UNICEF’s Rights Respecting Schools Award as children’s human rights education

ISSN 2535-5406 http://doi.org/10.7577/hrer.4761

Date received: 12-01-2022 Date accepted: 11-05-2022 Peer reviewed article

© 2022 the author(s). This is an OpenAccess publication licensed under terms given in:
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (CC-BY 4.0). https://www.humanrer.org

Research articles

UNICEF’s Rights Respecting Schools

Award as children’s human rights

education

Ann Quennerstedt

Örebro University, Sweden, ann.quennerstedt@oru.se

Abstract

Children’s human rights education is a complex area for schools to handle. Therefore, it is not

uncommon for schools and teachers to seek guidance from actors outside school. This article

examines UNICEF UK’s Rights Respecting Schools Award with the aim of shedding light on ways

in which the programme can support successful work with children’s human rights education.

The programme’s main aims are identified, and research about the programme is examined

to determine to what extent the aims seem to be achieved in schools that use it. The analysis

shows that the programme holds good potential to support successful work with children’s

HRE, but that some areas of the programme need to be developed to provide a full HRE. A

lack of strong research evidence for a programme effect is also noted.

Keywords

Rights Respecting Schools Award, RRSA, children’s human rights education, HRE, school

http://doi.org/10.7577/hrer.
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
https://www.humanrer.org/

Human Rights Education Review

Introduction

Children’s human rights education is a complex area for schools to handle. Education is a

human right in itself—essential for general development and life chances—but it should also

support the development of human rights knowledge and values. The responsibility placed on

education to respond to children’s human rights is complex and includes several elements:

equal access, knowledge acquisition, value and capacity development, a human rights culture,

respect for children as current rights holders, and a rights-respecting school environment.

Some of these aspects are responsibilities of the state, such as having a national curriculum

and teacher education (Parker, 2018). Others are to be fulfilled by the various professional

groups that staff schools, for example organising the school day and selecting educational

content and methods (Quennerstedt, 2022). Everyday school life should constitute a rights-

promoting environment. However, a dearth of national direction leaves school professionals

uncertain about what to do (Bron and Thijs, 2011; Gerber, 2008; Phillips, 2016). Teachers also

express that they lack the knowledge and training to provide children’s human rights

education (Leung et al., 2011; Tibbitts and Kirschsläger, 2010). Therefore, it is not uncommon

for schools and teachers to seek guidance from actors outside school that are perceived to be

experts in human and child rights issues. This article takes an interest in such collaboration

between schools and outside actors around children’s human rights education.

Cooperation around human rights between schools and organisations, such as UNICEF or

Amnesty International, has a long history. About a decade into the new millennium such

organisations took a further step towards supporting schools’ work with children’s and young

people’s human rights by developing educational programmes with a so-called ‘whole school-

approach’ (Covell et al., 2010). This means that the programmes aim to cover and impact all

parts of school life, not only teaching and learning in classrooms.

The contributions from external organisations have been considered to provide valuable

support in a situation when, despite being strongly endorsed by most stakeholders, human

rights education for children and young people does not seem to take place in schools to any

great extent (Lapayese, 2005; Lundy et al., 2012). The programmes can be said to operate as

substitutes for weak or absent government direction and inadequate teacher education

(Gerber, 2008; Jerome et al., 2015). Some commentators indicate that partnering with

organisations might be the only way to initiate children’s rights work in schools. Gerber (2008)

argues that organisation-supported classroom activities can also function as policy drivers, i.e.,

they may set in motion a bottom-up process for the implementation of children’s rights in

education, where the engagement of schools eventually impacts national policy.

Opening schools to outside actors is not without complications, however. One issue raised by

A. Quennerstedt

some commentators is that organisations’ agendas may not necessarily harmonise with

national school policies. The positions of the organisations may, for example, be conceived as

overly radical or political if rights education seeks to encourage societal activism (Struthers,

2019). This may be seen as problematic by teachers and policymakers (Jerome et al., 2015;

Rinaldi, 2017). It is also unclear whether the programmes draw on both topic expertise

(human rights, children’s rights) and educational expertise (the design and undertaking of

education). Transferring the responsibility for educational content and quality from schools to

external, unaccountable organisations can therefore be seen as risky (Quennerstedt, 2019;

2022).

Aim and research questions

This article seeks to extend the current knowledge about whether and how collaboration

between schools and outside actors can be an effective model for the provision of children’s

human rights education. The term ‘effective’ is here understood in the sense of adequate to

accomplish a purpose or produce an intended or expected result. The article examines one

school programme as an example of such collaboration, namely UNICEF’s Rights Respecting

Schools Award. The article will shed light on the ways in which UNICEF’s programme can be a

way to work effectively with children’s and young people’s human rights education. The

following questions have guided the study:

1. What are the main aims of UNICEF’s school programme?

2. To what extent does recent research show that the aims are achieved in schools that

use the programme?

In the study, both the programme itself and existing research about it have been analysed,

with the aim of connecting the programme’s intentions to findings from research. The Rights

Respecting Schools Award was chosen, first, because it is a widely used school programme for

rights education. In the UK where it originated, over 5000 schools are registered, and it has

also spread to other countries. Second, it is the only school programme for rights education

that has been sufficiently researched to provide the volume of material necessary for this

study.

Children’s human rights education

The UN has emphasised that human rights education (HRE) should be provided to children in

schools. The first phase of the UN’s World Programme for Human Rights Education specifically

targeted primary and secondary education (UN, 2006). The common understanding of HRE

and what it includes has evolved gradually through UN activities and scholarly engagement

(Coysh, 2017; Bajaj, 2011). The now widely accepted definition, laid down in the UN

Human Rights Education Review

Declaration on Human Rights Education and Training (UN, 2011), is:

Human rights education and training encompasses:

Education about human rights, which includes providing knowledge and

understanding of human rights norms and principles, the values that underpin them

and the mechanisms for their protection;

Education through human rights, which includes learning and teaching in a way that

respects the rights of both educators and learners;

Education for human rights, which includes empowering persons to enjoy and

exercise their rights and to respect and uphold the rights of others.

Despite clear communication from the UN and strong support for HRE in nations around the

world, it has only to a limited extent found its way into school discourse and national curricula.

Parker (2018) discusses the slow uptake of HRE in curricula and concrete educational practice

and argues that a main problem is the lack of a HRE curriculum that elaborates on subject

matter and learning goals, and on the details of basic, intermediate, and advanced levels of

human rights learning. Further, the range of concepts that are used in educational thinking to

approach similar issues—citizenship education, global citizenship education, peace education,

education for democracy, anti-racist education, and intercultural education (Bajaj, 2011;

Tibbitts, 2017; Rinaldi et al., 2020)—presents an additional problem as teachers find it difficult

to differentiate between them. That scholars take diverging stands on whether HRE is

something specific or is largely the same thing as, e.g., citizenship education or peace

education (Cassidy et al., 2014; Zembylas et al., 2015), adds to the confusion. Hence, scholarly

and professional uncertainty around what HRE is presents a difficulty that hinders the uptake

in school discourse.

Previous research on the impact of school programmes for rights education

Research that studies school programmes for children’s rights education almost exclusively

refers to the findings of two groups of scholars, whose research was conducted during the

first decade of the millennium.

First, Covell and Howe’s (and colleagues) evaluations of the school programme Rights Respect

and Responsibility are often referred to. This research reported good effects, such as increased

academic engagement, a more positive school climate, improved relationships, reduced

bullying, improved behaviour, and a higher sense of common responsibility for ethically sound

conduct (see e.g., Covell, 2010; Covell et al., 2010). They also found that some schools tended

to overemphasise responsibilities. This affected children’s understanding of the nature of

A. Quennerstedt

rights and made them believe that rights are contingent on responsibilities, leading to a

certain ‘miseducation’ (Howe and Covell, 2010).

Second, Sebba and Robinson’s evaluation (2010) of UNICEF’s Rights Respecting Schools Award

is widely referenced. The main findings showed a range of positive outcomes: extensive

knowledge about rights; positive relationships and little bullying; pupils felt empowered and

knew how to influence decisions; pupils were engaged in the rights of others and had positive

attitudes towards people with disabilities and behavioural or emotional problems; and their

engagement in learning had improved. Some concerns were also raised by the authors: the

sustainability of the effects was uncertain; reward schemes for desired attitudes and the

language used raised questions about pupils’ reasons for adapting; ‘helping poor people’-

attitudes were noted, as was contradictory communication among staff; most decisions were

still made by teachers and school leaders. Sebba and Robinson (2010) acknowledged some

methodological limitations of their study. Student participants were selected by senior

managers, and the schools in the study were all involved in other initiatives, which made it

difficult to attribute positive effects to the rights programme specifically.

Jerome et al. (2015) compiled research on the impact of child rights education published up

to 2012. They concluded that there seems to be grounds to claim a positive relation between

learning about rights and being more respectful towards others. They also found research

support for a correlation between knowledge about rights and high levels of reported

wellbeing and experiences of participation. The authors, however, also expressed concerns

that the evidence presented for the positive impact of child rights education is rather weak.

Evaluations have tended to focus on aspects that are easy to ‘measure’—such as implemented

processes—rather than on educational impact. They also pointed to methodological

weaknesses in several studies that negatively affect the findings’ trustworthiness, such as low

response rates from questionnaires, opportunistic sampling of research participants, and

relying exclusively on teachers’ reports when assessing levels of implementation. These

concerns need to be taken seriously: evidence for claims of impact must be reliable.

The Rights Respecting Schools Award programme

UNICEF’s Rights Respecting Schools Award was initiated in the UK in 2004 to help schools to

employ the UNCRC (UN, 1989) as their values framework. The programme has also been

extended to other countries (e.g., Norway, Denmark, Sweden). The UK version of the

programme is organised as an accreditation scheme; schools start at bronze level and, after

certain work and activities are undertaken and assessment passed, can receive accreditation

at silver or gold levels. UNICEF provides the framework to follow, some material and

resources, and organises training and the evaluation procedure for accreditation. The cost of

Human Rights Education Review

registration in the programme and higher accreditations varies from £100 to £1000,

depending on school size. The UK programme has undergone modification over time, and

apart from the renaming of the levels, some larger conceptual changes have been made in

recent years that have brought the programme closer to HRE terminology.

In the transfer of UNICEF UK’s version of the programme to other countries, some adaptions

can be noted. For example, in the Nordic countries the programme is called ‘Rights School’

(Denmark, Norway), and ‘Rights-based School’ (Sweden). The exclusion of the word

‘respecting’ indicates a different stance on pairing rights and respect; they are not as closely

linked as in the UK version. This could be due to earlier critical comments on

misinterpretations of respect as responsibility (Dunhill, 2019; Howe and Covell, 2010).

Furthermore, none of these countries charge schools for the programme.

Material and analysis

To explore the extent to which UNICEF’s school programme can be a way to work effectively

with children’s and young people’s human rights education, the study was designed as follows.

RQ1 – main aims

The first research question, regarding the main aims of UNICEF’s programme, was addressed

by examining all available material about the programme on the UNICEF UK website. A

decision to focus on the UK version was made as the UK webpages provide a large volume of

information in comparison with the material available on the websites of UNICEF in the Nordic

countries. The Nordic countries’ versions build on the UK’s, and their websites also have links

to UNICEF UK material. Despite a few differences, such as the previously mentioned toning

down of the use of the word ‘respect’ in the Nordic countries, the different national versions

were judged as sufficiently similar to motivate detailed analysis of only the UK version.

In the abundance of information about the programme, several alternative vocabularies are

used in parallel, which points to different aspects being core to the programme. As a result,

the central web pages/documents The three strands, Four key areas of school life, Theory of

change and the annual Impact reports communicate a rather incoherent image of the

programme. UNICEF UK does not explain how the varying conceptualisations of their

programme that are presented in the range of documents relate to each other. It is therefore

challenging to understand how they make up a whole.

The material was analysed by marking frequently used terms and aspects that were given

particular emphasis in each document or webpage. These were considered to indicate central

objectives for the programme. Key terms and aspects were collated and, through a process of

going back and forth between the material and the collated aspects and terms, the

A. Quennerstedt

information was grouped, condensed, and abstracted, until overarching aims could be

distinguished. The analysis of the programme material was therefore a process of abstracting

aims above the separate conceptualisations. The aims that constitute the findings from the

analysis are thus the construction of the researcher rather than being distinctly communicated

by UNICEF, but they build closely on the material and the different conceptualisations on

UNICEF’s webpage.

RQ2 – research support for aim achievement

The second research question, concerning research support for the achievement of the

programme’s aims, was addressed by analysing recent studies of UNICEF’s programme. To

find as many studies as possible, a systematic search for publications in all languages

accessible to the author was made via the electronic database Academic Search Elite and in

Google Scholar. Search terms used were RRSA, UNICEF, Rights Respecting Schools Award, in

different combinations with school, children’s rights and education. The reference lists of the

studies found in the electronic search were then checked to identify further publications. To

be included, the work had to:

• be published in 2011 or later;

• report on original research;

• focus on UNICEF’s school programme or feature it as a significant part of the study.

Ten publications were found. Research from a UK context dominated - all but one of the

studies had examined UNICEF UK’s programme. Only one non-UK publication was found, and

this examined the Norwegian iteration of the programme. Since the total number of identified

publications was low, it was decided to include the Norwegian study despite it being the only

one from another national context.

To respond to Jerome et al.’s (2015) caution about weak evidence due to design problems,

the ten studies underwent quality assessment. They were screened according to the following

criteria, which were weighed together to judge overall quality:

• match between the purpose of the study and the chosen research method/s and

data produced;

• account of the analysis made;

• findings and conclusions that are reasonable in relation to chosen method/s and data

produced, and to the analysis described;

• reflection on the limitations of the study.

The quality assessment led to the exclusion of three studies. Two were not seen to meet

reasonable expectations for representative sampling and sample size, as findings were

Human Rights Education Review

portrayed as representative of students and teachers generally at the studied schools. One

provided no account of the method of analysis and did not demonstrate sufficient analytical

depth. One of the seven remaining studies was excluded as it reported on the same research

as another included text. The objectives and research design of the six studies that were finally

included are summarised in Table 1.

Table 1

Analysed publications.

Publication Aim of study Research design

Dunhill, A. (2019). The language
of the human rights of children: a
critical discourse
analysis. (Doctoral dissertation,
University of Hull).

Examines to what extent
the language of human
rights of children is
incorporated into UNICEF
UK’s RRSA and how it is
presented on school
websites.

Discourse analysis of how
UNICEF UK in its RRSA
incorporates the language
of human rights of
children, and of how RRSA
schools present this
language on their website.
Text analysis.

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.

To develop and test a
children’s rights based
measure of child
participation.

Development of survey in
collaboration with
children’s advisory group.
Online survey, 3733
children 10-11 years old in
primary schools in
Northern Ireland, 595 of
these in RRSA schools
(separated in report of
findings).

Halås, C. T. (2020). UNICEFs
rettighetsskoler: En undersøkelse
av to pilotskolers erfaringer med å
bli UNICEF rettighetsskoler
[UNICEF’s rights schools: an
examination of two pilot schools’
experiences of becoming a
UNICEF rights school]. FoU-
rapport nr 58. (R&D-report).
Bodö: Nord universitet.

Examines how children
and adults experience
participation and results
when becoming a
UNICEF Norway Rights
School.

Visits to two pilot primary
schools during two years.
Data sources were
research led workshops
with children, and
interviews with students,
teachers, and leaders.
Thematic analysis.

Webb, R. (2014). Doing the rights
thing: An ethnography of a

Examines implications of
adopting a dominant

Ethnographic research
during 10 months in

A. Quennerstedt

Publication Aim of study Research design

dominant discourse of rights in a
primary school in
England. (Doctoral dissertation,
University of Sussex).

discourse of rights as a
framework for guiding
policy and practice in a
RRSA school.

English primary school.
Discourse analysis of
ethnographic data;
observations, interviews,
texts.

Winch, A. (2020). Our voices
matter: How student voice is
understood, enacted and
experienced explored through
case studies of ‘Rights Respecting
Schools’ in England. (Doctoral
dissertation, University of Exeter).

Develops a detailed
understanding of how
student voice is
conceptualised, enabled,
enacted and experienced
by students, teachers
and leaders.

Case studies of three
English secondary RRSA
schools. Data sources
were interviews,
observations, focus
groups, provision
mapping. Thematic
analysis.

Woods, F., & Bond, C. (2020).
How does a Level 2 Rights
Respecting School facilitate play
for children with special
educational needs and disabilities
(SEND)? International Journal of
Playwork Practice, 1(1), 1-31.

Examines how a RRSA
school facilitates play for
children with special
educational needs and
disabilities.

Single case study of
English RRSA primary
school. Data sources were
child and teacher
interviews and
observations.

Thematic analysis.

The studies were read in full. None of them had the explicit aim of evaluating the programme

or assessing the achievement of its goals. Instead, they focused on a specific issue or aspect.

However, descriptions and analyses contained rich information, and therefore offered insights

into a wide range of programme-related matters. The findings presented in the different

studies were reflected against the aims identified in the analysis of the programme. This

entailed several steps: first, findings that were seen as relevant were collected for each aim.

The collected findings for each aim were then analysed to identify qualitatively different

elements. Finally, an assessment was made of the research support for both the achievement

of each respective aim and concerns raised relating to the aim.

It should be acknowledged that the low number of publications limits the conclusions that can

be drawn from the study. As argued earlier, the need to shed new light on the use of school

programmes for children’s human rights education still motivates attention to the limited

work that has been done. The findings of this study add important elements that enable us to

get a more credible picture of whether whole school programmes can provide a good model

for children’s HRE; however, they cannot provide a definitive answer.

Human Rights Education Review

Findings

The findings will be presented in two sections, corresponding to the research questions. In the

first section, references to UNICEF documents are given with short names (see legend before

references).

What are the main aims of UNICEF school programme?

Based on the information on its webpages, the following three main aims of UNICEF UK’s

Rights Respecting Schools Award were identified:

1. Students’ experiences in school should be positive.

2. Students’ capacity as rights holders should be built.

3. Adults’ rights competence should increase.

Aim 1: Students’ experiences in school should be positive

That schools offer students experiences that are positive and promote their wellbeing is a core

ambition of UNICEF’s programme. Experiences of feeling valued, safe, and of being heard in

school stand out as very significant. That students feel and are safe and protected is

emphasised; the Theory of Change documentation, for example, states as a long-term impact

that ‘Children feel safe in school’. Positive relations between students and teachers, and

between students, are also frequently pointed out as decisive for wellbeing in school. To show

that the programme affects relations positively, the 2020 Evidence Report (Theory+) describes

an ‘increase in those who agreed that pupils were kind and helpful’. The centrality of positive

experiences, from being able to express your views and being listened to, is demonstrated in

statements such as: ‘teachers and teaching assistants listen positively to pupils’ views and

show respect for their opinions’ (Toolbox+). Further, the school community should be founded

on dignity and mutual respect for rights and non-discrimination, which will let students

experience being treated as equals (Strands+; Impact).

These positive experiences are to be achieved by embedding rights principles and values into

all school matters and contexts. A rights-based perspective is accordingly expected to have a

transformational effect on the school environment and human relations in school, and

thereby on students’ experiences. An undercurrent to this line of argumentation is found in

the material in indications that students’ present experiences are unsatisfactory and should

be improved. This is disclosed by statements such as: ‘The Award improves the lives of children

in the UK by taking a whole school approach to putting children’s rights at the heart of school

policy and practice’(Impact), or the very name of the Theory of Change (emphasis added).

The aim mainly takes a here-and-now perspective – children are seen to be entitled to

experiences that are beneficial for their present wellbeing. But there are also some future-

directed aspects of this aim. Positive school experiences are expected to build self-esteem and

A. Quennerstedt

confidence, which will contribute to further growth and development.

Aim 2: Students’ capacity as rights holders should be built

That students develop as rights holders and increase their capacities to claim, exercise and

protect rights is also a main aim of the programme. Such capacities are seen to build on

knowledge about the UNCRC and an understanding of what rights mean in their own and

others’ lives. The centrality of knowledge development is demonstrated in such phrases as

‘The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) is made known to children’

(Strands) and ‘children have a better knowledge of children’s rights and what these mean in

their lives’ (Theory).

Increased knowledge about the Convention is assumed to have a range of both immediate

and long-term effects. One immediate effect anticipated is that children who know their rights

will be ‘empowered to enjoy and exercise their rights and promote the rights of others’

(Strands). Having knowledge about rights is assumed to make it easier for children to recognise

when their own or other children’s rights are being breached in school (Theory). There is also

an expectation that knowledge about the Convention will make children themselves better

respect the rights of others in school. This will reduce ‘[n]on-rights respecting behaviours such

as bullying and discrimination’ (Theory).

Developing capacities to express an opinion and to take part in decision making are frequently

pointed out as central. This is seen in such outcomes as ‘Young people can express their

opinions, have been involved in decisions about their life in school’ (Strand+) and

‘Opportunities for children to participate in decisions that affect them’ (Theory).

More lasting impacts on rights holder capacity are also estimated. Rights-respecting attitudes

are anticipated to support development towards improved global justice and sustainable

living. For example, students are expected to ‘develop a strong sense of social justice and

knowledge of local and global issues from a rights perspective and become ambassadors for

rights’ (Toolbox+), and to ‘become “active”, politically engaged citizens’ (Theory). Thus, school

is seen as key to the development of long-term engagement in social justice issues and

children’s capacity to be active citizens who can contribute to change.

Aim 3: Adults’ rights competence should increase

The third main aim that is identified in UNICEF’s programme targets adults in schools,

particularly teachers. Adults are not expected to already have sufficient knowledge about the

UNCRC and rights for children. This is evident in several passages that state that the

Convention should be made known to adults/teachers or that they should develop better

knowledge of it (Strands, Theory). Attention is also directed to the actions of adults in school:

‘The Award is not just about what children do but also, importantly, what adults do’ (Key

Human Rights Education Review

Areas). To support schools and teachers to develop knowledge and capacities, UNICEF

arranges training for adults about the programme and about the Convention.

Adults are sometimes called ‘duty bearers’ in the material, which is a strong concept that does

not entirely match the more lenient tone concerning teachers’ knowledge. It is spelled out

that adults, as duty bearers, are ‘accountable for ensuring that children experience their

rights’ (Strands).

To what extent does recent research show that the aims are achieved in

schools that use the programme?

In the following I will account for findings in the reviewed research that support the view that

programme schools achieve the aims elaborated above, or that question the extent of the

contributions. To make the text more readable, references to the six analysed publications are

given with surnames only in the running text (with publication year given the first time a

publication is referenced).

Aim 1 – Students’ experiences in school should be positive

The collated research findings that relate to the first aim show that the programme positively

affects school experiences, but also cast some doubt over the same claim.

Halås (2020), Winch (2020) and Woods & Bond (2020) show that most students who attend

programme schools talk favourably about their everyday school lives and social relations in

their schools. For example, students in Halås’ and Winch’s studies describe feeling part of a

community characterised by mutual recognition and considerate friendliness, where violence

and conflicts are uncommon. Most students also report that they can have a say in most

matters, are listened to, and can often influence decisions. In Emerson & Lloyd’s (2017) study,

students in programme schools report higher levels of participation than students in non-

programme schools. The studies also show that some students disagree with the overall

satisfaction conveyed by most students.

The research also commonly demonstrates that most teachers in the schools visited report

that changes for the better have taken place since joining the programme. Teachers say that

the social relations have improved, mainly between students but also between students and

teachers. For example, the teachers in Halås’ study report that there are less conflicts, that

students’ ability to see others’ perspectives has improved and that the school environment

feels safer. The most significant change reported by teachers relates to students’ involvement

in discussion and decision making, which is seen to have improved considerably.

Reports from students and teachers in these studies offer support for the view that most

students’ experiences of everyday life in programme schools are positive. It is more difficult

A. Quennerstedt

to conclude, however, to what extent this is attributable to joining the programme, as the only

evidence presented is teachers’ accounts in interviews. Another aspect that casts some doubt

over claims that perceived changes and the current satisfactory situation can be attributed to

the programme is that several schools in the studies describe themselves as having been

competent and interested in student participation, social relations, and inclusivity before they

started the programme. The programme is seen to give a language and a framework for what

they think they were already doing.

Aim 2 – Students’ capacity as rights holders should be built

The reviewed research clearly shows that the programme schools studied do actively seek to

develop students’ capacities as rights holders. There is much work to facilitate students’

opportunities and abilities to have a say in and influence aspects of their school day and

environment. Halås, Winch, Webb (2014), and Woods & Bond all report on practices in the

schools that aim to strengthen students’ desire and capacity to take part in discussions and

decision making, and they all report that students describe having a say in most matters, being

listened to and often being able to affect decisions. The rights council is, in Halås’ study,

described as giving more power to the students than the students’ council. Winch finds that

students’ feeling that they have a voice is not diminished when their views do not, in the end,

change the decision; the students understand that they cannot always get what they want.

Teachers report that students have responded to these changes by becoming more engaged

in discussions and decision making, and by starting to claim scope for influence. For example,

the secondary school students in Winch’s study have formed ‘lobbying groups’, which are

considered to be very influential. Webb argues that the efforts made in relation to giving

students more scope to state their views and to influence decisions develop their citizenship

capacities and even hold the potential to foster future activism.

A second rights-related area through which schools clearly build rights capacity is non-

discriminatory and inclusive relationships. The research reports that students in the

programme schools generally show awareness of the equal value of all persons and think that

differing views or physical or cultural characteristics should be valued, or at least respected.

Woods and Bond observe that children adapt ongoing play when it is needed for a child with

physical disabilities, for example, to take part. Students in Halås’ study connect rights to

bullying and loneliness, and reflect on dilemmas in relations and groups. Winch reports

students as saying that with voice comes collective responsibility; voices of hate or

discriminatory attacks on persons should not go unchallenged.

Taken together, the research solidly supports the view that the high ambitions in UNICEF

programme schools to develop students’ capacity to state their views, take part in decision

Human Rights Education Review

making and to act in inclusive and non-discriminatory ways can be achieved. Nevertheless,

this represents a narrow scope in terms of rights education: the development of capacity in

other rights-related areas is barely visible in the research. For example, students’ knowledge

about rights is an area for capacity building that is highly prioritised in NICEF’s description of

the programme. Knowledge about the UNCRC, the rights and their meaning is said to be the

foundation on which our capacity as rights holders rests. Very little can be found, however,

about programme schools’ work to develop such knowledge. Halås briefly mentions that

rights learning in these schools has improved, but also reports that when asked to state rights,

most children interviewed found it hard to remember any. Winch notes that rights teaching

was seen in the silver and gold schools, but in the bronze school she writes that ‘[e]xplicitly

teaching about rights is not yet an integral part of the school’s practice, and student

participants do not have an awareness of their rights’ (p. 147).

Aim 3 – Adults’ rights competence should increase

Teachers in Winch’s, Halås’ and Woods & Bond’s studies say consistently that the programme

has expanded their knowledge about the Convention and rights for children, and that their

understanding and commitment have grown. The framework and language that the

programme provides is said to guide thinking and action. For example, teachers in Halås’ study

say that they have gained a new comprehension of what it means to listen to children, and

that they have changed the way they collaborate with children. The research also

demonstrates that adults in programme schools are aware of how important leadership and

policy are to achieve any change, and that structures and practices must be in line with what

is communicated in policies. This improvement in adults’ rights competence is only verified by

the teachers’ self-reported elevation in knowledge and commitment, which by itself is weak

evidence for a programme effect.

Studies that have examined practice in these schools point out that not all teachers are

enthusiastic about the programme, and some are sceptical and do not want to prioritise rights

work. Webb finds that many school professionals find it a challenge to be the kind of adult the

programme asks for. The research does not really discuss that several teachers responsible for

implementing the programme take on this role somewhat unwillingly and what the

consequences of this might be.

Dunhill’s (2019) examination of schools’ written material raises questions about whether the

knowledge level and commitment to children’s rights in the programme schools have

increased as reported by the teachers. First, she shows that the examined programme schools

do not employ UNCRC language to a great degree, and references to or quotations from it

quite often contain direct errors. Instead, UNICEF’s language is repeated, including its focus

on ‘rights-respecting’ (rather than rights). According to Dunhill and Webb, this risks producing

A. Quennerstedt

a rights-respecting discourse, rather than a rights discourse. Second, Dunhill demonstrates

that some elements in schools’ information about their rights work conflict with basic ideas of

children’s human rights; for example, statements that some rights are more important than

others, and frequent reference to responsibilities.

Some findings from studies of school practice also counter the impression of the programme’s

positive effects on adults’ rights competence. Instances where schools’ and teachers’

reasoning does not harmonise with rights principles are demonstrated. Winch finds, for

example, that rights for children are presented as conditional on competence, and notes that

students’ participation (judged according to a four-step scale) in two of the visited schools is

restricted to the two lowest steps. Webb shows how the ‘empowered’ child subject

constructed in UNICEF’s program becomes a taken-for-granted figure of the child. She reports

how, in the school in her study, this image of the child makes school staff less inclined or

prepared to notice gendered patterns that negatively affect girls.

Discussion

The overarching concern of this article is to contribute elaborated knowledge about whether

collaboration between schools and outside actors can support children’s HRE. To bring

UNICEF’s programme and HRE closer together, the following discussion will integrate the

study’s findings with HRE terminology and thinking. The insights from the analysis of UNICEF’s

Rights Respecting Schools Award, and of previous research on UNICEF’s programme, will be

mapped onto the three elements of a full-scale HRE—education about, through and for human

rights—and critically considered. Table 2 shows, in the left-hand column, how the three aims

and their main content relate to the HRE framework. The middle column shows research

findings that support that the programme has led to progress towards the aims, and the right-

hand column shows findings that question the extent of the programme’s positive

contribution.

Human Rights Education Review

Table 2

Programme aims and research findings related to HRE framework.

Programme aims mapped
onto the HRE framework

Findings from the analysis that support or question
programme contributions to achieving the aims

Education about rights

Build rights capacity

Knowledge about the
Convention and about the
meaning of rights

Findings that support

Many students seem
familiar with everyone’s
equal value and can name
some rights.

Findings that question

Findings on
teaching/learning about
rights or students’
knowledge limited and
unclear.

Education through rights

Positive school experience

Positive experiences in the
present in relation to:

- being safe
- expressing opinions
- being heard
- being equally treated

Findings that support

Student satisfaction with
school community’s safety
and friendliness, possibility
to express opinions and to
be heard.

Teachers claim programme
effect – improvement in
relations and participation.

Findings that question

No comparison with non-
programme schools.

Schools describe being
committed before joining
programme.

Increase adult rights
competence

- increased knowledge
- actions in accordance

with knowledge
- adults as duty bearers

Teachers say the
programme has expanded
their knowledge and
changed their way of acting.

Errors in written material
and ideas not in line with
rights.

Disharmonising reasoning
and actions by teachers.

Some teachers
unwilling/sceptical.

Only teachers’ self-
reporting.

No comparison with non-
program schools.

A. Quennerstedt

Programme aims mapped
onto the HRE framework

Findings from the analysis that support or question
programme contributions to achieving the aims

Education for rights

Build rights capacity

Empowered in the present
to:

- enjoy and exercise rights
- protect rights of others
- identify rights breaches
- express opinion
- take part in decision

making

Findings that support

Schools work actively a) to
build students’ capacity to
express opinions and take
part in decisions, and b) to
develop students’ views on
difference and equality.
Teachers claim programme
effect – improvement in
students’ engagement and
claims for influence.

Findings that question

Narrow scope of capacity
building displayed.

No comparison with non-
programme schools.

Empowered in the future
to be:

- active politically engaged
citizen

- committed to social
justice issues, locally and
globally

Schools work to build
capacity for actions that
confirm the human dignity
and equal value of
everyone.

As can be seen, UNICEF’s programme engages in all elements of HRE. Regarding education

about rights, the programme emphasises knowledge development, but existing research does

not offer much detail about whether this takes place in schools or not, how it is done, or what

knowledge students have. Clearly, researchers have not chosen to examine this matter; none

of the studies in this analysis examined rights teaching or students’ knowledge. Some possible

reasons may be: (1) the dominant interest in the field of children’s rights studies in issues of

‘participation’, identified in earlier reviews (Reyneart et al., 2009; Quennerstedt 2020); (2) the

tendency noticed by Jerome and colleagues (2015) to study processes rather than impact,

which is difficult to measure; and (3) the lack of a HRE curriculum, as discussed by Parker

(2018). It is not possible, therefore, to come to a research-based conclusion about whether

UNICEF’s school programme is a way to work effectively toward education about rights. One

concern is the programme’s placing of the UNCRC as the main object of knowledge, rather

than children’s rights or human rights. This is often expressed in terms of students developing

‘knowledge about the Convention’. The strong emphasis on the Convention itself might

distract from deeper considerations of what rights are and mean, and risk limiting learning.

Further, human rights, or the wider body of international legislation that surrounds human

Human Rights Education Review

rights, are not suggested in the programme to be part of the knowledge that students should

draw on when learning about rights. These aspects constitute clear areas of development for

the programme if it is to meet the requirements for HRE.

Education through rights can be said to be the main focus of UNICEF’s programme. There is a

strong emphasis on respectful social relations, students’ wellbeing and being heard, and the

centrality of adults’ approach, commitment and actions are underlined. There is a clear

alignment between the UN’s (2011) description of what education through rights entails and

the two programme aims mapped to this HRE element. A good deal of research supports that

the work done in programme schools to make students’ experiences positive has a real effect.

But some findings, and a lack of comparative research, raise questions about the extent to

which the effects can be specifically accredited to the programme. In terms of the increase of

adults’ rights competence, research that supports the effect of the programme is weak as it

only draws on self-reporting, and several research findings question whether adults’

competence has increased as much as claimed by teachers themselves. Again, no comparative

studies are available to confirm that adults in programme schools have a more developed

rights competence than teachers in non-programme schools. Taken together, it can be

concluded that UNICEF’s school programme might well be a way to work effectively with the

HRE element education through rights: the programme provides good support and research

findings are promising. There are too many question marks to claim any certainty, however.

Finally, regarding education for rights, the programme aims to build a rights capacity that

covers a reasonably wide area, and so aligns fairly well with how the UN describes what

education for rights should achieve. Further, the programme includes both present and future

empowerment. The research findings demonstrate that capacity building is prioritised in

programme schools, but that their concrete work seems limited to a few rights areas, and

accordingly builds a narrower rights capacity than the one aimed for by UNICEF. For these

restricted capacities, good effects are demonstrated by the research. To include a wider range

of rights capacities in schools’ capacity building efforts is an obvious area for development for

UNICEF and schools that work within the programme. The lack of comparative research also

hinders the possibility to conclude with certainty that there is a programme effect; whether

programme schools’ rights capacity work is better than non-programme schools’ has not been

studied. Taken together, the programme itself holds a good potential to effectively guide

education for rights, but the work in schools does not seem to be broad enough to meet what

is expected from a HRE perspective.

Conclusions and looking forward

This study can conclude that UNICEF’s Rights Respecting Schools Award can provide good

A. Quennerstedt

support for effective work with children’s human rights education; however, it also concludes

that the programme needs development. The weakest part of the programme regards

education about rights, where significant improvement to conform to the standards that can

be expected from a HRE viewpoint seems vital. As Parker (2018) notes, a curriculum of HRE

could aid such development. Concerning education through and for rights, the programme

harmonises well with HRE ambitions, but the actual work in schools seems to be narrower

than what the programme aims for, and the changes might not be as extensive as argued. A

recommendation to UNICEF is to consider how the programme can push for a broader

approach by schools.

In 2015, Jerome et al. pointed out positive effects of school programmes that are well

supported by the research evidence. This study confirms these effects and elaborates on how

they take concrete form in educational practice. The evidence for programme effect remains

quite weak. I suggest that future research about school programmes for rights education

should consider this when designing research, so that stronger evidence can be obtained. This

includes thorough considerations of sample sizes and selection of research participants, to

ensure that data is sufficient and representative of the school population, and undertaking

comparative research that includes the situations in and reports from both programme

schools and non-programme ones. As noted above, there is also a dire need for studies that

examine programmes’ impact on students’ knowledge about rights.

School programmes devised by outside actors are and will continue to be a valuable support

for teachers and schools in their efforts to provide HRE for children and young people. In the

long term, however, HRE needs to become a standard part of teachers’ professional

competence. Relying on outside actors cannot be a permanent solution for HRE in schools.

We are not there yet, however, and such school programmes will aid the development in the

meantime.

Table 3

Legend and links to referenced UNICEF material.

Short name Full name Link

Strands (+) Working towards the
RRSA. The strands of
a rights respecting
school (webpage)

https://www.unicef.org.uk/rights-
respecting-schools/the-rrsa/the-rrsa-
strands/

https://www.unicef.org.uk/rights-respecting-schools/the-rrsa/the-rrsa-strands/
https://www.unicef.org.uk/rights-respecting-schools/the-rrsa/the-rrsa-strands/
https://www.unicef.org.uk/rights-respecting-schools/the-rrsa/the-rrsa-strands/

Human Rights Education Review

Short name Full name Link

Key areas What is a rights
respecting school?
(webpage)

https://www.unicef.org.uk/rights-
respecting-schools/the-rrsa/what-is-a-
rights-respecting-school/

https://www.unicef.org.uk/ri

Toolbox (+) Teaching and
learning toolbox
(webpage)

https://www.unicef.org.uk/rights-
respecting-schools/resources/teaching-
resources/teaching-learning-toolbox/

Theory Unicef UK Rights
Respecting Schools
Award Theory of
Change (pdf
download)

https://www.unicef.org.uk/rights-
respecting-schools/wp-
content/uploads/sites/4/2018/01/RRSA-
Theory-of-Change-Evidence-Booklet.pdf

Impact (+) The impact of the
reward. Safe,
respected, engaged
(webpage)

https://www.unicef.org.uk/rights-
respecting-schools/the-rrsa/impact-of-
rrsa/

Note: A + after the short name indicates that one or several other pages or pdf-downloads can be

accessed from the link stated.

References

Bajaj, M. (2011). Human rights education: Ideology, location, and approaches. Human Rights

Quarterly, 33(2), 481-508. https://doi.org/10.1353/hrq.2011.0019

Bron, J., & Thijs, A. (2011). Leaving it to the schools: citizenship, diversity and human rights

education in the Netherlands. Educational Research, 53(2), 123-136.

https://doi.org/10.1080/00131881.2011.572361

Cassidy, C., Brunner, R. & Webster, E. (2014). Teaching human rights? ‘All hell will break

loose!’. Education, Citizenship and Social Justice, 9(1), 19-33.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1746197913475768

Covell, K., Howe, R. B., & McNeil, J. K. (2010). Implementing children’s human rights

education in schools. Improving Schools, 13(2), 117-132.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1365480210378942

Covell, K. (2010) School engagement and rights-respecting schools. Cambridge Journal of

Education, 40(1), 39-51. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057640903567021

https://www.unicef.org.uk/rights-respecting-schools/the-rrsa/what-is-a-rights-respecting-school/
https://www.unicef.org.uk/rights-respecting-schools/the-rrsa/what-is-a-rights-respecting-school/
https://www.unicef.org.uk/rights-respecting-schools/the-rrsa/what-is-a-rights-respecting-school/
https://www.unicef.org.uk/ri
https://www.unicef.org.uk/rights-respecting-schools/resources/teaching-resources/teaching-learning-toolbox/
https://www.unicef.org.uk/rights-respecting-schools/resources/teaching-resources/teaching-learning-toolbox/
https://www.unicef.org.uk/rights-respecting-schools/resources/teaching-resources/teaching-learning-toolbox/
https://www.unicef.org.uk/rights-respecting-schools/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2018/01/RRSA-Theory-of-Change-Evidence-Booklet.pdf
https://www.unicef.org.uk/rights-respecting-schools/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2018/01/RRSA-Theory-of-Change-Evidence-Booklet.pdf
https://www.unicef.org.uk/rights-respecting-schools/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2018/01/RRSA-Theory-of-Change-Evidence-Booklet.pdf
https://www.unicef.org.uk/rights-respecting-schools/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2018/01/RRSA-Theory-of-Change-Evidence-Booklet.pdf
https://www.unicef.org.uk/rights-respecting-schools/the-rrsa/impact-of-rrsa/
https://www.unicef.org.uk/rights-respecting-schools/the-rrsa/impact-of-rrsa/
https://www.unicef.org.uk/rights-respecting-schools/the-rrsa/impact-of-rrsa/
https://doi.org/10.1353/hrq.2011.0019
https://doi.org/10.1080/00131881.2011.572361
https://doi.org/10.1177/1746197913475768
https://doi.org/10.1177/1365480210378942
https://doi.org/10.1080/03057640903567021

A. Quennerstedt

Coysh, J. (2017). Human rights education and the politics of knowledge. London: Routledge.

https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315769493

Dunhill, A. (2019). The language of the human rights of children: a critical discourse analysis

(Doctoral dissertation). University of Hull, UK. Retrieved from

https://hydra.hull.ac.uk/resources/hull:17288

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

Gerber, P. (2008). From convention to classroom: The long road to human rights education

(Doctoral dissertation). University of Melbourne, Australia. Retrieved from

https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/162212075.pdf

Halås, C. T. (2020). UNICEFs rettighetsskoler: En undersøkelse av to pilotskolers erfaringer

med å bli UNICEF rettighetsskoler [UNICEF’s rights schools: an examination of two pilot

schools’ experiences of becoming a UNICEF rights school]. FoU-rapport nr 58. (R&D-

report). Bodö: Nord universitet.

Howe, R. B., & Covell, K. (2010). Miseducating children about their rights. Education,

Citizenship and Social Justice, 5(2), 91-102.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1746197910370724

Jerome, L., Emerson, L., Lundy, L., & Orr, K. (2015). Teaching and learning about child rights:

A study of implementation in 26 countries. Queens University Belfast/UNICEF.

Retrieved from https://www.unicef.org/media/63086/file/UNICEF-Teaching-and-

learning-about-child-rights.pdf

Lapayese, Y. (2005). National initiatives in human rights education: The implementation of

human rights education policy reform in schools. In J. Zajda, K. Freeman, M. Geo-Jaja,

S. Majhanovic, V. Rust, R. Zajda (Eds.), International handbook on globalisation,

education and policy research (pp. 389-404). Dordrecht: Springer.

https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-2960-8_25

Leung, Y. W., Yuen, T. W. W., & Chong, Y. K. (2011). School‐based human rights education:

Case studies in Hong Kong secondary schools. Intercultural education, 22(2), 145-162.

https://doi.org/10.1080/14675986.2011.567072

Lundy, L., Kilkelly, U., Byrne, B., & Kang, J. (2012). The UN Convention on the Rights of the

Child: a study of legal implementation in 12 countries. Belfast, Northern Ireland:

Queen’s University Belfast/UNICEF UK. Retrieved from https://www.unicef.org.uk/wp-

content/uploads/2012/11/UNICEFUK_2012CRCimplementationreport-FINAL-PDF-

version.pdf

https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315769493
https://hydra.hull.ac.uk/resources/hull:17288
https://doi.org/10.1111/chso.12190
https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/162212075.pdf
https://doi.org/10.1177/1746197910370724
https://www.unicef.org/media/63086/file/UNICEF-Teaching-and-learning-about-child-rights.pdf
https://www.unicef.org/media/63086/file/UNICEF-Teaching-and-learning-about-child-rights.pdf
https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-2960-8_25
https://doi.org/10.1080/14675986.2011.567072
https://www.unicef.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/UNICEFUK_2012CRCimplementationreport-FINAL-PDF-version.pdf
https://www.unicef.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/UNICEFUK_2012CRCimplementationreport-FINAL-PDF-version.pdf
https://www.unicef.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/UNICEFUK_2012CRCimplementationreport-FINAL-PDF-version.pdf

Human Rights Education Review

Parker, W. C. (2018). Human rights education’s curriculum problem. Human Rights Education

Review, 1(1), 05-24. https://doi.org/10.7577/hrer.2450

Quennerstedt, A. (2022). Children’s and young people’s human rights education in school:

cardinal complications and a middle ground. Journal of Human Rights, 21(4), 383-398.

https://doi.org/10.1080/14754835.2021.2014795

Quennerstedt, A. (Ed.) (2019). Teaching children’s human rights in early childhood education

and school. Educational aims, content and processes. Reports in Education 21. Örebro

University, Sweden. Retrieved from

https://www.oru.se/contentassets/a9223a988167438cb1dd78e959ba2aca/teaching-

childrens-human-rights-in-early-childhood-education-and-school.-educational-aims-

content-and-processes-eng.pdf

Quennerstedt, A. (2010). Children, But Not Really Humans? Critical Reflections on the

Hampering Effect of the “3 p’s”. International Journal of Children’s Rights, 18(4), 619-

635. https://doi.org/10.1163/157181810X490384

Reynaert, D., Bouverne-de-Bie, M. & Vandevelde, S. (2009). A review of children’s rights

literature since the adoption of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the

Child. Childhood, 16(4), 518-534. https://doi.org/10.1177/0907568209344270

Rinaldi, S. (2017). Challenges for human rights education in Swiss secondary schools from a

teacher perspective. Prospects, 47(1-2), 87-100. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11125-018-

9419-z

Rinaldi, S., Moody, Z. & Darbellay, F. (2020). Children’s Human Rights Education in Swiss

Curricula An Intercultural Perspective into Educational Concepts. Swiss Journal of

Educational Research, 42(1), 64-83.

Sebba, J., & Robinson, C. (2010). Evaluation of UNICEF UK’s rights respecting schools award

(RRSA). London: UNICEF UK. Retrieved from https://www.unicef.org.uk/rights-

respecting-schools/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2014/12/RRSA_Evaluation_Report.pdf

Struthers, A. (2015). Human rights education: Educating about, through and for human

rights. The International Journal of Human Rights, 19(1), 53-73.

https://doi.org/10.1080/13642987.2014.986652

Struthers, A. (2016). Human rights: A topic too controversial for mainstream education?

Human Rights Law Review, 16(1), 131-162. https://doi.org/10.1093/hrlr/ngv040

Tibbitts, F. (2017). Revisiting ‘emerging models of human rights education’. International

Journal of Human Rights Education, 1(1), 2.

https://doi.org/10.7577/hrer.2450
https://doi.org/10.1080/14754835.2021.2014795
https://www.oru.se/contentassets/a9223a988167438cb1dd78e959ba2aca/teaching-childrens-human-rights-in-early-childhood-education-and-school.-educational-aims-content-and-processes-eng.pdf
https://www.oru.se/contentassets/a9223a988167438cb1dd78e959ba2aca/teaching-childrens-human-rights-in-early-childhood-education-and-school.-educational-aims-content-and-processes-eng.pdf
https://www.oru.se/contentassets/a9223a988167438cb1dd78e959ba2aca/teaching-childrens-human-rights-in-early-childhood-education-and-school.-educational-aims-content-and-processes-eng.pdf
https://doi.org/10.1163/157181810X490384
https://doi.org/10.1177/0907568209344270
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11125-018-9419-z
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11125-018-9419-z
https://www.unicef.org.uk/rights-respecting-schools/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2014/12/RRSA_Evaluation_Report.pdf
https://www.unicef.org.uk/rights-respecting-schools/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2014/12/RRSA_Evaluation_Report.pdf
https://doi.org/10.1080/13642987.2014.986652
https://doi.org/10.1093/hrlr/ngv040

A. Quennerstedt

Tibbitts, F., & Kirchschläger, P. G. (2010). Perspectives of research on human rights

education. Journal of Human Rights Education, 2(1), 8-29.

United Nations (UN) (1989, November 20). Convention on the Rights of the Child (Treaty

Series, 1577). Adopted and opened for signature, ratification and accession by General

Assembly resolution 44/25. Retrieved from

https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/crc.aspx

United Nations (UN) (2006). World Programme for Human Rights Education First Phase. New

York and Geneva: United Nations. Retrieved from

https://www.ohchr.org/en/resources/educators/human-rights-education-

training/world-programme-human-rights-

education/phase1#:~:text=The%20first%20phase%20%282005-

2009%29%20of%20the%20World%20Programme,education%20in%20the%20primary

%20and%20secondary%20school%20systems.

United Nations (UN) (2011, December 19). United Nations Declaration on Human Rights

Education and Training. Adopted by the General Assembly, Resolution 66/137,

A/RES/66/137, 19 December 2011. Retrieved from

https://www.ohchr.org/en/resources/educators/human-rights-education-training/11-

united-nations-declaration-human-rights-education-and-training-2011

Webb, R. (2014). Doing the rights thing: An ethnography of a dominant discourse of rights in

a primary school in England. (Doctoral dissertation). University of Sussex, UK. Retrieved

from http://sro.sussex.ac.uk/id/eprint/50800/

Winch, A. (2020). Our voices matter: How student voice is understood, enacted and

experienced explored through case studies of ‘Rights Respecting Schools’ in England.

(Doctoral dissertation). University of Exeter, UK. Retrieved from

https://ore.exeter.ac.uk/repository/handle/10871/122735

Woods, F., & Bond, C. (2020). How does a Level 2 Rights Respecting School facilitate play for

children with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND)? International Journal

of Playwork Practice, 1(1), 1-31. https://doi.org/10.25035/ijpp.01.01.01

Zembylas, M., Charalambous, P., Lesta, S., & Charalambous, C. (2015). Primary school

teachers’ understandings of human rights and human rights education (HRE) in Cyprus:

An exploratory study. Human Rights Review, 16(2), 161-182.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s12142-014-0331-5

https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/crc.aspx
https://www.ohchr.org/en/resources/educators/human-rights-education-training/world-programme-human-rights-education/phase1#:~:text=The%20first%20phase%20%282005-2009%29%20of%20the%20World%20Programme,education%20in%20the%20primary%20and%20secondary%20school%20systems
https://www.ohchr.org/en/resources/educators/human-rights-education-training/world-programme-human-rights-education/phase1#:~:text=The%20first%20phase%20%282005-2009%29%20of%20the%20World%20Programme,education%20in%20the%20primary%20and%20secondary%20school%20systems
https://www.ohchr.org/en/resources/educators/human-rights-education-training/world-programme-human-rights-education/phase1#:~:text=The%20first%20phase%20%282005-2009%29%20of%20the%20World%20Programme,education%20in%20the%20primary%20and%20secondary%20school%20systems
https://www.ohchr.org/en/resources/educators/human-rights-education-training/world-programme-human-rights-education/phase1#:~:text=The%20first%20phase%20%282005-2009%29%20of%20the%20World%20Programme,education%20in%20the%20primary%20and%20secondary%20school%20systems
https://www.ohchr.org/en/resources/educators/human-rights-education-training/world-programme-human-rights-education/phase1#:~:text=The%20first%20phase%20%282005-2009%29%20of%20the%20World%20Programme,education%20in%20the%20primary%20and%20secondary%20school%20systems
https://www.ohchr.org/en/resources/educators/human-rights-education-training/11-united-nations-declaration-human-rights-education-and-training-2011
https://www.ohchr.org/en/resources/educators/human-rights-education-training/11-united-nations-declaration-human-rights-education-and-training-2011
http://sro.sussex.ac.uk/id/eprint/50800/
https://ore.exeter.ac.uk/repository/handle/10871/122735
https://doi.org/10.25035/ijpp.01.01.01
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12142-014-0331-5

UNICEF’s Rights Respecting Schools Award as children’s human rights education
Abstract
Keywords
Introduction
Aim and research questions
Children’s human rights education
Previous research on the impact of school programmes for rights education
The Rights Respecting Schools Award programme
Material and analysis
RQ1 – main aims
RQ2 – research support for aim achievement

Findings
What are the main aims of UNICEF school programme?
Aim 1: Students’ experiences in school should be positive
Aim 2: Students’ capacity as rights holders should be built
Aim 3: Adults’ rights competence should increase

To what extent does recent research show that the aims are achieved in schools that use the programme?
Aim 1 – Students’ experiences in school should be positive
Aim 2 – Students’ capacity as rights holders should be built
Aim 3 – Adults’ rights competence should increase

Discussion
Conclusions and looking forward
References