Towards Dignity: Reclaiming Children’s Rights Through Collaborative & Proactive Solutions

At the heart of education lies a question we rarely ask: are we upholding children’s rights, or merely managing their behaviour? Dignity is not a pedagogical preference. It is a legal and moral obligation. When educational systems prioritize compliance, efficiency, and control, dignity is often the first casualty.

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) establishes a clear rights-based framework for what is required. Yet in many schools, these rights are treated as aspirational rather than binding. This gap matters because when children’s rights are ignored, harm becomes normalized.

Listening Is a Requirement, Not a Courtesy (Article 12)

Article 12 of the UNCRC affirms that every child has the right to express their views freely in all matters affecting them, and that those views must be given due weight. This is not conditional on maturity, compliance, or articulation. It is a requirement, not a courtesy.

In practice, adults often assume they know better. Educational systems rely heavily on methodological approaches to understanding behaviour, frameworks that explain children without truly engaging with them. The child’s perspective is frequently filtered through professional interpretation rather than heard directly.

For disabled children, this failure is amplified. Many do not possess the communication skills that align with adult expectations. “Using your words” becomes the standard of acceptability, while other forms of communication such as movement, shutdown, escalation, or refusal are treated as problems to extinguish or replace. The message is clear: only certain voices count.

A rights-based approach rejects this premise. It requires adults to listen even when communication is imperfect, indirect, or uncomfortable. It demands that systems adapt to children, rather than forcing children to adapt to systems that were never designed for them.

Expression Has Many Forms (Article 13)

Article 13 further guarantees children the right to freedom of expression, including the right to express thoughts, feelings, and ideas in diverse ways. Expression is not limited to spoken language or calm demeanour. It includes all the ways children communicate when they are overwhelmed, unsafe, misunderstood, or powerless.

This article also speaks directly to safety. Children have the right to express themselves without fear of punishment, dismissal, or retaliation. In environments governed by compliance and control, children quickly learn which truths are dangerous to share. Silence becomes a survival strategy.

When children’s perspectives are dismissed as manipulation, attention-seeking, or defiance, their lived experience is invalidated. Over time, this erodes trust and teaches children that their internal realities are unreliable or irrelevant.

When Resistance Is Pathologized

In systems built on control, resistance is rarely understood as communication. Children who push back are labeled “difficult.” Their resistance is pathologized, diagnosed, and treated. Behaviour becomes both the problem and the explanation.

What remains unchanged are the conditions producing the behaviour.

This pattern reflects a broader dynamic of systemic oppression. When marginalized people speak up, systems often respond by locating the problem within the individual rather than examining environmental harm. Education is no exception. Disabled children are disproportionately affected and pushed further to the margins under the guise of support.

Compliance may improve temporarily, but dignity is lost.

The Best Interests of the Child Must Guide Education (Article 3)

Article 3 of the UNCRC requires that the best interests of the child be a primary consideration in all decisions affecting them. In schools, this means that convenience, staffing limitations, funding models, and institutional risk cannot override a child’s right to safety, development, and dignity.

Too often, “best interests” are interpreted through adult-centred priorities. A rights-based lens asks different questions. Does this response reduce harm? Does it preserve the child’s voice? Does it address the conditions the child is struggling with, or does it simply demand compliance?

How Collaborative & Proactive Solutions Align With Children’s Rights

Collaborative & Proactive Solutions (CPS) offers a practical framework that aligns closely with children’s rights. CPS begins with the assumption that children do well when they can. When they cannot, the task is not to impose control, but to understand what is getting in the way.

CPS operationalizes Article 12 by centring the child’s perspective through structured, respectful dialogue. It creates space for children to share concerns without fear of punishment and recognizes that challenging behaviour reflects lagging skills, not willful defiance.

By shifting the focus from behaviour to unsolved problems, CPS interrupts cycles of compliance and control. It reframes problem-solving as a collaborative process rather than something done to children. In doing so, it restores dignity and affirms children as active participants in decisions that affect their lives.

Moving Towards Dignity

A rights-based approach to education does not ask whether children deserve to be heard. It begins with the understanding that they are rights holders and are entitled to be heard.

When we fail to listen, we reinforce systems that silence, marginalize, and harm. When we listen, we begin to dismantle them. Dignity is not something children earn through good behaviour. It is something adults are obligated to uphold.

Moving towards dignity requires courage. It requires shifting from control to collaboration, from behaviour management to understanding, and from compliance to rights. Approaches like CPS offer a path forward, not because they are permissive, but because they take children’s rights seriously.