The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (Hong Kong) ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) in 1994. Participation rights under Article 12 of the CRC states that State Parties should ensure that children’s views are given due weight on matters affecting them (Article 12 CRC, 1989). Pupils’ voice is often attributed to this Article and has consequently become a growing area of concern in schools (Lundy, 2007). Despite the international call for increased pupil voice in schools, there is currently a dearth of literature in regard to children’s voice in primary schools in Hong Kong (Forde et al., 2018). The Concluding Observations by the Committee states that there is a lack of “effective and broad mechanisms…to promote and facilitate respect for the views of all children and children’s participation in all matters affecting them” in Hong Kong (CRC, 2013). As a Chinese Confucian society, Hong Kong places respect to teachers at the highest priority and children are expected to not challenge or question them (Ng, 1996, 2001). Therefore, this research aims to understand the extent of which children believe they have participation rights in a faith school in Hong Kong and whether school leaders and parents understand children’s rights. Departing from an interpretivist perspective, this research draws on 12 semi-structured one-on-one interviews to better understand the participants’ lived experiences and views of children’s voice at school. The initial findings suggest that tenants and values stemming from Confucianism play a significant role as to why children’s voice is often not encouraged within the school as academic success is prioritized. However, students demonstrate forms of agency by articulating their personal views and voice. Ultimately, this demonstrates conflict between the children’s prescribed behaviours stemming from Confucian culture and their own autonomous thinking.

1. The role of children’s rights in
a Hong Kong faith school – a
case study
Denise Wu
UCL Institute of Education
Department of Learning and Leadership
MA Primary Education (Policy and Practice)
IDSP Faculty Competition
London 3 July 2019

2. Research Questions
1. To what extent do children believe they have participation rights in a
faith school in Hong Kong?
2. How do school leaders and parents understand ‘children’s rights’?

3. Methodology
Relativist ontological position: reality is shaped by experiences (Denzin
and Lincoln, 2005)  world is a social reality
oReality isn’t objective or fixed  multiple realities
oTherefore, various stakeholders’ views are needed: students, parents,
school leaders

4. Methodology
Interpretivist Epistemology
o “Culturally derived and historically situated interpretations of the social life-
world”(Crotty, 1998, p.67)
o Qualitative Research  Semi-structured interviews used to understand the
different experiences of participants
o School leaders (principal, chairpersons, vice-chairpersons (teachers)):
management and practices
o Students: their own interpretations of their experiences with voice
o Parents: understanding and practices

5. Research Design
Case-study
oFocuses on particular perspectives of the participants on a certain
interest
oGain insight into school leaders’, students’, parents’ perceptions 
deeper understanding

6. Research Design
Semi-structured Interviews
oElicit deeper understanding while maintaining informality  free flow
exchange in dialogue
oResearchers can probe and & explore unplanned trails (Gray, 2018)
oGeneral topics: classroom setting, extra-curricular activities, and
whole-school  for all three groups of participant
oQuestions for each group will vary but revolve around the same topic

7. Research Design
For example:
For Teachers: Do you think students have voice in the classroom?
For Students: Do you think you had voice in the classroom?
For Parents: Do you think your child had voice in the classroom?
oInformal structure  unexpected themes
oResearcher and interviewees co-construct data through semi-
structured interviews, working together to make sense of the data
(Gray, 2018)

8. Research Design
oSkype interviews
oVideo calls: “better interpersonal communication, the development
of greater trust, and as a result, more rounded and detailed
responses than would have been the case in just using a telephone”
(Gray, 2018, p. 400)

9. Research Design
oGrand-tour questions
“If I were to come to your classroom, could you describe to me what I
would see and hear?”
oProbing questions
“Why do you feel like you have more/less voice and power compared
to your classmates?”
oPrompts to gather more information about experiences (Gray, 2018)

10. Research Design
oInformation Sheets sent beforehand
oGiven opportunities to raise questions/concerns via email, WhatsApp,
Skype
oStudents were also provided with questions beforehand since
interviewing with children is seen as more challenging than adults
(David, 1992).

11. Sampling
Purposive Sampling
oParticular individuals, events, setting since the particular group has
valuable information to offer that might not be obtainable from other
groups (Maxwell, 1997)

12. Sampling
Purposive Sampling
oPrincipal: normally perceived to hold high authority and make
decisions about school structure
oChairpersons and Vice-Chairpersons (Teachers): Dual roles  Leaders
& daily experience in classrooms  decision-making powers  direct
contact with children  reflect as teacher and decision-maker

13. Sampling
oGraduated students
oAttended school  reflective, holistic experience
oNot pressured to answer questions a certain way  Speak freely
oParents
oVital agents in students’ attitude, learning, and development (Epstein
& Sanders, 2000)
oCommunication with students and teachers

14. Ethics
oSchool principal sent official information sheet detailing research
objectives with background information regarding children’s rights
oConsent from principal, chair-persons/vice-chair persons contacted
and sent information sheets
oParents and students contacted and sent information sheets
oStudents interviewed had at least one parent/guardian present

15. Ethics
oAll participants were able to ask questions, raise concerns, and opt
out of the interviews at anytime
oConsent forms for all parties (consent from students and parents
were sought for student interviews)
oPseudonyms were assigned to participants
oAudio-recordings were made

16. Ethical Considerations
oEthical consideration: researcher-participant relationship
oResearcher and school leaders were previous colleagues  possibly
reluctant in sharing information

17. Ethical Considerations
oResearcher was students’ previous teacher  possible additional
level of unequal power on top of adult researcher and child
participant
oChildren may attempt to produce ‘correct’ answers or show
compliance

18. Ethical Considerations
oImportant for the children to build a relationship where the children
will feel comfortable and secured in sharing their views and opinions
with the researcher in order to work together (Conroy & Harcourt,
2009)
oGood pre-established relationship  comfortable sharing ideas and
experiences honestly
oResearcher attempted to redistribute power imbalance  provide
opportunities for responsibility and initiatives  children chose when
and what time interviews took place

19. Limitations
oConfined to a small group
oLimited to transferability and possible generalization
oMaster’s dissertation (limited scope): Purposive sampling could omit
key characteristics in the sample selection + cause possible degree of
bias or error (Li et al., 2018)

20. Data Analysis
INDUCTIVE
CODING
APPROACH
THEMATIC
ANALYSIS
CODING CATEGORIES
THEMES

21. Initial Findings (Structure)
Teachers’
instructions
“…[T]he teacher usually asks better students, [or students who behave
well] in the class, so I get to make decisions most of the time.”
- Student
Parents’
influences
“I always tell her you have to behave in class. You cannot disturb other
people because there are more than 30 students in the class and for a
teacher to manage all the students, it’s not easy. So, I always tell her to be
quiet and keep concentrated and listen to the teacher […]”
- Parent
School’s
enforced
principles
“The motto is ‘My Lord, my God’, and we hope that the primary school
students will learn from the teachers and from the parents, and treat the
teachers as the Lord and leaders, so, they will just listen and try to follow.”
– School Leader

22. Initial Findings (Agency)
Fairness
“…[T]here’s this moment where our English teacher, Teacher B, asked us what she could
do to make us stop forgetting to hand in our homework, so I just stood up and said stop
giving us homework cause it was kind of getting on my nerves since this is one person’s
problem. Why are you punishing all 30 of us?”
- Student
Independence
“When the selection was first made, I was not a prefect. I asked my teacher if there was
any chance or if one of the prefects had to leave, would he give me the job? After a few
months I actually got it because someone had many competitions and the duties clashed
with their practices. So eventually, after a lot, I managed to get the prefect position. So, I
definitely wanted to get the prefect position.”
- Student
Democracy
“The teacher decides on the decisions mostly using votes. They tell us to raise our
hands and ask like, “How many of you want to do this first? How many of you want to
do this later? How many of you don’t want to do it?” And, so we raise our hands, and
the teacher does whatever the majority voted for.”
- Student

23. Conclusion
Research Significance
oDearth of literature on children’s rights in Hong Kong
oCoincides with the hotly debated issue of voice and rights as a Hong
Kong person or child in light of current issues and protests associated
with the Extradition Bill in Hong Kong
oHelp us understand what should be done in order to facilitate
children’s rights of voice and power and ensure that they have more
central roles in academic debates associated with education

24. References
Cohen, L. Manion, L and Morrison, K. 2007. Research Methods in Education (sixth ed); London: Routledge
Epstein, J.L., & Sanders, M. G. 2000. Connecting home, school, and community: New directions for social
research, in M. T. Hallinan (Ed.), Handbook of the sociology of education (pp. 285-306). New York: Kluwer
Academic
Etherington, K. 2004. Becoming a Reflexive Researcher: Using Ourselves in Research. London: Jessica Kingsley
Publishers.
Gray, ED. 2014. Doing Research in the Real World, 2nd ed. London: Sage Publications Ltd
Hammersley, M. (2000). Taking sides in social research. London: Routledge.

25. References
Opie, C. (2004) Doing Educational Research (Ed); London: Sage
Leech, LB. (2002) Asking Questions: Techniques for Semistructured Interviews: American Political Science
Association. Pp.665-668
Smith, John K., 1984. The Problem of Criteria for Judging Interpretive Inquiry. Educational Evaluation and Policy
Analysis, 6(4), pp.379–91.
Tight, M. 2010. The curious case of case study. A viewpoint, International Journal of Research Methodology,
13(4) pp.329-339