NEW PUBLICATION: Bringing the Right to Education into the 21st Century

I’m really excited to announce the next article in our data analytics project that examines the Concluding Observations of the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child. For more on the background of this project, click here.

Jonathan Todres & Charlotte Alexander, “Bringing the Right to Education into the 21st Century,” Berkeley Journal of International Law, vol. 42 (forthcoming Winter 2024).

Click here for access to the full pre-publication draft.

Abstract

Education is not only foundational to children’s development, it also helps children realize the full range of their rights. Yet the international law mandate on the right to education has changed little since 1948. This static state has left the right to education unfulfilled for millions of children. This article argues that it is time to update the legal mandate on education, and in particular with respect to pre-primary and secondary education. The article starts by explicating the limitations in the current mandate on the right to education, and then evaluates whether so-called “soft law,” or non-binding measures, have helped fill the gap in existing treaty law on education rights. As a case study, the article uses a combination of manual review and computational text analytics to examine discussions of education in the Concluding Observations of the Committee on the Rights of the Child from 1993-2020. These reports issued by the Committee evaluate states parties’ progress in meeting their children’s rights treaty obligations and, as such, are a primary vehicle for advancing the implementation of human rights. Finding that non-binding measures are insufficient in practice, the article concludes that the international community needs to agree to an updated legal mandate on education that ensures all children have access to an equitable start and can complete secondary education and develop to their full potential.

NEW PUBLICATION: Age Discrimination and the Personhood of Children and Youth

Jonathan Todres, “Age Discrimination and the Personhood of Children and Youth,” Harvard Human Rights Journal Online, Dec. 2022, https://harvardhrj.com/2022/12/age-discrimination-and-the-personhood-of-children-and-youth/

Abstract

A significant percentage of the population of the United States, or any other country, lives without voting rights, is prohibited from holding public office, has restricted access to employment opportunities, and is subjected to greater restrictions on their participation rights such as freedom of expression, association, and assembly. These bright-line rules dividing childhood and adulthood, while advantageous for administrative reasons, fail both to recognize the full personhood of young people and account for developing nature of childhood. They also deprive communities and countries of valuable contributions from their youngest members. This essay questions such bright-line distinctions, which have most commonly been drawn at 18 years old. It focuses in particular on young people’s participation rights. Evolving understandings of both children’s rights and child and adolescent development necessitate a rethinking of the legal regulation of childhood and emerging adulthood.

NEW PUBLICATION: Reimagining Children’s Rights in the United States

Elizabeth Barnert, Joseph Wright, Charlene Choi, Jonathan Todres, Neal Halfon, “Reimagining Children’s Rights in the United States,” JAMA Pediatrics (published online Oct. 24, 2022, doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2022.38222022; print forthcoming)

Click here for access to the article.

NEW PUBLICATION: Book Review of Michael Freeman's "A Magna Carta for Children? Rethinking Children's Rights"

I was delighted to have the opportunity to review Michael Freeman’s book, “A Magna Carta for Children? Rethinking Children’s Rights,” for the Carnegie Council’s Ethics & International Affairs journal. As I wrote:

For those well versed in children’s rights, reading Freeman’s book is like signing up for a walking tour of your hometown with one of the foremost authorities on the city—you wind your way through familiar territory but are nonetheless enriched at each turn by the insights of, and reflections by, your expert guide. For those less familiar with children’s rights, Freeman’s book may well be the definitive starting point.

The full review is available here and here.

Jonathan Todres, Book Review, “A Magna Carta for Children? Rethinking Children’s Rights, Michael Freeman (Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 2020).” Ethics & International Affairs, 35(4), 581-583 (Winter 2021).

NEW PUBLICATION: Can Litigation Help Reduce Bullying?

I have just published a new editorial, “Can Litigation Help Reduce Bullying?” in JAMA Pediatrics.

Click here to see the article.

NEW PUBLICATION: A Healthy Digital Environment for Children Means More than Protection

Full text below. Published by Human Rights at Home and First Focus.

A Healthy Digital Environment for Children Means More than Protection

Jonathan Todres & Joseph Wright

For young people, the digital environment is a modern-day playground or park. It is where they hang out, socialize, and learn. But ask any parent or policymaker about children and online environments, and chances are they mostly see health and safety risks.

Protecting children from online exploitation, privacy violations, and manipulative business practices is vital. However, focusing exclusively on protection isn’t enough to ensure the online world is a healthy, positive space for children. It’s like building a playground fixating only on safety, and abandoning any consideration of child development, the importance of play, and children’s social interactions.

Today, online spaces are a focal point of young people’s lives. Young children (8-12 years old) report almost 5 hours of screen time per day, while teenagers report more than 7 hours per day, not including school or homework time. And the COVID-19 pandemic has only added to that.

But as children live more of their lives online, it has become clear that the digital world, like most public spaces throughout history, was not designed specifically for kids. Research shows that the digital environment is adversely affecting children’s cognitive, social, and emotional development. These issues demand a response, but the goal cannot be just to avoid harm. Instead, we must affirmatively mold the digital environment into a space where children can develop and thrive.  

Although social media and tech companies might feel too big to control, the digital environment is not a fixed space. It is continuously evolving, so we have the opportunity, and responsibility, to shape the online world into a healthier, more enriching space for young people.

To do so requires several steps. First, we must stop thinking of children as a homogenous group. The needs and capacities of a 15-year-old and 5-year-old differ. Failing to account for these differences infantilizes adolescents and spurs responses that fit poorly with children’s developmental stages. Our policies and strategies must reflect the diversity of childhood and be responsive to child development, just as many playgrounds have different equipment for different ages of children.

Second, we need to see children as individuals with rights and not merely charitable causes needing protection. Yes, children need protection from online exploitation. In fact, they have a right to protection. But seeing children as rights holders means much more than a claim to protection; it means ensuring all rights of children online, including the right to education, to enjoy their own culture, and to play. That also means policies must not deny children their rights in the name of protecting or “saving” them.

Protective measures are needed, especially for young children, but they must be combined with measures that empower young people to navigate online spaces safely and reap the benefits of the online world. Digital literacy education offers one means of achieving this. It’s analogous to teaching children how to develop healthy relationships and avoid toxic or unsafe situations, rather than simply prohibiting them from leaving the house.

Third, we must recognize young people as members of our community who have a right to be heard now, and not only at some ill-defined point in the future. The digital environment can be a space where children learn about their rights and civic duties, make their voices heard, and articulate a better vision for our world. What would have been isolated school strikes to protest climate change 15 years ago have become global movements because of organizing and activism online. While Greta Thunberg’s stand may be one of the most recognizable examples of young people leading, there are countless others. In the United States, young people have emerged as leading voices on gun violence, climate change, racial injustice, and other issues, and they have used social media to build movements and demand action by both policymakers and the private sector.

Embracing these ideas does not mean abandoning efforts to protect children. We must address online exploitation, cyberbullying, and racial and gender-based discrimination online. But we don’t need to settle for harm avoidance as the best we can do. After all, today we design safer parks and playgrounds, where the risk of injury is significantly reduced but young people are still free to express themselves and to explore, interact, and develop.

Ultimately, we need a better vision of what the digital environment can become. Young people are already showing us that. Policymakers and tech companies need to join child advocates and parents in partnering with young people to help reshape the digital environment into a space in which children are not only safe but can thrive.

Jonathan Todres is a Distinguished University Professor & Professor of Law at Georgia State University College of Law. Joseph Wright is a Ph.D. candidate in education and MPH student in community health sciences at the University of California, Los Angeles.

NEW PUBLICATION: Confronting Housing Insecurity—A Key to Getting Kids Back to School

Published in JAMA Pediatrics (online June 7, 2021), doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2021.1085 (coauthored with Lauren Meeler)

Discussions about the impact of COVID-19 on children have primarily centered around disruptions in education. Some students are approaching a year since they have been in the classroom, and the challenges and inequities of virtual learning are well documented. But as momentum and planning for reopenings have grown, an issue continues to be overlooked: housing and the looming eviction cliff. Housing insecurity undermines children’s education, and unless we address it, the return to in-school instruction will not solve the inequities harming so many children.

[To continue reading, click here: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/2780351.]

Bringing Mental Health to the Forefront

October 10th marks World Mental Health Day. Although international days typically do not get much coverage in the United States, World Mental Health Day deserves attention this year due to the significant impact of COVID-19.

In the United States, the epicenter of the pandemic, COVID-19 related job losses, looming evictions, school closures, social isolation, and related issues have spurred stress, anxiety, depression, and other adverse mental health consequences.

The mental and behavioral health consequences have been particularly significant for single-parent families and families with young children. More broadly, evidence suggests that the pandemic is causing an increase in the number of children with mental health issues and worsening children’s existing mental health issues. In addition, COVID-19 related school closings have disrupted children’s access to mental health services. As reported in JAMA Pediatrics, “[A]mong adolescents who received any mental health services during 2012 to 2015, 35% received their mental health services exclusively from school settings.”

The short- and long-term mental health consequences of the pandemic are profound. Although the CARES Act included some funding for mental health services, the second round of stimulus is bogged down in political fighting while children and families continue to suffer. The delays in meeting children’s mental health needs could alter children’s life trajectories.

The occasion of World Mental Health Day highlights three critical shortcomings in the United States. First, we continue to overlook children. Instead of focusing on the safe reopening of schools—and children’s educational, social, and emotional wellbeing—many states have prioritized reopening bars and restaurants. Second, mental health continues to be largely ignored, which tragically is not a new problem in the US. And third, the failure of the U.S. government to embrace children's rights, and human rights mandates more broadly, leaves children and families at a disadvantage—having to rely on charity instead of being able to realize their inherent rights.

Progress on these issues ultimately will require a mindset shift and a recognition that children, mental health, and rights genuinely matter. That’s admittedly a long-term project, when most are focused on the election and events in the near term. But perhaps World Mental Health Day can help start (or rekindle) a dialogue on these underlying issues that are essential to improving the wellbeing of all individuals in the United States.

COVID-19 Could Spur Privatization of Public-School Education

Note: Essay published originally on Medium, July 20, 2020. Click here.

When our children’s school district announced recently that it would start the year online, the decision ignited a flurry of social media posts and texts from parents. Amidst the messages of stress and anxiety, a wave of more focused posts stuck out. Many parents were proactively creating “pods” and making alternative schooling arrangements for their kids.

This pairing off had started even though schools had yet to announce what virtual schooling would look like. Despite, or perhaps because of, this uncertainty, some parents were seeking to hire tutors and even teachers for their kids, especially their young children. Their individual efforts are understandable. Lots of parents are worried about their kids’ education and simply cannot manage a new school year that looks like the end of last year, when virtual instruction required significant parental involvement. But let’s be clear about the danger of this moment: this is the privatization of public education. And the government is letting it happen.

Yes, many parents have chosen private school for their children in the past. And yes, many middle-class and wealthier parents have long hired private tutors for afterschool and weekend help. But this is different. It is not supplementary. Families with kids in public school are feeling the need to hire tutors or teachers and pay for the public school portion of the day. This is about guiding their kids through the regular 8 am to 2 pm school day. Imagine this playing out in person: it would be like having a first-grade class with 4 or 5 additional teachers in the room who will work only with selected students, while the majority of kids compete for the attention of one teacher.

We all know that the US education system is already deeply unequal with huge disparities in resources across neighborhoods. But now COVID-19 and the government’s inept response to it — the result of which is that US children won’t return to in-person schooling when their peers in other countries will — threaten to turn these gaps into chasms and to drop even more children by the wayside, including those in middle class families who weren’t thought to be at risk.

This privatization of the school day is not coming just from parents who seek any possible advantage for their child. Far more parents seem to be pursuing this option simply because they have no other choice if they are to keep their jobs. And yet many other parents simply cannot afford to pay for basic public education for their children.

Of course, no one can prohibit a parent from spending money on their children’s education (and generally speaking, that’s not a bad thing). But too many parents confront the impossible decision of either spending money they don’t have or accepting that their child will be left behind.

There is really only one way to stem the tide of this privatization: we have to ensure that virtual instruction is effective for kids and doesn’t overburden parents who need to work. That’s a tall order, especially given that most school districts are attempting to rework their curriculum with only a couple weeks of additional training and prep days for teachers. That leaves teachers, who for far too long have been asked to do more and more with fewer resources, in an impossible situation.

No, we can’t dump this on teachers, just as we can’t dump it on parents who desperately need to work.

Ultimately, responsibility lies with the federal government and state legislators. They failed to seize the opportunity in March and April when they had months to plan and prioritize children’s education. Now, the only way we will get through this pandemic with public school education still a public good is if federal and state policymakers immediately identify and invest the resources needed to ensure every child can develop to their full potential. Anything short of that deserves an F.