Developing outcomes for educational services: a children’s rights‐based approach

Abstract

This article provides a rationale for and insight into an explicit children’s rights‐based approach to the identification of outcomes for proposed educational interventions. It presents a critical reflection on a research project which sought to integrate international children’s rights standards into the design of services through a children’s rights audit of potential outcomes and the meaningful engagement of children in the research and service design processes. While children are involved increasingly as co‐researchers in qualitative studies, it is less common for this to occur in quantitative studies. This article offers some additional insight into children’s participation in the interpretation of data from a large‐scale baseline survey. The article concludes with an argument that international children’s rights law provides not just a legal imperative but also a comprehensive framework with which to assert the case for increased recognition of children as salient stakeholders in all aspects of service design.

Keywords:

• children’s rights
• outcomes
• service design
• stakeholders

Introduction

The United Nations (UN) Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) is the most widely ratified and therefore internationally accepted statement of children’s rights standards (McGoldrick, 1991; Van Beuren, 1995). The CRC binds government in all of its dealings related to children, including in the provision of services in education and elsewhere. For example, the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child (‘the Committee’), which monitors compliance with the CRC and advises on its implementation, has urged states to develop ‘rights‐based, coordinated, multi‐sectoral strategies in order to ensure that children’s best interests are always the starting point for service planning and provision’ and recommended that comprehensive services should be coordinated with the assistance provided to parents as well as their circumstances and requirements (UN, 2005). The UN has recognised that in an effective rights‐based strategy, human rights principles should guide all phases of programme planning, including the conduct of initial assessments and analyses to identify not just the relevant rights and duties but also the underlying and structural causes of their non‐realisation (UN, 2003b). While UN agencies and international non‐governmental organisations have adopted this approach in relation to children generally (Save the Children, 2007) and in education in particular (UNICEF/UNESCO, 2007), a review of the academic literature on children’s services indicates that the children’s rights dimension is often not mentioned (Warin, 2007; Axford, Berry, & Little, 2006). Where it is acknowledged, it is either identified as an important part of the policy context (Cavet & Sloper, 2004) or, alternatively, children’s rights are equated simply with children’s participation, focusing on various methods for including children in discussions about potential services (Franklin & Sloper, 2009).

This article aims to provide a rationale for and insight into the application of a children’s rights‐based approach to the selection of outcomes for proposed educational interventions. It draws on a research project commissioned by Barnardo’s Northern Ireland, a leading children’s charity, as part of their strategy to promote educational attainment and positive engagement with school for socially disadvantaged primary‐school‐aged children through the provision of out‐of‐school‐hours services. The research team was commissioned by Barnardo’s to provide an evidence base to inform the selection of outcomes for a proposed intervention as well as the type of intervention to be selected. This included a large baseline survey of over 1000 children, focus groups with parents and teachers and a literature review on effective out‐of‐school services. In addition, an adult stakeholder group was established (comprised of representatives from statutory and voluntary educational services, and members of the teaching profession and Barnardo’s staff) to review the findings of the research and lend their expertise to the discussion of potential outcomes. Both Barnardo’s and the research team were committed to adopting an explicit children’s rights‐based approach from the outset. In this context, and in line with recognised principles of rights‐based planning (UN, 2003b), a commitment to a children’s rights‐based approach was interpreted to mean that, not only should the selection of outcomes be informed by a reliable and comprehensive evidence base, but also that the outcomes would be consistent with an aim to further the realisation of children’s rights and that children’s rights standards would guide the process.

The article begins by explaining how the research team integrated the international standards on children’s rights into the discussion on the development of these outcomes and engaged children in the research and service design process. It continues by offering a critical reflection on the steps taken in the project to adopt an explicit children’s rights‐based approach to the identification of evidence‐informed outcomes, highlighting some of the key challenges encountered. The article concludes with an argument that international children’s rights law provides not just a legal imperative but also a comprehensive framework with which to assert the case for increased recognition of children as salient stakeholders in all aspects of the service design process.

Integrating international standards in the development of outcomes for children’s services

A rights‐based approach to the design and implementation of children’s services requires that human rights standards are used to inform all phases of programme development, including the identification of goals and objectives (UNICEF/UNESCO, 2007). The CRC is uniquely placed to do this as its coverage and scope ‘in recognising the rights of children and young people, and setting out how they are to be promoted and protected is unrivalled in terms of their comprehensive nature, national and international standing and relevance’ (Kilkelly & Lundy, 2006). It is a ‘touchstone’ for children’s rights throughout the world (Fortin, 2003, p. 49), providing benchmarks and standards across most aspects of children’s lives that are widely supported, relevant and easily understood. For these reasons, leading voluntary organisations have a long history of using the CRC both in programme development and in advocacy work with government (see, for example, International Save the Children Alliance (2005)) and state agencies are increasingly looking at ways in which they can adopt the standards in the service design process (McTernan and Godfrey, 2006).

At the commencement of the ‘Ready to Learn’ project, Barnardo’s had identified a number of potential outcomes as a starting point for the discussion about what it would like the educational intervention to achieve. The overarching outcome was ‘an improvement in children’s engagement and achievement in education’. This was supplemented by several specific outcomes for children, including: improved relationships with peers and school personnel; improved pro‐social behaviour; improved mental and physical health; and improved levels of engagement (such as attendance at school) as well as related outcomes for parents, schools and communities. These outcomes were subjected to an audit against the children’s rights principles in the CRC and the related commentary of the Committee. In line with recognised rights‐based approaches to programme development (UN, 2003b; UNICEF/UNESCO, 2007), the analysis: identified the key duty‐bearers and rights‐holders; summarised the relevant CRC standards and Committee’s observations on issues such as the substantive issues such as education, health and child safety; and emphasised the need for key cross‐cutting principles such as non‐discrimination and participation to be respected. The analysis also collated relevant principles and Committee observations on the design and evaluation of children’s services, highlighting, for example, the emphasis the latter has placed on the quality of services and multi‐agency working.

The identification of duty‐bearers in the audit paper was significant in this instance. The vast majority of obligations under the CRC are placed on individual States Parties and through this to state agents including education authorities, statutory services, government departments and schools. One of the ongoing debates in human rights law is the extent to which non‐state actors such as voluntary organisations, like Barnardo’s, are bound by the provisions of international human rights law (Courtis, 2007). While there is no direct obligation on voluntary bodies to comply with the standards in the CRC, the state is under an obligation to ensure that: ‘Non‐state service providers operate in accordance with its provisions, thus creating indirect obligations on such actors’ (UN, 2003a, para. 43). The Committee has also called on non‐state service providers to respect the principles and provisions of the CRC, while reminding states of their primary obligation to ensure its implementation; ‘in this context, States Parties are responsible for service provision for early childhood development. The role of civil society should be complementary to – not a substitute for – the role of the State’ (UN, 2005, para. 32). Thus, while the case for Barnardo’s adopting a children’s rights‐compliant approach was compelling, it was important to recognise the fact that the state has the primary obligation for ensuring that children receive an effective education. Nonetheless, for voluntary organisations wishing to develop services which might ultimately attract state‐funding, a pragmatic bonus of an explicit rights‐based approach is being able to convince government that a particular service is not only meeting children’s needs but can enable government to fulfil its international commitments to secure children’s rights.

Perhaps one of the most interesting things to emerge from the audit was the significant emphasis which the CRC places on the participation of and support for parents. The CRC has a number of ‘child‐centred’ parental rights (Bainham, 2004; McCall‐Smith, 1990), including Article 18(2) which requires the State to assist parents in the performance of their child‐rearing responsibilities, stating that:

For the purpose of guaranteeing and promoting the rights set forth in the present Convention, States Parties shall render appropriate assistance to parents and legal guardians in the performance of their child‐rearing responsibilities and shall ensure the development of institutions, facilities and services for the care of children.

The Committee has observed that realising children’s rights ‘is in a large measure dependent on the well‐being and resources available to those with responsibility for their care and that recognising these interdependencies is a sound starting point for planning assistance and services to parents, legal guardians and other care‐givers’ (UN, 2005, para. 20). The Committee has also emphasised that parents should be involved in the planning of comprehensive services (UN, 2005, para. 22). Thus, one consequence of the children’s rights audit was that the emphasis placed on the role of parents in the CRC was identified at the outset of the project. This meant that when this was also prioritised by children and adult stakeholders later in the process, a compelling case emerged that assistance for parents to enable them to support their children’s education should be translated into a rights‐based outcome.

The main part of the children’s rights audit focused on the substantive rights which were relevant to the initial outcomes, with a particular focus on the right to education in Articles 28 and 29, the right to health in Article 24 and the right to safety in Article 19 of the CRC. The conclusion of this analysis was that the draft outcomes appeared to be fully consistent with a children’s rights‐based approach to the provision of services for children. It is perhaps not surprising that the aspirations of a long‐established and experienced children’s charity would be unlikely to be significantly at odds with international children’s rights standards. Rather what emerged from the audit were slight differences in emphasis when the issues were viewed from a children’s rights perspective. So, for example, Barnardo’s had identified educational achievement as a potential outcome. The audit drew attention to the Committee’s observations on the aims of education which define achievement as follows:

Basic skills include not only literacy and numeracy but also life skills such as the ability to make well‐balanced decisions; to resolve conflicts in a non‐violent manner; and to develop a healthy lifestyle, good social relationships and responsibility, critical thinking, creative talents, and other abilities which give children the tools needed to pursue their options in life. (UN, 2001, para. 9)

The children’s rights analysis was distributed and discussed within the project team and later in the process formed one of the key background papers for the stakeholder discussion days. The approach was realistic: it was understood that that there was no educational intervention that could deliver on all aspects of the CRC and that the CRC does not provide detailed guidance on all aspects of children’s lives (Kilkelly & Lundy, 2006). The key value of the audit was that it located the discussion of potential outcomes squarely within a children’s rights framework at the very outset of the service design process, in line with the UN’s approach to rights‐based planning (UN, 2003b). As such, at this early stage of the programme development, it encouraged the project team to: consider a holistic view of educational achievement; to connect education to other major issues affecting children’s lives; and to recognise the core role of parents not just in the delivery of children’s rights but as rights‐holders themselves. An additional issue which emerged from the audit was the emphasis placed on children’s right to have their views given due weight in all matters affecting them under Article 12 of the CRC, a right identified as the cornerstone of the CRC (Fortin, 2003; Lundy, 2007). The analysis highlighted the fact that the Committee has emphasised that this right should be: ‘anchored in the child’s daily life at home… and in his or her community; within the full range of early childhood health, care and education facilities, as well as in… the development of policies and services, including through research and consultations’ (UN, 2005, para. 14). Thus, while the increased participation of children in decision‐making was identified as one potential outcome for the proposed service, its major significance initially in the project lay in its emphasis on engaging children in the service design process.

Engaging children in the process through a children’s rights‐compliant approach to participation

During the last two decades perspectives from developmental psychology and the traditional sociological understanding of children as a product of socialisation (Handel, Cahill, & Elkin, 2007) have been criticised for viewing children as incomplete or ‘in process’ rather than as social actors capable of making sense of and affecting their societies (Qvortrop, Bardy, Sgritta, & Wintersberg, 1994; Prout, 2002; Greene & Hogan, 2005). This, it is argued, has resulted in approaches to research which privilege adults’ views over children’s on issues relating to children’s experiences (Matthews, 2007). As such the emphasis in traditional research has been on children as ‘objects of research rather than children as subjects, child related outcomes rather than child‐related processes and on child variables rather than children as persons’ (Greene & Hill, 2005 p. 1). Recent years, however, have seen a shift towards acknowledging children as experts in their own lives (Clark, 2004) and increasingly children are being engaged as subjects of research through the use of participatory research methodologies (Kellett & Ding, 2004). Furthermore, while a tendency to view children as incapable of understanding the research process remains (Christensen & Prout, 2002), children are taking increasingly active roles in research processes, including the design and delivery of research instruments and the analysis and dissemination of data as co‐researchers (Fielding, 2004) and in child‐led research projects (Kellett, 2005a, 2005b). Often these approaches are located within the qualitative paradigm. Proponents of participatory research urge caution with quantitative methods (Matthews, 2007) and as a result engagement with children in this area, particularly in relation to large scale surveys, is less well developed.

Many of the participatory research strategies alluded to above identify as being driven or underpinned by Article 12 of the UNCRC (Kellett, Forrest, Dent, & Ward, 2004; Alderson, 2000; Lewis, Kellet, Robinson, Fraser, & Ding 2004). However, it is less common for the CRC to inform explicitly the research design. The ‘Ready to Learn’ project was informed by a framework for analysis which provides a workable but legally‐sound means of evaluating the extent to which children’s participation is compliant with Article 12 and other relevant provisions of the UNCRC. In order that the research and service design process would comply with Article 12, the project team established a Children’s Advisory Group (CAG) to assist with the project and applied this framework to the work undertaken with the children. The CAG were not research subjects. They were invited to participate in the project in the capacity of co‐researchers and as a key stakeholder group who could offer particular insight into the issues under consideration. The group was composed of eight children (four boys and four girls) from Year 7 (ages 10–11 years), representing a wide range of academic ability. The children were pupils at a primary school in an area of severe deprivation and one which had been affected significantly by the Northern Ireland conflict.

Good practice in research with children requires honesty regarding the degree of power sharing between the adults and children involved in the project (Cavet & Sloper, 2004). The CAG were aware that in this project the initial focus of the research had been determined by Barnardo’s and that the research instrument for the base‐line survey had been largely predetermined. The remit of the CAG was to contribute to the development of potential outcomes for the out‐of‐school‐hours service. As such the primary tasks of the group were: (1) to advise on the research process which principally involved assisting with the interpretation of survey results and the findings of the literature review; (2) to provide insight on the main issues relating to educational underachievement and social disadvantage; and (3) to identify potential services which might address the problems.

Children’s participation in the research process

While it is generally accepted that research with children should take place within an environment where they feel secure (Christensen & James, 2000), the model outlined above suggests that proactive steps should be taken to create a ‘safe’ space where children are ‘able to express their views without fear of rebuke or reprisal’ (Lundy, 2007 p. 935). As such the children who were invited to participate in the CAG were assured that their views would be treated as confidential and, since Article 12 is a right and not a duty, that they were able to withdraw at any time from any of the activities or from the process as a whole. The CAG sessions were held in the school. Locating research meetings within a school can be problematic since there is a danger that children perceive the research as school work and in some circumstances participation in schools can verge on coercion. In order to ameliorate this the sessions were conducted in as ‘un‐school‐like’ a manner as possible: they were held in the least conventional room in the school (the art room); the children used pseudonyms of their own choosing; discussions were held as informally as possible; the children were offered choice in how to discuss and record their views; and the children were consulted regularly on the best way to proceed with the meetings.

Involving children in research as co‐researchers generally brings with it a requirement to build capacity in research methodologies (Warren, 2000; Kellett, 2005b). The children involved in this project were not required to collect data. They were acting as advisers throughout the research process and as such required support in understanding the central research questions of the project rather than the methods employed. Although a number of innovative and engaging approaches have been developed to encourage children as subjects of research to express their views or describe their experiences (Lewis et al., 2004), there is paucity in the literature about how to build children’s capacity as co‐researchers in understanding the issues being researched in the projects in which they are involved. In this project the CAG were being asked to reflect on a number of complex issues to which perhaps they had given little previous consideration. Furthermore they were not being asked to speak directly about their experiences but rather, as an expert group, to reflect on the experiences of children in Northern Ireland in general. It was important, therefore, that the children were assisted in forming their views in addition to being given the opportunity to express their views (Lundy, 2007). Consequently initial meetings with the CAG included a number of capacity‐building activities designed to familiarise the children with the issues surrounding the project, to develop their views on these issues and to assist them in applying their ideas to situations beyond their own experience.

Capacity building

Fraser (2004) contends that ‘child‐friendly’ approaches to data collection are primarily ‘friendly’ because they are negotiated with children who are the subjects of a particular piece of research and as such have no permanent ‘objective’ status. Similar conclusions can be drawn in relation to strategies used to build the capacity of children involved in projects as co‐researchers. As such, it is the principles underpinning the selection of the capacity‐building strategies which warrant attention rather than the strategies in and of themselves. In this project these were designed to be consistent with children’s rights standards: they provided opportunities for children to form and express views; were safe, inclusive and engaging. For example, working in small groups can facilitate children in forming their views by providing an optimum opportunity for them to talk reflectively with one another and co‐constructed ideas with their peers (Whitaker, 1995). Also, arts‐based methodologies, commonly used in research with children (Veale, 2005), are recognised as particularly useful for engaging children who may find more traditional approaches off‐putting (Coates, 2004). However, it should be noted that, just as ‘child‐friendly’ research methodologies can be criticised for homogenising children (Schafer & Yarwood, 2008), capacity‐building activities need to take account of differences between children. It is imperative therefore that adult researchers are flexible and responsive to children’s needs; that children are offered choice in relation to the selection of strategies; and that children are facilitated in opting in and out of any or any part of the activities.

In the first session the children were introduced to the central concept of the project through a simple ‘think–pair–share’ technique focused on the question: What makes children ‘ready to learn’? (This was subsequently reframed when it became apparent that the CAG could more readily respond to the idea of children who were ‘not ready to learn’). This activity was selected primarily because it provides space for children to think about the question being posed; to ‘test’ their ideas with another child in a pair; before they share their suggestions with the whole group (Lynam, 1981). Once several ideas had been generated, the children were asked to produce, in small groups, a large drawing of a child who was ‘not ready to learn’ and to attach their ideas to different parts of the drawing. Next the children were asked to ‘namelessly comment’ on the other groups’ artwork by indicating through drawing, writing or the use of symbols the extent to which they agreed with other CAG members’ views. This strategy assisted the children in exploring the views of others in a safe environment, in developing their own views and in delineating areas of agreement and disagreement in a non‐confrontational manner through these activities the children were able to identify a range of factors which contributed to children ‘not being ready to learn’. These were classified by the children into three groups: child‐based factors (such as tiredness, ability to concentrate, experience of bullying, feeling sad or hungry etc.); home‐based factors (such as parents neglecting children, parents not caring about homework or unable to help with homework etc.); and a ‘school’ category listing peer‐related issues (such as bullying and loneliness) and teacher‐related issues (such as shouting, not explaining and not listening).

These factors were developed further in the second session when the CAG created drawings of children who were ‘ready to learn’. New issues emerged during this activity which were again grouped as above: additional child‐based factors included reference to pupils being ready to work and being excited about learning; additional home‐based factors included pupils having everything they needed for going to school, a range of suggestions associated with parental expectation and parents being able to help with school work; additional school‐based factors included an emphasis on teacher’s ability to explain things well, teachers being ‘clever’ in addition to being ‘nice’ and a range of issues attached to teaching and learning strategies.

The factors generated by the children were largely consistent with the outcomes identified previously, including psychosocial issues as well extrinsic factors: the quality of teaching and learning in classrooms (outside the remit of the project); parental expectations and ability to support learning. Having developed an understanding of the wider issues impacting on ‘readiness to learn’, the CAG were in a position to address the results of the baseline survey.

Interpreting the results

The main purpose of the survey was to provide high‐quality baseline data on the distribution of educational outcomes and indicators of well‐being among Year 4 and Year 7 children, in schools located in areas of high and low deprivation (Miller, Lundy, Maguire, McEvoy, & Connolly, 2008). Educational attainment was based on pupils’ level of attainment on the English and mathematics Key Stage assessments. Indicators of well‐being included: self esteem, measured using a subscale of the Self Perception Profile for Children (Harter, 1982); aspirations for the future, using The Expectations/Aspirations measure (Loeber, Stouthamer‐Loeber, Van Kammen, & Farrington 1991); enjoyment of education, using the ‘liking school’ subscale of Pell and Jarvis’s (2001) attitudinal scale; alongside physical and psychological well‐being, social acceptance, peer relationships, school environment, autonomy and parent relations using subscales from the KIDSCREEN measure (The Kidscreen Group Europe, 2006). The findings from the baseline survey confirmed the relationship between educational attainment and deprivation: children from areas of high deprivation were performing less well in English and mathematics than children from areas of low deprivation. The survey results also indicated that Year 4 children reported better ‘well‐being’ than Year 7 children in general, and that, in particular, Year 4 children in areas of high deprivation reported better ‘well‐being’ than their peers in areas of low deprivation. By Year 7, children were reporting similar levels of ‘well‐being’ regardless of their level of deprivation. Finally, upon analysis of the findings, it was concluded that educational attainment was largely unrelated to indicators of well‐being (Miller et al., 2008).

These findings, which for the most part surprised the adults involved in the project, were explored during a third session with the CAG. Given that the children had articulated that their understanding of surveys was derived mainly from the popular television programme ‘Family Fortunes’, the strategy was based on this quiz format. The children were placed into two teams and asked to predict survey results: the first ‘round’ focusing on comparing children in Year 4 and Year 7; the second ‘round’ focusing on comparing children in areas of high deprivation (‘richer children’) and children in areas of low deprivation (‘poorer children’). Children were asked a question for each of the psychosocial measures from the survey. Quiz questions were posed, for example, as follows: ‘We surveyed over 1000 children to find out who enjoyed school the most. Who do you think enjoyed school the most? Children in Year 4, children in Year 7 or both the same’; and ‘Children from richer communities, children from poorer communities or both the same?’. Each team was invited to discuss their response as a group, give an answer and explain the reason for their choice. When the actual results of the survey were revealed, the children were given further opportunities to discuss the findings. Once again, the technique used is less significant than the principles which underpinned it. The quiz format was used to actively engage the children and the smaller groups allowed children to discuss and ‘test’ their ideas with others in a safer environment. Furthermore asking the children to provide explanations for predicted rather than actual findings ensured that they were not influenced by the ‘right’ answer and could give genuine reasons for their choices. There were relatively few areas of disagreement amongst the children as they made their predictions and they predicted the results accurately for almost every outcome measure.

For example, the findings that Year 4 children enjoyed school more and were generally in ‘a better mood’ (linked to the CAG’s understanding of the psychological well‐being measure) than Year 7 children, explained by the CAG as associated with increased workload in Year 7 and concerns regarding transition to secondary school. Other more positive findings for Year 7 children (for example more autonomy, better parental relations, less bullying) were attributed by the CAG to increased maturity. When asked a question regarding the aspirations measure, the CAG predicted correctly that Year 7s would not have ‘as high hopes for the future’. As one child explained: ‘In Year 4 they don’t realise what they can’t do’.

The CAG predicted correctly that children from areas of high deprivation would enjoy school more than children from areas of low deprivation. This was attributed to the availability of resources in school for children from areas of high deprivation who might not otherwise be able to access them. The finding that children from areas of high deprivation enjoyed more autonomy and better parent relations was explained generally in relation to time spent with parents and greater responsibilities in the home. As the children in the CAG stated: ‘Richer kids get less time with their parents’; ‘Poorer kids help out more in the home and do work so are seen as more mature’.

The children predicted correctly that there would be ‘no difference’ in relation to the psychological well‐being of children from areas high or low deprivation. Furthermore, they thought that children in general in Northern Ireland would not score well on this measure, while acknowledging that there would be ‘different reasons for children from different backgrounds’. Similarly, the finding that children from areas of high deprivation had the same level of self esteem as children from areas of low deprivation was explained broadly by the CAG’s view that ‘all children are the same and have the same types of problems with their feelings’. Finally, the children accurately predicted that there would be no significant difference in relation to aspirations for children from areas of high deprivation and children from areas of low deprivation. As one child said: ‘We’re all just the same and want the same things’.

In conclusion, the general finding that children from areas of high deprivation were doing ‘just as well or better’ than children from areas of low deprivation in the matters covered by the survey was explained by the CAG as largely because children from areas of high deprivation had good relationships with their friends, parents and teachers and appreciated what school provided for them.

The responses of the children to the survey results validated its findings, supporting the claim that positive engagement of children is not only desirable but necessary to improve the accuracy of findings (Camfield, Streuli, & Woodhead, 2009) and the credibility of the knowledge derived from research (Fraser, 2004). Moreover, the children’s insight was invaluable in developing a more nuanced understanding of the relationship between educational attainment, well‐being and deprivation. While the survey had provided some evidence regarding which measures were not related to educational attainment, the CAG provided insight as to why this might be the case and furthermore, as discussed below, on factors which might explain educational underachievement in areas of high deprivation.

Children’s insight on educational underachievement and social disadvantage

Having discussed the research findings relating to psychosocial measures and deprivation, the research team explained the nature of the educational achievement differential between children from areas of high deprivation and children from areas of low deprivation to the CAG. The children were asked to consider what other factors might contribute to this ‘gap’. The issues which emerged from this conversation could be broadly categorised into two key factors: educational opportunity and the value placed on education. For example, the CAG unanimously agreed that children from ‘richer areas’ would have access to better educational resources inside and outside school than children from ‘poorer areas’. During this part of the discussion one child suggested: ‘Maybe they’re (richer children) just smarter’. When asked to explain this statement the child clarified that this did not mean they were born ‘smarter’ but rather linked the statement back to the idea of educational opportunity stating: ‘Richer kids probably got to go to playschool’.

As noted previously, a persistent theme for the CAG was the importance of parental involvement in the education of their children. The children suggested that parents from ‘poorer areas’ would not place as high a value on education as ‘richer parents’, and would prioritise other matters. As one child explained: ‘Parents take them [poorer children] away to do other things like to earn money or help out at home’. They explained this as largely due to the parents’ own experience of school and suggested that overall this might result in the perpetuation of a lack of value placed on education. They saw this as having negative effects on children from disadvantaged areas who did value education. As one child explained: ‘Poorer children might be called ‘geeky boy’; ‘nerd’ if they do well’. Conversely, the CAG suggested that educational success in ‘richer’ families would lead to competition, encouraging children within the family to do well and that ultimately ‘richer children’ were motivated to achieve in school because: ‘They [the richer] want to keep what they’ve got’.

Children’s identification of potential services

In the final CAG session, the children were introduced to the main issues arising from the literature review for the Barnardo’s project. They were reminded of discussions from previous sessions and their drawings were used to re‐focus the CAG on the potential outcomes for the Barnardo’s service. The children were asked to think of services that might help ‘bridge the gap’ from not being ready to being ready to learn. Again working in small groups, they wrote suggestions onto paper ‘bridges’ (see Figure 1).

Figure 1 Bridging the gap: from ‘not ready to learn’ to ‘ready to learn’.

During this activity the children were introduced to the idea of ‘enabling, extending, enriching’ after‐school activities (Education Extra, 2002), which encouraged them to generate further ideas for their ‘bridges’. The children then categorised these potential services into three groups: supporting children (for example friendship clubs, homework clubs, games room in school, outdoor activities during school, anti‐bullying room); supporting parents (for example activities to help them look after children, help their children with school work, and to increase communication between parents, teachers and pupils); supporting teaching (for example providing time for ‘teachers to talk about the how to help children learn’, and helping ‘teachers to teach better’).

Having generated a number of suggestions for potential services, the children were reminded that service design should be informed by evidence and were asked to rank their ideas based on the findings from the baseline survey and additional information provided on effective out‐of‐school‐hours services from the literature review. When they filtered their ideas through the evidence the following services were prioritised: first, working with parents; second, homework support for children; third, anti‐bullying interventions (which they referred to as ‘stopping bullying’).

During the third session with the CAG, the children were asked to apply what they had ‘learnt’ from the capacity‐building activities and evidence from the survey and literature review to design an ‘ideal’ out‐of‐school‐hours service which could raise the educational attainment of children from more disadvantaged areas. This was undertaken as part of a whole‐group discussion augmented by relevant information from the literature review. The children chose to record their discussion as a whole group largely through drawings and written comments, the key points from which are noted later.

The CAG’s initial ideas for an ‘ideal service’ focused, once again, on developing services to ‘help parents help their children learn’. Alongside this, they suggested separate activities for children prioritising ‘homework help’ and support with difficult school work in addition to a number of enrichment activities. These services would be delivered in a bright, comfortable location with plenty of ‘outdoor space’ by adult ‘tutors’ (not their teachers) with the essential characteristics: being ‘fun’, ‘funny’ and ‘kind’ (see Figure 2).

Figure 2 ‘Funny and kind’.

The CAG’s suggestion that the duration of the service should be between one and two hours was consistent with conclusions from the literature review (Atkinson, Hart, & Downing, 2008). However, they added that a clear distinction should be made between the service and school, suggesting it should be marked by ‘a break before hand’ when the children could ‘go home and change their clothes’ (see Figure 3).

Figure 3 ‘Own clothes’.

Furthermore, they emphasised that there should be ‘real choice’ for the children both in terms of attending the service and in terms of the participating in each of the activities of the service (see Figure 4). In terms of the design of the service, the CAG were clear that this should be a partnership between children, teachers and parents, and were cognisant of the need to tailor services for particular communities, noting that it ‘wouldn’t be the same everywhere’. In particular, the children were interested in the extent to which all partners would be involved in various aspects of decision‐making, raising a query about ‘who would get to decide who spends the money’ which led them to highlight the importance of service evaluation: ‘a way of checking whether it was any good’.

Figure 4 ‘Real choice’.

Reflections on the approach

A key goal of this project was to adopt a children’s rights‐based approach to the selection of outcomes through a direct incorporation of international standards on children’s rights and through the meaningful engagement of children throughout the process. One tangible difference to the outcomes that resulted from this was a decision to place a primary focus of the service on supporting parents with their children’s education (‘helping parents help their kids learn’). While this had been identified as one of a number of broad potential outcomes by Barnardo’s, the children’s rights audit and the emphasis given to it by the CAG undoubtedly raised its profile during stakeholder discussions ultimately securing its position as a priority outcome. Furthermore, it is notable that the children’s involvement in the project brought a valuable dimension beyond what might have emerged simply from the application of international standards in the audit of potential outcomes. For example, the audit had endorsed, and might even have extended, Barnardo’s initial focus on psychosocial outcomes for children by drawing down the broad vision of the aims of education that are articulated in Article 29 of the CRC. However, when the evidence from the survey was combined with the input from the CAG the focus of the discussion shifted from intrinsic child‐based factors to extrinsic factors such as children’s need for support with their school work. At the end of the outcome identification process, and in the light of an evidence base directly informed by both international standards and interpreted by adult stakeholders and the CAG, Barnardo’s decided to focus the development of more specific outcomes aimed at increasing children’s educational attainment in areas of deprivation on the following: parents having increased capacity to assist children with their learning; children being supported with homework; schools developing a climate which fosters positive peer relationships.

While conscious efforts were made to ensure that the CRC was central to the development of evidence‐informed outcomes, on reflection it is inevitable that there are a number of ways in which the process could be improved. First, while the children’s rights audit of potential outcomes was distributed to team members and the adult stakeholders, further efforts could have been made to ensure a common understanding of the children’s rights framework. While, in this instance, it might be reasonable to assume that some of the adult stakeholders were familiar with the CRC and that many would have been sympathetic to its core values, this would not have been true for everyone involved and might not be the case generally in other projects (Lundy, 2007). Follow‐up training and space for discussion of the implications of the standards would be particularly important in areas where the rights framework is less clear‐cut, is controversial or presents potential conflict of rights, for example, between parents and children or between different groups of children. Moreover, if the rights‐based approach is followed into the next stage of service design and delivery, a key objective would be to build the capacity of duty bearers to fulfill their obligations under the CRC (UN, 2003b; UNICEF/UNESCO 2007).

Second, one of the most challenging aspects of this project was ensuring that children were meaningfully engaged throughout. While deliberate efforts were made to engage children at critical points of the work, much of what took place was circumscribed from the outset, including: the selection of the issue under consideration; the choice and content of the base‐line survey; and the way in which the latter was communicated and presented to other children. As explained earlier, the children were aware of these limitations from the start. An attempt was made to include some additional questions from the CAG in the survey based on what they perceived to be the most obvious gaps in its content following the capacity‐building activities on readiness to learn. This small number of additional questions (e.g., ‘Do your teachers shout at you?’) did not show any greater link to social deprivation or attainment than other issues investigated in the survey. Approached from a pure children’s rights perspective, the content of survey would have been driven by the issues raised by the CAG after their capacity building sessions and the CAG would then have advised on the best way to frame these for other children (Lundy & McEvoy, 2008).

A final area which might be re‐considered is the way in which the work of the CAG was presented by the researchers to the adult stakeholders at an event organised to review research findings. While the children, if given a choice, might not have chosen to attend this event, the decision to present on their behalf was made in part for logistical reasons (such as transport and timing) and in part for ethical reasons (including complying with the promises of anonymity given to the children, parents and school), but was also due to concerns regarding adult stakeholders’ capacity to engage meaningfully with children. However, every effort was made to ensure that the work of the CAG was afforded a position of influence in the discussions, by presenting their views as accurately and clearly as possible at an early stage of the adult stakeholder event. While a significant feature of this project was a general willingness of the adults to listen to the children’s views such a ‘ready audience’ is not the norm. More often children’s views, if attended to at all, are heard by a reluctant or reticent audience of adults (Lundy, 2007). On one level this can be due to practical constraints, for example, funding issues, the bureaucratic nature of organisations or a lack of relevant training for key adults (Cavet & Sloper, 2004). On a deeper level it is associated with adult unwillingness to endorse the participation of children based, as Hill, Davis, Prout and Tisdall (2004, p. 82) contend, on ‘a zero‐sum assumption that transferring responsibility to children inevitably takes something away from adults’. Thus, it may be necessary not only to develop the capacity of adults to engage with children but, more importantly, convince them of the value in doing so. A children’s rights‐based approach requires that children are not only identified as part of a wide group of stakeholders (UNICEF/UNESCO, 2007) in the design of children’s services but that proactive steps are taken to ensure that their views are given ‘due weight’ as required by Article 12 of the CRC (Lundy, 2007). Stakeholder theory, albeit developed within the corporate sphere, provides useful insight into how this might be achieved.

Over the last few decades a diverse range of theories have evolved from perspectives focusing on how organisations identify and manage stakeholders, to those which focus on stakeholders attempts to influence organisations, and to conceptual perspectives which explore how particular ideas relate to organisation–stakeholder interactions (Steurer, 2006). This project illustrates how a conceptual perspective based on children’s rights not only mandates that children are identified as stakeholders but that, rather than being ‘managed’ by the organisation, are afforded a position of influence. In reality the extent of influence is dependent on the degree to which decision‐makers give prominence to competing stakeholder claims. Mitchell, Agle and Wood (1997) argue that stakeholder salience is dependent upon three attributes: the legitimacy of the claim, the urgency of claim and the power to influence the organisation. Furthermore, they contend that stakeholders can be classified according to the extent to which they possess one, two or all of these attributes. According to this typology ‘discretionary stakeholders’ possess the attribute of legitimacy but have no power or urgency of claim. As such ‘there is absolutely no pressure on [organisations] to engage in an active relationship with such a stakeholder’, although they may chose to do so (Mitchell et al., 1997 p. 875). Hence, merely acknowledging the legitimacy of children as stakeholders places them in a position of low salience, dependent on the goodwill of adults to listen to their views. Recent moves to involve children in the design and evaluation of services (Cavet & Sloper, 2004; Kirby & Bryson, 2002) suggest that children are to some extent, in policy at least, presented as having both a legitimacy and an urgency of claim. Such a perspective shifts children from latent to expectant stakeholders possessing moderate stakeholder salience. The exercise of power in this relationship is, however, still dependent on ‘the advocacy or guardianship of other stakeholders’ (Mitchell et al., 1997, p. 877). Power in addition to legitimacy and urgency is required for high stakeholder salience. Possessing all three attributes ensures status as ‘definitive stakeholders’ whom decision‐makers ‘have a clear and immediate mandate to attend to and give priority to their claim’ (Mitchell et al., 1997, p. 878). Power, however, is not an attribute traditionally associated with children, particularly in the context of their relationship with adults (Alderson, 2000; John, 2003). Therefore, unless the power imbalance between children and adult stakeholders or decision‐makers is addressed, children’s claims will not be afforded a high priority.

Conclusions

It is our contention that an explicit children’s rights‐based approach to the design of services, illustrated in this project and mandated by the CRC, optimises children’s claims and enhances their authority as stakeholders. The CRC provides a framework which recognises children’s fundamental human rights to provision such as effective education and services. These substantive rights underline both the legitimacy and the urgency of their claim. Moreover, the CRC, uniquely within international human rights law, recognises the relative lack of power of children in terms of influencing their own lives and gives them an inalienable right to have their views taken seriously in all matters affecting them. The methodology developed in this project attempted to give effect to the substance and spirit of the CRC by locating both the international standards and children’s views at the core of the development of evidence‐informed outcomes for a potential education service. The ‘Ready to Learn’ project provided an opportunity to test this approach in an environment which was conducive to the adoption of a rights‐based approach. As noted earlier, this may not always be the case, a fact which, in itself, reinforces the case for an explicit rights perspective. For example, when a rights‐based approach challenges dominate thinking, is controversial or carries additional costs, those involved in developing children’s services may need to be reminded that the rights in the CRC are fundamental and inalienable and that actively involving children in decision‐making is not ‘an option which is in the gift of adults but a legal imperative which is the right of the child’ (Lundy, 2007 p. 931). Thus, the main value of a rights‐based, as opposed to a needs‐ or welfare‐based approach, lies not just in its universality or in the legitimacy which derives from the CRC’s international legal standing, but also in the inherent ‘moral coinage’ of rights (Freeman, 2000), which allows rights‐holders to make claims for treatment which are not dependent on the goodwill, charity or inclination of those who can provide that help (Freeman, 2007; UNICEF/UNESCO, 2007). The question should no longer be whether a children’s rights‐based approach should be adopted in the service design process but rather how best to do that in a way that is CRC‐compliant. In short, in order to know what will work for children there is no option but to work with children to secure the realisation of their rights.