It has been 35 years since the Convention on the Rights of the Child was ratified (CRC; United Nations, 1989). This convention protects the rights of children. Article 12 addresses specifically students' voices and participation: “Children have the right to be listened to and taken seriously in matters affecting their daily lives and that the child’s view is given due weight to the evolving capacities of the child”.

Under the terms of the CRC, governments must ensure that all children are actively included and listened to when decisions are made that affect the daily lives of children (United Nations, 1989). Schools are part of the daily lives of children and therefore, according to the CRC, teachers and school staff should also actively involve children in the decision-making process (Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth, 2021; Thompson, 2011). The daily school lives of children include what pupils will learn and how things are organized at school.

Article 12 states that “the child’s view is given due weight to the pupils’ age and capacity” (United Nations, 1989). This is mostly interpreted as age-appropriate activities to facilitate student voice and teachers, in the educational context, decide which suggestions are rejected and acted upon (Bron & Veugelers, 2014; Lundy, 2007). Providing guidelines to support the interpretation of age-appropriate or “given due weight” in decisions is challenging. There are significant developmental variations among children (Bron & Veugelers, 2014). Children’s capacities are not merely determined by development but also by life- and social experiences (Thomson, 2011).

However, there are multiple theoretical frameworks (e.g. Hart, 1992; Lundy, 2007; Shier, 2001) which support researchers, practitioners and school staff in the understanding of what student voice and pupil participation entail and how this could translate to educational practices (de Leeuw et al., 2020; Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth, 2021). An implementation report on the CRC shows that the level of implementation, regarding student voice and pupil participation, varies per country (UNICEF, 2012). Notwithstanding, the enactment of student voice and pupil participation also depends on determinants such as teachers' beliefs and attitudes (Banko-Bal & Guler-Yildiz, 2021; Huić, 2022; Zorec, 2015) and teachers’ perceptions regarding which capacity and agency a pupil encompasses (Gillet-Swan & Sargeant, 2019; Huić, 2022). Research on teacher-related determinants and the enactment of student voice and pupil participation in specific is scarce. Existing materials regarding teacher attitudes and beliefs focus on general child rights. Research indicates that there is a discrepancy between positive teachers’ attitudes towards student voice and pupil participation and the enactment in the classroom (Banko-Bal & Guler-Yildiz, 2021; Huić, 2022). Explanations for this discrepancy are that teachers’ responses on questionnaires are socially desirable (Banko-Bal & Guler-Yildiz, 2021). Another explanation, which is provided in the literature, is that teachers lack the skills to implement student voice and pupil participation activities, which match their pedagogical and didactical visions (Banko-Bal & Guler-Yildiz, 2021; Huić, 2022; Zorec, 2015).

The question is if and how student voice and pupil participation are realized at primary schools. To explore these questions and establish if there are relations and mediating effects between teacher determinants, attitudes and enactment, a reliable and valid instrument is critical.

The aim of our study is threefold: first, to develop and assess the reliability of a newly designed questionnaire which assesses teacher determinants concerning student voice and pupil participation in primary education, second, to explore what teacher attitudes are and if these attitudes differ from pupil age, and third to map and analyze how student voice and pupil participation are translated and enacted upon in Dutch primary education.

A total of 90 primary school teachers participated voluntarily in this pilot study, data was collected from March to November 2023. A convenience sample technique was applied. Participants were contacted via pre-service teachers conducting an internship. All participants gave active consent to participate in our study. Instrument Development A scoping review of related literature was conducted. Via content analysis, items were selected from existing teacher attitude questionnaires (Banko-Bal & Guler-Yildiz, 2021; Bron et al., 2018; Huić, A., 2022; Karaman-Kepenekci, 2006; Ozturk & Doganay, 2017; Zorec, 2015). Most scales were focused on children’s rights education regarding the CRC in general and not specifically focusing on student voice and pupil participation (CRC, 1989). The selected items were rephrased and translated into Dutch. Questionnaire The Teacher Attitudes Questionnaire on Student Voice and Pupil Participation is a self-reporting digital questionnaire and consists of three components. The first component commences with active informed consent and questions about participants' backgrounds. The second part of the questionnaire contains 16 statements assessing teachers' attitudes towards students' voices and whether pupils are capable of voicing their needs and wishes regarding educational and curriculum decisions. Example item: “Pupils are competent to actively think about suited learning activities”. Each statement is rated with a 5-point Likert scale, per level (in Dutch bouw): “early level” (kindergarten; age range 4 to 5 years), “middle level” (grade 1-3; age range 6 to 9 years) and “upper level” (grade 4-6; age range 9-12 years). These levels represent the three stages of primary education, which are commonly used in the Dutch primary education system to cluster grades. The third part contains two components. The first component consists of 13 statements evaluating pupils' frequency of sharing their voices and participating in educational decisions. Each statement is rated per level with a 5-point Likert scale. The second component is a semi-structured inventory, collecting examples of student voice and pupil participation. Participants list which forms of pupil participation are implemented and specify per implementation which pupils participate, who the audience is, and enactment on the input. The reliability of the questionnaire was assessed by calculating Cronbach’s reliability per level. Analyses Descriptive statistics will be calculated from the teacher attitude scale and one-way within-subjects ANOVA will be conducted to assess if teachers' attitudes differ per level. The open responses in the third part of the questionnaire will be analyzed using content analysis to map forms of pupil participation.

The preliminary findings of the analysis, regarding the reliability of the newly developed questionnaire, indicate that the Teacher Attitudes Questionnaire on Student Voice and Pupil Participation is reliable with Cronbach’s Alpha values ranging between .73 and .89 (values above .70 are considered sufficient). In addition, the preliminary analysis of the mean scores per level shows an increase towards the capabilities of pupils: early level M= 3.20, SD= .57, middle level M= 3.95, SD= .45 and upper level M= 4.26, SD= .49. This indicates that teachers’ attitudes are influenced by pupils' age and that the enactment of student voice and pupil participation will differ throughout grades. These findings are in line with empirical findings (Huić, 2022; Lansdown, 2005). The preliminary findings request further analysis of the data and explore if there are correlations between teacher determinants and teacher attitudes concerning student voice and pupil participation in primary education. In addition, the psychometric properties of the questionnaire need to be further evaluated. Because the data is not yet fully analysed, it is not possible to report findings regarding the forms of pupil participation in Dutch primary schools. We intend to present and discuss the results of the pilot study and the validation data at the ECER 2024 because the next data collection is planned for February to June 2024.

Banko-Bal, C., & Guler-Yildiz, T. (2021). An investigation of early childhood education teachers’ attitudes, behaviours, and views regarding the rights of the child. International Journal of Child Care and Education Policy, 15(1), 1-26. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40723-021-00083-9 Bron, J., & Veugelers, W. (2014). Why we need to involve our students in curriculum design: Five arguments for student voice. Curriculum and Teaching Dialogue, 16(1), 125-139. Bron J., Emerson N, & Kákonyi, L. (2018). Diverse student voice approaches across Europe. European Journal of Education, (53), 310–324. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12285 de Leeuw, R.R., Little, C., & Rix, J. (2020). Something needs to be said. Some thoughts on the possibilities and limitations of ‘voice’. International Journal of Educational Research, 104, 101694. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2020.101694 Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth. (2021). Participation Framework: National Framework for Children and Young People’s Participation in Decision-making. Government of Ireland. Gillett-Swan, J.K., & Sargeant, J. (2019). Perils of perspective: Identifying adult confidence in the child’s capacity, autonomy, power and agency (CAPA) in readiness for voice-inclusive practice. Journal of Educational Change, 20(3), 399–421. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-019-09344-4 Hart, R.A. (1992). Children’s participation: From tokenism to citizenship. Innocenti Essays no. 4. International Child Development Centre. Huić, A. (2022). Children’s participation rights in schools—teachers’ beliefs and practices. Criminology & Social Integration, 30(2), 145-166. https://doi.org/10.31299/ksi.30.2.1 Karaman-Kepenekci, Y. (2006). A study of university students' attitudes towards children's rights in Turkey. The International Journal of Children's Rights, 14(3), 307-318. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/157181806778458095 Lundy, L. (2007). ‘Voice’ is not enough: Conceptualising Article 12 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. British Educational Research Journal, 33(6), 927-942. https://doi.org/10.1080/01411920701657033 Lundy, L. (2019). A lexicon for research on international children’s rights in troubled times. The International Journal of Children’s Rights, 27(4), 595–601. https://doi.org/10.1163/15718182-02704013 Ozturk, A., Doganay, A. (2017). Development of a Scale for the Attitude Towards Children’s Rights Education. Educational Process: International Journal, 6(3), 26-41. http://dx.doi.org/10.22521/edupij.2017.63.3 Shier, H. (2001). Pathways to participation: Openings, opportunities and obligations. Children & Society, 15(2), 107-117. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/chi.617 United Nations. (1989). Convention of the rights of the child. United Nations, Treaty series. UNICEF (2012). The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child: A Study of Legal Implementation in 12 Countries. United Kingdom. Thomson, P. (2011). Coming to terms with ‘voice’. In G. Czerniawski, & W. Kidd (Eds.), Student voice handbook: Bridging the academic/practitioner divide, 19–30. Emerald Group Publishing. Zorec, M.B. (2015). Children’s Participation in Slovene Preschools: The Teachers’ Viewpoints and Practice. European Education, 47(2), 154-168, http://doi.org/10.1080/10564934.2015.1039878