A systematic review of definitions of rights education for children: Children's rights education (CRE), children's human rights education (CHRE), and other rights education subtypes

Abstract For those working in the field of rights education, there is a broad understanding of what rights education encompasses and why it is significant, but there do not appear to be any agreed definitions of subtypes of rights education aside from human rights education (HRE) (which itself is contested). This lack of conceptual clarity makes it difficult to be certain that what is being delivered within a ‘rights education’ framework fulfils its obligations. To address this gap, this systematic review sought to understand how rights education for children has been defined in existing academic research. This review used seminal philosopher H.W.B. Joseph's rules for defining terms and an assessment was made of each definition against these rules. Findings confirm that few of the papers incorporate a specific definition of rights education for children, or its subtypes, such as children's rights education (CRE) or children's human rights education (CHRE). The analyses conducted in this article point to the need for definitional clarity for each of the terms CRE, CHRE and rights education for children. As a way forward, a definition of rights education for children is proposed as an overarching term positioned within international human rights law, which encompasses several specific subtypes that each use a different international human rights text to anchor its content, methods, approach and rationale. A new set of criteria to devise and assess definitions is also provided. Context and implications Rationale for this study: Rights education for children is espoused in foundational legally binding and non‐binding documents. Distinctions between types of rights education exist, such as in their aims, purpose or framing, but there does not appear to be a shared understanding of what rights education for children means. Why the new findings matter: Conceptual clarity is necessary to establish a shared understanding of what does (and does not) constitute different types of rights education. Implications for practitioners, researchers and policy makers: This original contribution ensures that clarity and better understanding of the meaning of key concepts can be brought to the important field of rights education for children. This clarity is a significant improvement for researchers, education practitioners, policy makers and other stakeholders, given the lack of clarity that currently exists. This study has implications for practitioners/educators to guide their planning and delivery of rights education; researchers in providing boundaries between the different types of rights education so those seeking to engage with the concepts can be sure they are talking about the same thing when planning, delivering, learning and researching different aspects of rights education; policy makers to aid in determining whether what is being delivered fulfils the legislative obligations associated with rights education.