In 2015 Europe experienced the highest movement of displaced people across multiple borders since the end of WWII. The vast migration of refugees and their acceptance in new communities is compounded by the underlying current of fear generated by terrorist attacks such as the Paris shootings and bombings of 13 November, 2015. What should our response as educators be in the face of the conflicting challenges posed by vast numbers of dispossessed people and the underlying current of suspicion which travels with them?

The UNCRC (United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child) provides us with a base from which to build our response in this paper. The convention clearly sets out our responsibilities in regards to the children trapped in adult created circumstances. All young people under the age of 18 are considered to come under the protection of the convention – unless a specific country has set the age of majority earlier.  Articles 28 and 29 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) have particular significance for education authorities and educators. Both articles could provide a global education foundation of rights, responsibilities and core curriculum. A knowledge and understanding of the UNCRC provisions becomes essential for educators if we are to meet the global challenge of educating the world’s children.

Principals and teachers now work in increasingly uncertain and challenging environments involving complex legislative frameworks (Trimble, Cranston & Allen, 2012).  As the roles and responsibilities of principals and teachers change to meet new demands and capabilities, especially for dealing with safety and security issues, so too does the need for a sound knowledge of emerging legal issues in schools such as the impact of court orders, competing parental rights, and issues around children with disabilities; information confidentiality, records and the internet; accident and incident risk management.

It is becoming essential for educators to adapt and acquire new knowledge and skills relating to child rights and aspects of criminal law to the school management environment. Educators are being required to gain confidence and expertise in identifying possible legal problems before and as they arise based on their knowledge of various statutory, contractual and common law duties, especially the duty to take reasonable care, which underpin the educational process. They are being challenged on a daily basis to critically examine and evaluate the legal rights and obligations of various stakeholders, including students and parents, educators and administrators associated with the role of management within schools.

Individual states / education authorities are required to establish guidelines for their school educators. Studies in Australia and overseas have suggested that principals and teachers, in the context of school management, now work in complex environments that require knowledge related to law and decision-making for governance that accounts for the legal rights and obligations of all students.

These requirements on educators to be knowledgeable of legal issues are not confined to Australia.  In Scotland, the General Teaching Council Standards for Leadership and Management requires, “Head Teachers work within the structure of employment legislation, national and local agreements and policies governing employment” (Standard 4.2.1). To enable Head Teachers to fulfil this responsibility, they will, “take due account of legislation” in regard to employment and, “take due account of the legislative framework” which covers “equality and social inclusion” (Standard 4.2.1).  The support for school managers to develop the knowledge and understanding required is provided mainly by national and local authority professional development opportunities rather than by tertiary institutions.

This paper will present insights across Europe, USA, Scotland  and Australia that support the rights of the child.

Allison, G. (1983) Public and private management: Are they fundamentally alike in all unimportant respects? In Public Management, Public and Private Perspectives, edited by J. Perry and K. Kramer. California: Mayfield Publishing. Bauer, S. & Bogotch, I. (2006) Modeling site-based decision making: School practices in the age of accountability. Journal of Educational Administration 44 (5):446-470. Collier, J. & Roberts, J. (2001) An ethic for corporate governance. Business Ethics Quarterly 11 (1):67-71. Commonwealth of Australia (2006) Commonwealth of Australia (2010) Disability Discrimination Act (1992) (DDA) Disability Standards for Education (2005) GTC Scotland, (2012) The Standards for Leadership and Management: supporting leadership and management development, The General Teaching Council for Scotland. Kilham, C. & Watson, L. (2014) The impact of online learning about the disability standards for education on Australian school staff, Paper presented at AARE Conference , Brisbane: December Trimble, A., Cranston, N. and Allen J., (2012) School Principals and Education Law: What do they know, what do they need to know? Leading & Managing, 18(2), pp.46-51. Trimmer, K. 2003b. Review of the West Australian Department of Education Regulatory Framework. Paper presented at Australian Association of Research in Education Conference, at Auckland, New Zealand. Trimmer, K. (2011) Non-compliance by school principals: the effects of experience, stakeholder characteristics and governance mechanisms on reasoned risk-taking in decision-making, thesis for award of Doctor of Business Administration, Curtin University of Technology. Wirtz, V., Cribb, A. & Barber, N. (2005) Reimbursement decisions in health policy-extending our understanding of the elements of decision-making. Health Policy 73:330-338.