How did They Implement It?

Schools were actively seeking ideas to meet the four criteria set up by UNICEF and much effort was placed in increasing the awareness of the RRSA and the UNCRC among the pupils. As a result, they adopted a wide range of whole school strategies to meet this important RRSA criterion, such as visual displays of school charters and the UNCRC articles, curriculum designs, school improvement plans and extra-curricular activities. For the examples of visual displays, posters of the UNCRC articles and the school charters were visible around the school, staff office and classroom walls. School H used posters from the SCCYP. Other than that, reading a UNCRC article in weekly or monthly school or year group assemblies, some of which were delivered by pupils, was also commonly stated in the RRSA action plans. In some schools, the RRSA steering group was responsible for designing the ‘right of the week’ or ‘month’, and maintaining the RRSA website. In school H, teachers were required to read out the right of the week during the registration period. The news and updates related to the RRSA were also shown on TV screens in schools C and H. In addition, school C invested a lot in the displays of the RRSA. In that school, a big board could be seen when entering the school that displayed its rights-respecting status as well as the logo of the vision and values of the school. To make sure more pupils can participate in and to be more aware of this initiative, school W involved different groups of pupils such as the pupil council and the graphic department in designing the charter. Finally, the RRSA was also commonly stated in school newsletters, school handbooks and school improvement plans to show its high priority in the schools.

School charters, to some teachers, replaced school rules which used negative language. The school charters were designed with guidance from other school charters and the language used in the charter was very different across the schools. Some schools adopted consistently positive language in the charters while some other charters used rather

prohibitive or warning language such as ‘[Do] [n]ot chew gum’ or ‘Accept the consequences of your actions’. The articles which were associated with the charters were chosen according to pupils’, teachers’ or even parents’ indicated preference in a survey as some articles were thought not to be related to schools. Generally, the right to education was accorded the highest priority. In a school whose charter included only one article, it was recommended that they should include more rights in the charter. Some charters stated a clear distinction of teachers’ and pupils’ roles but also included their common responsibilities in the school.

Other than using physical displays of the UNCRC and school charters to increase pupils’ awareness of the UNCRC, the RRSA steering groups were also active in brainstorming ideas to improve pupil voice and to link the UNCRC with social justice. For example, school C introduced a pupil voice box to encourage pupils to voice their opinions, and also amended their behavioural policy in line with rights-respecting language. School practices which violate the UNCRC such as punishment, detention and exclusion were abolished and replaced by a merit system or were referred to the school charter whenever pupils or teachers misbehaved. These encouraged reflective exercise and critical thinking among the pupils and were compatible with restorative practices. The RRSA coordinators also reflected on the pastoral care services available to pupils as evidence for practicing the UNCRC. There were a number of global citizenship initiatives in the schools such as Fair Trade schools and Eco-Schools which could be linked to the RRSA and used as evidence of their commitment to the RRSA. Other than that, extra-curricular activities such as fundraising for a local or global charity including Mary’s Meals or African schools and a trip to Auschwitz that commemorates the Holocaust all fell under the umbrella of the RRSA. Schools also established partnerships with the chaplaincy team and NGOs such as Amnesty International to obtain materials for global citizenship education.

The degree of teacher participation in the RRSA varies across different schools. Teachers in all schools were required to design curriculum activities and assessments that increase pupil awareness of the UNCRC, including teaching about wants and needs. Teachers received support for this additional task in workshops organised by UNICEF UK or through CPD, some of which was presented by pupils. Otherwise for the extra-curricular activities and the design of the school charter, teachers gave guidance or were involved indirectly by providing ideas since the initiatives should be led by pupils, as required by the RRSA criteria. However, a participant reported having to initiate charity events when pupils were too passive,

‘I was talking to boys about how you could have emm sort of impact on... how you can impact in a school or a school impact on you so they just sit and look at me… I started to say, “We will remember look at this and look at that and say how about guide dogs and how about this,” and then they will go, “Oh yea, that’s right. We could do that.”’ (Katharine, school H)

In some schools, there were pupil-initiated activities such as a bake sale event to raise funds for volunteering overseas. Finally, the RRSA coordinators also used a range of documents provided by the UNICEF UK such as focus group guidelines, school self- evaluation forms and the action plans for the RRSA to gauge pupils’ understanding of and opinions towards the UNCRC and to help brainstorm ideas for the RRSA implementation and improvement. The interview questions for the focus groups had a series of questions for pupils such as what needs and wants are, a discussion of school rules, if teachers’ treated pupils fairly, issues around rights and how to make the school or the world a better place.