Student Voice and the UNCRC: Policy Tensions and Contradictions

<p>It has been claimed that, since the adoption of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) by the UN General Assembly in 1989, the human rights of children have gained hegemonic status in policymaking. Article 12 of the UNCRC provides a child, who is capable of forming their own views, the right to express those views freely in all matters affecting the child, and that the views of the child be given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child. Theoretical models have been developed to enable the realisation of student’s participation rights. Some of the most well-known include Hart's (1992) ladder of young people's participation, Shier's (2001) pathways to participation, Treseder's (1997) degrees of participation and the so-called Lundy Model (Lundy 2007). The Lundy model is underpinned by several UNCRC Articles: 2 (Non-discrimination), 3 (Best Interests), 19 (Right to be safe), 13 (Right to Information), 5 (Right to guidance from Adults) and 12 (Right to participate). The presentation introduces the Lundy Model which has been adopted by national and international organisations and governments as well as non-state actors. The Lundy Model also forms the framework of many “toolkits” around the world designed to help organisations realise children and young people’s right to be heard. This presentation reflects on some of contradictions and tensions in enacting participation rights in research, policy and practice. For example, the National Principles for Child Safe Organisations are underpinned by a child-rights, strengths-based approach. Yet, recent research revealed that in the Australian policy context, a discrepancy was evident in how children were constructed, between national and state/territories policy documentation on child safety. In Australia, in national policies, there was a tendency toward conceptualising children as having rights and agency, more than being vulnerable and needing protection from harm. However, in the Australian states and territories documentation, children were constructed more closely in terms of both vulnerability and needing protection, and with agency and rights, although there was considerable variation between states.</p>