinEarlyChildhood,11(1),75–88.https://doi.org/10.2304/ciec.2010.11.1.75

Long,S.(2017).Children’srightseducationinearlyyears:PerspectivesofUndergraduatestudents(Unpublisheddoctoraldissertation).Queen'sUniversityBelfast.

Long,S.(2019).Towardscomprehensiveandsystematicchildren’srightseducationforearlychildhoodeducationandcarestudents:ExperiencesfromIreland.InJ.Murray,K.Smith&E.Swadener(Eds.),TheRoutledgeInternationalHandbookofYoungChildren’sRights(pp.53–65).Routledge.

Long,S.(2020).Atransformativemodelforinterdisciplinarychildren’srightseducationfortheinitialeducationofearlychildhoodeducationandcarestudents.Manuscriptsubmittedforpublication.

Louviot,M.,Moody,Z.,&Darbellay,F.(2019).Children’srightseducation:Thechallengesandopportunitiesofinter-andtransdisciplinaryteaching.Inter-UndTransdisziplinäreBildung,1(1),1–7.http://www.itdb.ch/index.php/itdb/article/view/7

Lundy,L.(2007).Voiceisnotenough:conceptualisingArticle12oftheUnitedNationsConventionontheRightsoftheChild.BritishEducationResearchJournal,33(6),927–942.https://doi.org/10.1080/01411920701657033

Lundy,L.(2018).Indefenceoftokenism?Implementingchildren’srighttoparticipateincollectivedecision-making.Childhood,25(3),340–354.doi:10.1177/0907568218777292

Lundy,L.,&MartínezSainz,G.(2018).Theroleoflawandlegalknowledgeforatransformativehumanrightseducation:addressingviolationsofchildren’srightsinformaleducation.HumanRightsEducationReview,1(2),4–24.https://doi.org/10.7577/hrer.2560

MacNaughton,G.(2004).Thepoliticsoflogicinearlychildhoodresearch:Acaseofthebrain,hardfacts,treesandrhizomes.TheAustralianEducationalResearcher,31(3),87–104.https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03249530

MacNaughton,G.,Hughes,P.,&Smith,K.(2007).Earlychildhoodprofessionalsandchildren’srights:tensionsandpossibilitiesaroundtheUnitedNationsGeneralCommentNo.7onChildren’sRights.InternationalJournalofEarlyYearsEducation,15(2),161–170.

MartínezSainz,G.(2018).Challengesofteachingchildrentheirrightsinaviolentcontext.InG.MartínezSainz&I.Ilie(eds),Internationalperspectivesonpracticeandresearchintochildren'srights(pp.83–110).CentreforHumanRightsStudies.

162


MartínezSainz,G.,Monclus,A.,&Waldron,F.(2019,November18-19).Elenfoquedederechosdeinfanciacomoretoparalaacciónsocioeducativa.Análisisyadaptacióndeherramientasdeevaluaciónparaniños,niñasyadolescents[Children'sRightsapproachaschallengeforsocio-educationalaction.Analysisanduseofevaluationtoolsforchildrenandadolescents].[Conferencesession].SociedadIberoamericandePedagogiaSocialConference,Barcelona,Spain.https://cpesrm.org/servicios-158/formativa/formacion-externa-cpesrm/1190-curso-el-la-educador-a-social-ante-el-absentismo-y-abandono-escolar.html

Mayall,B.(2006).ValuesandassumptionsunderpinningpolicyforchildrenandyoungpeopleinEngland.Children’sGeographies,4(1),9–17.https://doi.org/10.1080/14733280600576923

Mezirow,J.(1991).Transformativedimensionsofadultlearning.Jossey-Bass.

Moloney,M.,Sims,M.,Rothe,A.,Buettner,C.,Sonter,L.,Waniganayake,M.,Opazo,M.,Calder,P.,&Girlich,P.(2019).Resistingneoliberalism:Professionalisationofearlychildhoodeducationandcare.InternationalJournalofElementaryEducation,8(1),1–10.doi:10.11648/j.ijeedu.20190801.11

Montgomery,H.(2008).Anintroductiontochildhood:Anthropologicalperspectivesonchildren'slives.Wiley-Blackwell.

Moore,R.C.(1997).Theneedfornature:Achildhoodright.SocialJustice,24(3),203–220.https://www.jstor.org/stable/29767032

Moosa-Mitha,M.(2005).Adifference-centredalternativetotheorizationofchildren’scitizenshiprights.CitizenshipStudies,9(4),369–388.https://doi.org/10.1080/13621020500211354

Moyn,S.(2018).Notenough:Humanrightsinanunequalworld.BelknapPress.

Murphy,R.(2015).EarlychildhoodeducationinIreland:Changeandchallenge.InternationalElectronicJournalofElementaryEducation,8(2),287–300.

NationalCouncilforCurriculumandAssessment(NCCA)(2009).Aistear:theearlychildhoodcurriculumframework.NationalCouncilforCurriculumandAssessment,Dublin.http://www.ncca.ie/earlylearning

Nxumalo,F.,&Cedillo,S.(2017).Decolonizingplaceinearlychildhoodstudies:ThinkingwithIndigenousonto-epistemologiesandBlackfeministgeographies.GlobalStudiesofChildhood,7(2),99–112.https://doi.org/10.1177/2043610617703831

O’Kane,C.(2003).Childrenandyoungpeopleascitizens:Partnersforsocialchange.SavetheChildrenSouthandCentralAsia.

Osgood,J.(2012).NarrativesfromtheNursery:Negotiatingprofessionalidentitiesinearlychildhood.Routledge.

Osler,A.(2016).Humanrightsandschooling:Anethicalframeworkforteachingforsocialjustice.TeachersCollegePress.

Osler,A.,&Starkey,H.(2010).Teachersandhumanrightseducation.Trentham.

O'Sullivan,L.,&Ring,E.(2016).Theimportanceofincludingthechild’svoiceinthetransitionprocess:signpostsfromanationalevaluationofconceptsofschoolreadinessinIreland.Children’sResearchDigest,3(2),37-44.

163


Pardo,M.,&Jadue.D.(2018,August28-31).FledglingembeddednessofthechildrightsapproachinECECundergraduateprogrammesinChile:Anypossibilitiesfortheenactmentofchildren'srightsforinfantsandtoddlersinECECPrograms[Conferencesession].28thEuropeanEarlyChildhoodEducationResearchAssociationConference,Budapest,Hungary.https://www.eecera.org/conference/2018-28th-eecera-conference-budapest-hungary/

Penn,H.(2004).Understandingearlychildhoodissuesandcontroversies.OpenUniversityPress.

Quennerstedt,A.(2013).Children’srightsresearchmovingintothefuture–Challengesonthewayforward.TheInternationalJournalofChildren’sRights,21(2),233–247.doi:10.1163/15718182-02102006

Quennerstedt,A.(2016).Youngchildren'senactmentsofhumanrightsinearlychildhoodeducation,InternationalJournalofEarlyYearsEducation,24(1),5–18.doi:10.1080/09669760.2015.1096238

Quennerstedt,A.,&Quennerstedt,M.(2014).Researchingchildren’srightsineducation:sociologyofchildhoodencounteringeducationaltheory.BritishJournalofSociologyofEducation,35(1),115–132.doi:10.1080/01425692.2013.783962

Reynaert,D.,Bouverne-DeBie,M.,&Vandevelde,S.(2010).Children’srightseducationandsocialwork:Contrastingmodelsandunderstandings.InternationalSocialWork,53(4)443–456.doi:10.1177/0020872809355367

Robson,J.(2016).Earlyyearsteachersandyoungchildren'srights:theneedforcriticaldialogue.ResearchinTeacherEducation,6(1),6–11.https://doi.org/10.15123/PUB.5091

Robson,J.(2018).HowdopractitionersinearlyyearsprovisionpromotefundamentalBritishvalues?InternationalJournalofEarlyYearsEducation,27(1),1–16.https://doi.org/10.1080/09669760.2018.1507904

Smith,A.B.(2007).Children’srightsandearlychildhoodeducation:Linkstotheoryandadvocacy.AustralasianJournalofEarlyChildhood,32(3),1–8.https://doi.org/10.1177/183693910703200302

Spyrou,S.(2011).Thelimitsofchildren’svoices:fromauthenticitytocritical,reflexiverepresentation.Childhood,18(2),151–165.https://doi.org/10.1177/0907568210387834

Taylor,M.(2018).Understandingstoriesofprofessionalformationduringearlychildhoodeducationandcarepracticeplacements.IrishEducationalStudies,37(2),227–241.https://doi.org/10.1080/03323315.2018.1465838

Thelander,N.(2016)Humanrightseducation:teachingchildren’shumanrights–amatterofwhy,whatandhow.InJ.Gillett-Swann&V.Pollock(Eds.),Children'srights,educationalresearchandtheUNCRC:past,presentandfuture(pp.61–79).SymposiumBooks.

Theobald,M.,Danby,S.,&Ailwood,J.(2011).ChildParticipationintheEarlyYears:ChallengesforEducation.AustralasianJournalofEarlyChildhood,36(3),19–26.doi:10.1177/183693911103600304

Tibbitts,F.(1997).Evaluationinthehumanrightseducationfield:Gettingstarted.NetherlandsHelsinkiCommittee/HREA.www.hrea.org

164


Tibbitts,F.(2002).Understandingwhatwedo:EmergingmodelsforhumanrightsEducation.InternationalReviewofEducation,48,159–171https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020338300881

Tibbitts,F.(2017).Revisiting‘emergingmodelsofhumanrightseducation’.InternationalJournalofHumanRightsEducation,1(1).https://repository.usfca.edu/ijhre/vol1/iss1/2

Tisdall,E.K.M.,&Punch,S.(2012).Notso‘new’?Lookingcriticallyatchildhoodstudies,Children'sGeographies,10(3),249–264.doi:10.1080/14733285.2012.693376

Tisdall,E.K.M.,Davis,J.M.,&Gallagher,M.(2009).Researchwithchildrenandyoungpeople:researchdesign,methodsandanalysis.Sage.

Torney-Purta,J.,Schwille,J.,&Amadeo,J.(1999).Civiceducationacrosscountries:Twenty-fournationalcasestudiesfromtheIEAciviceducationproject.TheInternationalAssociationfortheEvaluationofEducationalAchievement.EburonPublisher.

UNCommitteeontheRightsoftheChild(CRC)(2003).Generalcommentno.5GeneralmeasuresofimplementationoftheConventionontheRightsoftheChild(27November2003,CRC/GC/2003/5).https://www.refworld.org/docid/4538834f11.html

UNCommitteeontheRightsoftheChild(CRC)(2005).GeneralcommentNo.7ImplementingChildRightsinEarlyChildhood(20September2006,CRC/C/GC/7/Rev.1).https://www.refworld.org/docid/460bc5a62.html

UnitedNations(1989).Conventionontherightsofthechild.UnitedNations.

UnitedNations(2011).Thedeclarationonhumanrightseducationandtraining.UnitedNations.https://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Education/Training/Pages/UNDHREducationTraining.aspx

UnitedNations(2016).ConcludingobservationsonthefifthperiodicreportoftheUnitedKingdomofGreatBritainandNorthernIreland.UnitedNations.http://docstore.ohchr.org/SelfServices/FilesHandler.ashx?enc=6QkG1d%2FPPRiCAqhKb7yhskHOj6VpDS%2F%2FJqg2Jxb9gncnUyUgbnuttBweOlylfyYPkBbwffitW2JurgBRuMMxZqnGgerUdpjxij3uZ0bjQBOLNTNvQ9fUIEOvA5LtW0GL

Valentine,G.(2003).Boundarycrossings:Transitionsfromchildhoodtoadulthood.Children'sGeographies,I(1),37–52.doi:10.1080/14733280302186

vanLeeuwenK.M.,vanLoon,M.S.,vanNes,F.A.,Bosmans,J.E.,deVet,H.C.W.,KetJ.C.F.,Widdershoven,G.A.M.,&Ostelo,R.W.J.G.(2019).Whatdoesqualityoflifemeantoolderadults?Athematicsynthesis.PLoSONE,14(3),e0213263.https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0213263

Wall,J.(2012).Candemocracyrepresentchildren?Towardapoliticsofdifference.Childhood,19(1),86–100.https://doi.org/10.1177/0907568211406756

Wood,E.,&Hedges,H.(2016).Curriculuminearlychildhoodeducation:criticalquestionsaboutcontent,coherence,andcontrol.TheCurriculumJournal,27(3),387–405,doi:10.1080/09585176.2015.1129981

Woodhead,M.(2006).Changingperspectivesonearlychildhood:theory,researchandpolicy.InternationalJournalofEquityandInnovationinEarlyChildhood,4(2),1–43.

Wyness,M.(2015).Childhood.PolityPress.

Wyness,M.G.(2012).Childhoodandsociety:anintroductiontothesociologyofchildhood.PalgraveMacmillan.

165


Young-Bruehl,E.(2012).Childism.Confrontingprejudiceagainstchildren.YaleUniversityPress.

Zanatta,F.(2020).Aright(s)way.Teachingandlearningchildren’srightsinHEIsthroughknowledgedeconstructionandsustainableactivism.Manuscriptinpreparation.

Zanatta,F.,MartínezSainz,G.,&Gillett-Swan,J.(2019).Acriticalrealistreflectionontheuseofsocialmediaasthirdspaceforrightseducationinearlychildhood.InternationalJournalofEarlyChildhood,51(3),319–333.https://doi.org/10.1007/s13158-019-00249-0

Özbek,M.(2017).Theevaluationoftheopinionsofprospectiveteachersabouttheobjectivesofhumanrightseducation.InternationalEducationStudies,10(10),64–70.doi:10.5539/ies.v10n10p64

Öztürk,A.Eren,M.,&Topç,B.(2019).Effectivechildren’srightseducationinTurkeyfromtheperspectiveofclassroomteachers:Problemsandsuggestions.KastamonuEducationJournal,27(5).doi:https://doi.org/10.24106/kefdergi.3415

rights to the front child rights-based pedagogies in early

Documents