Children’s fundamental right to education is outlined in international conventions and declarations of the United Nations. Education rights involve the provision of high quality and equitable learning opportunities to support and respect all students. In school settings, teachers are the main-decision makers and play an important role in enacting rights practices and in ensuring all students have access to quality education.  Children with disabilities often experience greater exclusion and difficulties in accessing high-quality education compared to their peers (Cologon, 2019), so understanding teachers’ perceptions of upholding the rights of these children is important. While there is a body of educational research in the field of children’s rights, most of this research has been directed towards prior-to-school settings (e.g., early childhood education). Less is known about children’s rights in primary school settings, which is detrimental because there are differences in practices and traditions between prior-to-school settings and primary schools (Apostolou et al., 2020; Hägglund & Thelander, 2011; Quennerstedt, 2019). Furthermore, in existing research relating to teachers’ perceptions of education rights there seems to be a focus on pre-service teachers’ perspectives in non-European countries e.g., Turkey, Hong Kong, Pakistan. This focus demonstrates the need for more insight into practicing teachers’ perspectives across Europe and other parts of the word (Kiral, 2019; Lo, 2020). Therefore, the current study provided insight into children’s rights in the early years of primary education through examining school teachers’ perceptions of their role in upholding children’s rights for students with disability. This research has implications for not only Australia, but also internationally because United Nations conventions and declarations relating to children's rights for students with disabilities affect all states parties who ratify them. Findings from this study can influence how future research regarding teachers' perceptions on children's education rights is undertaken and future research can compare how Australian interpretations of international rights documents differ with other countries.

The objective of this research was to understand: (1) teachers’ perceptions regarding their obligations to uphold children’s educational rights, (2) how their perceptions differed when reflecting on their obligations to students with disabilities, and (3) how teachers report their rights-based practices.

This qualitative study followed the theoretical framework of hermeneutic phenomenology. Hermeneutic interpretation of data involved acknowledging the multiple realities that emerged through experiences and embraces the influence of the researcher’s interpretive processes and background experience (Patterson & Williams, 2002). Through using hermeneutic phenomenological rules to interpret data, the multiple realities of events described by participants were represented to demonstrate relationships between data. Hermeneutic phenomenological interpretation allowed for a holistic representation of the data rather than a reductionist representation.

Moral and political philosophical concepts and theories such as utilitarianism, rights-based liberalism, and Rawls’ Theory of Justice were used to analyse and understand how teachers’ perceptions and reported enactments of children’s rights aligned with national and international obligations (Mill, 1843; Rawls, 1971). The enactment, interpretation, and implementation of international imperatives including the United Nations’ Convention on the Rights of the Child and the convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities contains multiple layers of complexity (Lee et al., 2015). These international imperatives were created to be adaptable to the multiple systems and diverse cultures of the countries that have ratified them. However, the flexibility of international imperatives has implications for teachers’ responsibilities and their perceptions of their obligations. Even when principles or obligations are outlined exactly the way they should be enacted, the way people perceive and interpret these principles or obligations can differ (Sandel, 2011). Moral and political philosophical theorisation can support knowledge of how teachers understand, perceive, and reason their decision-making surrounding the enactments of children’s rights in education.

This exploratory study focussed on Australian teachers who had taught students from the foundation year of primary school to grade 3 (typically children aged 5 to 8 years). The study used a qualitative approach within the interpretive framework of hermeneutic phenomenology. The qualitative approach used in the current research was essential to investigating and gathering a rich understanding of how participants made meaning about the contexts and ideas they discussed. These perspectives can help provide all educational stakeholders insight into how teachers understand and are able to implement their obligations regarding children’s education rights. Participants were recruited through social media on professional Facebook groups relating to Australian teachers. During the recruitment phase of the project, Australia was experiencing lockdowns due to COVID-19 and therefore there was an unpredictability surrounding teaching and learning. Teachers across Australia were faced with challenges including moving to online learning without prior notice. Teaching challenges due to COVID-19 directly impacted the recruitment process and prospective participants’ ability to participate. Overall, 13 people contacted the researcher to participate in the project and 11 potential participants completed the consent form. However, only eight people completed interviews. Some of those who were not interviewed indicated this was due to COVID-19, time constraints, and unexpected workload. Participants were asked a series of questions relating to perceptions regarding their obligations to uphold children’s educational rights generally, then specifically for children with disabilities. The one-on-one semi-structured interviews were between 20 minutes to 1 hour long with most interviews lasting 30 minutes. Interviews were audio recorded using Zoom software and then transcribed by the researcher to prepare for analysis of the data. Interviews were undertaken online to ensure the health and safety of the participants and researcher due to the COVID-19 global pandemic. Speaker view was used to be more personable, and the researcher used handwritten notes as a guide. To ensure that all participants felt at ease with using ICTs to complete the interview there was open dialogue with the researcher before the interview about how to use the platform.

Access to high quality education is a fundamental human right and is outlined through international imperatives of the United Nations, along with national policies and legislation. The interviewed primary school teachers understood the overarching ideas of rights documents and obligations, which was evident through their reports of enacting education rights and the four general cross-cutting principles of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child: non-discrimination, best interests of the child, survival and development, and the views of the child (United Nations, 1991). Participants’ perceptions of their rights obligations and their decision-making processes in enacting rights were highly related to their teaching experiences, professional development, and personal contexts. However, participants indicated that they wished to have a greater understanding of rights enactments and to be supported in making high quality education accessible to all students. There were three key influences on participants’ perceptions and knowledge of rights obligations that could be used to inform future professional development opportunities. These three influences included: (1) knowledge of rights and rights documents, (2) contextual factors relating to experiences of rights and disabilities, and (3) use of moral reasoning (e.g., Rawls’ Theory of Justice). These three influences could inform professional development around the world to ensure all teachers, are supported to know how to enact rights obligations in education for all students, including students with disability.

Apostolou, Z., Stellakis, N., & Koustourakis, G. (2020). Pre-primary and first grade primary school teachers’ perceptions on the integration of pre-primary and first grade primary school curricula in Greece. L1 Educational Studies in Language and Literature, 20, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.17239/L1ESLL-2020.20.01.14 Cologon, K. (2019). Towards inclusive education: A necessary process of transformation. Children and Young People with Disability Australia. Hägglund, S., & Thelander, N. (2011). Children’s rights at 21: Policy, theory, practice. Education Inquiry, 2(3), 365–372. https://doi.org/10.3402/edui.v2i3.21988 Kiral, B. (2019). The investigation of the attitudes of pre-service teachers regarding the rights of the child. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 7(2), 148–156. https://doi.org/10.111114/jets.v7i2.388 Lee, J., Emerson, L., Lundy, L., & Orr. K. (2015). Teaching and learning about child rights: A study of implementation in 26 countries. http://www.unicef.org/UNCRC/files/CHILD_RIGHTS_EDUCATION_STUDY_11May.pdf Lo, Y. L. (2020). Hong Kong pre-service teachers’ attitudes towards and knowledge of children’s rights. Education, Citizenship and Social Justice, 15(2), 119–135. https://10.1177/1746197918800670 Mill, J. S. (1843). A system of logic, ratiocinative and inductive: Being a connected view of the principles of evidence, and methods of scientific investigation. John W. Parker. Patterson, M. E., & Williams, D. R. (2002). Collecting and analyzing qualitative data: Hermeneutic principles, methods, and case examples. Sagamore. Quennerstedt, A. (Ed.). (2019). Teaching children’s human rights in early childhood education and school: Reports in Education 21. Örebro University. Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Harvard University Press. Sandel, M. J. (2011). Distinguished lecture. Justice: What’s the right thing to do? Boston University Law Review, 91(4), 1303–1310. United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child. (1991). Committee on the rights of the child: General guidelines regarding the form and content of initial reports to be submitted by States Parties under Article 44, paragraph 1 (a), of the Convention. https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/137523?ln=en