The aim of this paper is to argue for a more cohesive theoretical platform for teaching and learning children’s rights and to call for a discussion about how theories of human rights education (HRE) can strengthen this research field. Drawing from experiences in a Swedish large-scale three-year long project about teaching and learning children’s rights in early childhood education and school (Quennerstedt et al, 2014) we will discuss the theoretical challenges and risks we have faced especially related to the theoretical aspects. In the paper we will discuss and argue for how theoretical models and concepts of HRE can broaden and strengthen research about teaching and learning children’s rights. By this we also hope to expand the theoretical preconditions for the scope of the network Children’s rights in education.

The EERA network 25, “Children’s rights in education”, was launched in 2003 with the aim to assemble European researchers with a specific focus and interest for children’s rights and education. During the years many studies have been carried out and new perspectives and new research have been presented successfully. From the start, most studies have been anchored in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UN, 1989), which still constitutes an important base in the network. One issue, often discussed in the network, is the demand for more theoretical perspectives. Even though discussions and presentations of various theories have been a recurring theme in the annual ECER conferences it still seems to be a widely dispersed research field. In this paper, we will argue that research about children’s rights in education need a more cohesive and systemised theoretical platform if, to be taken seriously outside the network. We will also show and argue for how the stated anchoring in the UNCRC and the strong focus on children’s rights without relation to HRE theories is limiting the research field. Especially research about teaching and learning children’s rights are at risk to be too narrowed and to be viewed as isolated in relation to the broader global HRE discussion.

Another issue that is linked to the discussion above is the question of concepts. In the mentioned project (Quennerstedt et al, 2014) on the teaching and learning of children’s human rights, the findings show that the concepts children’s rights, human rights and (sometimes) children’s human rights are used by the teachers and the children. Mostly children’s rights are used among the younger children and human rights among the older ones. These mixtures of concepts found in the Swedish context are related to the age levels but also points at a knowledge gap on how to differentiate between human rights and children’s rights. Due to contextual differences (see Bajaj, 2011) we also find this mixture of concepts in international research: human rights education, children’s human rights education, teaching and learning children’s rights (Brantefors & Quennerstedt, 2016). Altogether, this makes the field of rights and education to a research field that is not easy to map.

An additional problem that arises when publishing articles in established journals that have a human rights education focus is that research about teaching and learning children’s rights without any links to HRE is questioned and demanded. What is obvious, when those theories are studied, is that the theories of HRE also would benefit researchers (or teachers) of the teaching and learning of children’s rights. Together, all the mentioned challenges; the widely dispersed research field, the lack of a main theory, the unclearness of conceptualisation and the problem of publishing, lead us to take a closer look on the theories in HRE.

Research about children’s rights is an extensive research field with different perspectives. There is for example educational research with an ethnographic approach (Thornberg, 2009; Giamminuti & See, 2017), curriculum analyses (Philips, 2016; Robinson, 2017; Parker, 2018), studies focusing on how children are (or should be) respected, listened to and taken seriously (I’Anson & Allan, 2006; Theobald, Danby & Ailwood, 2011) and research about student participation and citizenship (Alderson, 2016; Emerson & Lloyd, 2017; Osler & Starkey, 2018). In the following we will now present some of the characteristics of HRE and discuss the possibilities and limitations of that for the teaching and learning of children’s rights. The analysis is carried out with a theoretical exploration of mainly two newly published books on HRE: Bajaj, 2017, Human rights education, theory, research, praxis; and Zembylas & Keet, 2018, Critical human rights, citizenship and democracy education. The questions analysed are: 1. What theories/conceptions are the main ones in HRE theory. 2. What conclusions can be drawn about the possibilities and limitations of HRE theory for children’s rights education/research.

In this abstract we present three examples of systematisation in HRE theory that we suggest could be useful tools in research about children’s rights and education. 1. The question of contextual differences is discussed in detail and is related to the political situation and the nation in focus. One example discussed is how wealthy nations in the West mix HRE with democratic education and often focuses on discrimination (Bajaj, 2011). 2. Three ideological HRE approaches are suggested: (i) HRE for Global Citizenship, (ii) HRE for Coexistence and (iii) HRE for Transformative Action (Bajaj, 2011). These models are good examples of systematised experience of HRE and are based on educational and international research. They are possible models to compare with when mapping different approaches of human rights education. The approaches could also be compared with the four rights curriculum emphases showing four different views of why to teach about rights (Brantefors & Thelander, 2017). 3. HRE could either be conducted within a liberal tradition or a critical with questions of power and domination (cf. Freire, [1968/2000]; Giroux, [1983/2001]). If we further relate these traditions to literature about multicultural education, which is described as conservative (assimilation), socio-liberal or transformative and critical, the question is if this spectrum of perspectives also is found in HRE theory. The conclusion, so far, is that in HRE, systems and models are built that are not contextually bound and that could be the basis for general descriptions and analyses of human rights education or children’s rights education.

Alderson, P. (2016). International human rights, citizenship education and critical realism. London Review of Education, 14(3), 1–12. doi:https://doi.org/10.18546/LRE.14.3.01 Bajaj, M. (2011). Human rights education: Ideology, location, and approaches. Human Rights Quarterly, 33, 481–508. DOI: 10.1353/hrq.2011.0019 Bajaj, M. (red.) (2017). Human rights education: theory, research, praxis. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Brantefors, L., & Quennerstedt A. (2016). Teaching and learning children’s human rights. A research synthesis. Cogent Education 3: 1247610. DOI: 10.1080/2331186X.2016.12476 Brantefors, L., & Thelander, N. (2017). Teaching and learning traditions in children’s human rights: Curriculum emphases in theory and practice. International Journal of Children’s Rights 25(2): 456–471. DOI: 10.1163/15718182-02502009 Freire, P. (1968/2000). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York. Continum. Emerson, L., & Lloyd, K. (2017). Measuring Children's Experience of Their Right to Participate in School and Community: A Rights‐Based Approach. Children & Society, 31(2), 120–133. https://doi.org/10.1111/chso.12190 Giamminuti, S., & See, D. (2017). Early Childhood Educators’ perspectives on Children’s Rights: The Relationship between Images of Childhood and Pedagogical Practice. The international Journal of Childrens Rights, 25(1), 24–49. Giroux, H. A. (1983/2001). Theory and resistance in education: towards a pedagogy for the opposition. Rev. and expanded ed. Westport, Conn.: Bergin & Garvey I’Anson, J., & Allan, J. (2006). Children’s rights in practice: a study of change within a primary school. International Journal of Children’s Spirituality, 11(2), 265–279. Osler, A., & Starkey, H. (2018). Extending the Theory and Practice of Education for Cosmopolitan Citizenship. Educational Review, 70(1), 31–40. http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.its.uu.se/10.1080/00131911.2018.1388616 Parker, W. (2018). Human Rights Education’s Curriculum Problem. Human Rights Education Review, 1(1), 05–24. https://doi.org/10.7577/hrer.2450 Phillips, L. (2016). Human rights for children and young people ion Australian curricula. Curriculum Perspectives, 36(2), 1–14. Quennerstedt, A., Tellberg, B., Brantefors, L., & Thelander, N. (2014). Education as a greenhouse for children’s and young people’s human rights. Vetenskapsrådet [The Swedish Research Council]. Robinson, C. (2017). Translating human rights principles into classroom practices: inequities in educating about human rights. The Curriculum Journal, 28(1), 123–136. Theobald, M., Danby, S., & Ailwood, J. (2011). Child participation in the early years: Challenges for education. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 36(3), 19–26. Thornberg, R. (2009). Rules in Everyday School Life: Teacher Strategies Undermine Pupil Participation. The International Journal of Children’s Rights, 17(3), 393–413. https://doi-org.ezproxy.its.uu.se/10.1163/157181808X39559 UN (1989). Convention on the Rights of the Child. General Assembly resolution 44/25, 20 Nov. 1989. U.N. Doc. A/RES/44/25. Zembylas, M., & Keet, A. (Eds.) (2018). Critical human rights, citizenship, and democracy education: entanglements and regenerations. London: Bloomsbury Academic.