I’m Smart Already,I Don’t Need My Teacher to Make Me Smart: Children’s Voices for the Co-Construction of a Children’s Participatory Rights Framework for Early Childhood Education,South Africa

Abstract

Despite the South African government’s commitment to advancing early childhood education, a significant gap remains in the practical implementation of children’s participatory rights. This study explored how young children’s voices are engaged in the co-construction of a participatory rights framework within early childhood care and education. The research involved forty children, aged 3 to 5, from two early childhood centres located in the southern suburbs of Cape Town. Employing a participatory methodology, data were generated through group conversations facilitated by the use of puppets. Findings indicate that while teacher-dominated spaces provided opportunities for language-based participation, children exercised greater autonomy and voice in activities such as art and free play. A notable and concerning outcome was that many children believed it was essential for them to listen to teachers and mothers yet did not view it as important for adults to reciprocate by listening to them. This asymmetry reflects the adult-dominated nature of early childhood spaces. However, the study also revealed instances where children demonstrated strong agentic capacities, expressing confidence in their intelligence and belief in their ability to influence their learning, independent of adult validation. These findings emphasize the critical importance of positioning early childhood settings as dialogic spaces within the participatory rights framework, spaces in which children’s voices are not only genuinely heard but also hold meaningful influence. Achieving this requires that teachers actively affirm the significance and value of children’s contributions, thereby fostering an environment in which children are confident that adults are attentive and responsive to their perspectives.

Keywords

participation young children early childhood care and education children’s participatory rights framework South Africa

Introduction and Background

South Africa’s education system, particularly in the realm of early childhood education (ECE), continues to grapple with the legacies of apartheid, which institutionalised racial segregation and systemic inequality. Under the apartheid regime, educational access for Black, Indian, and Coloured children was severely limited, with these groups relegated to under-resourced and inferior schooling systems. These historical injustices have had long-term effects on the quality of education and the training of teachers. Although the post-apartheid government prioritised the expansion of educational opportunities, including early childhood education, gaps persisted, especially in the provision of education for children from birth to five years. During this period, care for young children was predominantly entrusted to families or caregivers, while educator qualifications were generally confined to certificate-level training.

In response to these gaps, the Department of Higher Education, in partnership with the European Union and local universities, introduced the Policy on Minimum Requirements for Early Childhood Educators in 2017. This initiative enabled early childhood educators to pursue formal qualifications, such as diplomas or degrees, in Early Childhood Care and Education (ECCE). Alongside this, the National Curriculum Framework (DBE, 2015) was introduced, offering a holistic approach that foregrounded children’s well-being and promoted child agency through choice and decision-making. However, while the NCF encourages listening to children, it falls short in providing detailed guidance on upholding children’s participatory rights or fostering autonomy in everyday classroom practices.

South Africa’s ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) in 1989 further affirmed its commitment to the promotion and protection of children’s rights. This commitment is also reflected in key national documents, including the South African Constitution (1996), the Bill of Rights (1996), and the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child (OAU, 1990). These frameworks collectively enshrine children’s rights in all matters that affect them, forming a strong legal and ethical foundation for children’s participation across various domains, including early childhood education.

Despite these policy frameworks and recent educational reforms, a significant gap remains between the formal recognition of children’s participatory rights and their practical implementation, particularly in early childhood education. Many early childhood teachers remain unfamiliar with the specific provisions of the UNCRC, Shaik (2021), notably Articles 12 and 13, which affirm children’s rights to express their views freely and to participate in decisions affecting them. Teacher-centred pedagogical traditions further hinder the realisation of participatory rights, often marginalising children’s voices in learning environments that should instead be inclusive and dialogic.

In an attempt to bridge this gap, the National Strategy to Accelerate Action for Children was launched in October 2024 by the South African government in collaboration with civil society and youth organisations. While this strategy marks an important step forward in advocating for child and youth participation in decision-making processes, it tends to prioritise older children and youth, leaving the voices of children under six relatively unacknowledged. This oversight is problematic, particularly given the developmental importance of participation in the early years and its potential role in breaking cycles of poverty and inequality.

To address these ongoing challenges, it is vital that early childhood development (ECD) frameworks adopt a more inclusive approach, one that not only ensures protection and care but also actively listens to and values young children’s perspectives. Such an approach empowers children as agents in shaping their own learning and developmental trajectories.

These concerns formed the basis of a pilot research study conceptualised under the Thutuka project, funded by the National Research Foundation of South Africa. The study, titled Co-constructing a Children’s Participatory Rights Framework for Early Childhood Education in South Africa, aimed to explore how the voices of both children and educators can inform the development of a participatory rights framework in early education. As there is currently no such framework in the South African context, this project sought to address the gap by engaging in co-construction processes with stakeholders. While the research was initially conducted as a pilot study, a broader national project is now underway. The focus of this article is on ‘What do children’s voices suggest about how they can influence the co-construction of a children’s participatory rights framework for early childhood care and education in South Africa? I begin with a literature review on children’s rights and participation, children’s agency and voice in early childhood education followed by Lundy’s model of participation. I then introduce the participatory methodology followed by the findings and discussion.

Children’s Rights and Participation

Children have the right to be listened to from the earliest age as amplified in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC, 1989), United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child (2005). Specifically, Articles 12 and 13 grant children the right to be involved in decision-making processes regarding all matters that impact their lives. Whilst the inclusion of children’s voices in decision making has been exemplified in the UNCRC there has also been related challenges. Some countries have been proactive in advancing children’s participatory rights and it realization is fully implemented in practice and policy (Theobald, 2019). In certain signatory countries of the UNCRC, particularly in Nordic regions, rights-based perspectives have been integrated as fundamental principles within policy, curriculum, and pedagogy. In these contexts, young children are increasingly acknowledged as active participants in their communities, particularly within early childhood education programs. Conversely, in other nations, the incorporation of children’s rights into early childhood policy and pedagogy remains limited, with only isolated instances of implementation.

Professionals working with young children across various organizations and program types have the potential to play a crucial role in advancing rights-based perspectives within policy, research, and practice (Theobald, 2019). The role that professionals play in supporting children’s rights is pivotal as they can set the foundations for supporting children’s participatory rights; however this is a challenge in practical settings. One significant barrier to the promotion of children’s participatory rights is the belief among some adults working with young children that these children lack the capacity to make decisions due to their perceived immaturity (Akyol & Erdem, 2021; Lansdown et al., 2014; Raby, 2014). A South African study by Shaik (2021) highlighted how mentor teachers were resistant to unlearning transmissive teaching methods when student teachers, who engaged with Shier’s (2001) model of participation, sought to offer opportunities for children to express their views. The findings revealed that these mentor teachers, deeply entrenched in traditional teaching approaches, openly stated to student teachers on teaching practice that they had taught in this manner for many years and were unwilling to alter their methods by inviting young children to participate. The study further indicated that student teachers were inadequately trained to listen to children’s voices, instead often listening only for “the right answer.” Other research suggests that many teachers are unfamiliar with how to implement participatory pedagogies with young children (Kanyal, 2014). There is a lack of practical guidance for early childhood education professionals on how to effectively seek and incorporate children’s perspectives (Sargeant & Gillett-Swan, 2019, p. 122). Some teachers may also hesitate to support children’s participatory rights due to fears of relinquishing authority, or because they believe that classrooms utilizing participatory pedagogy are disorderly and lack discipline (Shaik, 2021). Correia et al. (2020) identify constraints such as heavy workloads, large class sizes, limited time, and bureaucratic challenges as further obstacles to supporting child participation.

Theobald (2019) indicates that research on children’s rights in early childhood reveals a paradox, with tensions surrounding the framing of rights, particularly in terms of individual versus group-focused perspectives. On one hand, children’s rights are often framed in individualistic terms, emphasizing the benefits they provide to the child as an individual. This perspective recognizes children’s right to make decisions regarding matters that affect them and to experience these rights in their everyday lives (United Nations, 1989). On the other hand, a more group-oriented perspective may view children’s rights through a democratic lens, linking their implementation to broader concepts like global citizenship (Pierce et al., 2010), a focus on the future (Correia et al., 2019; Zachrisen, 2016), and the promotion of values such as selflessness and altruism (Brantefors & Quennerstedt, 2016).

It is very rare that young children are provided with the opportunity to have influence over policy, practice or their overall wants and desires. Mayne and Howitt (2019) remind us that there are few international studies that invite the participation of kindergarten and primary school children as co-researchers. It is often adults who decide on behalf of children as to what is best for them as adults make inferences and assumptions about children through adult observations and measures Smith (2011) as cited in Gaches and Gallagher (2019). Much of what we know in early childhood education has been determined by adults who decide on the questions, methodologies and findings (Smith, 2011 as cited in Gaches and Gallagher, 2019). Gaches and Gallagher (2019) alert us to how very often we as adults consult with other researchers concerning ethical issues, appropriateness and scholarly significance of our research and in doing so we consult with special populations and early childhood adult leaders but leave children out on contributing to these important decisions.

A recent study by Sivertsen and Bjørgen (2025) revealed that circle time is generally organised as a structured pedagogical activity led by staff, findings indicate that children often experience frustration due to their restricted participation, as the agenda is predominantly determined by adults with limited consideration given to children’s contributions. Similarly, Ree and Emilson (2020) demonstrated that teachers’ communicative practices in early childhood education (ECE) significantly shape children’s opportunities for participation. When teachers adopted controlling communication styles, children’s possibilities for engagement were constrained, as interactions were characterised by talking to rather than with the children. Children are often viewed as incompetent, immature and unable to make decisions (James & Prout, 1997). What children say and think can often be better articulated by adults. Research examining children’s perspectives is crucial for policymakers, educators, and planners (MacNaughton & Smith, 2008). According to Juhl (2023, p. 37), children possess the “ability to change the world.” The concept of agency encompasses both individual capacities for action as well as the ways in which children exercise influence within collective activities and the social dynamics of early childhood education and care (ECEC). Furthermore, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC, 1989) asserts that even young children have the right to be consulted on matters that impact them, with the aim of enhancing their learning environments, well-being, and overall quality of life. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child asserts that even the youngest of children have the right to participate in decision making. Whilst the youngest of children may lack the verbal capacities to express themselves, they have other means of expressing themselves through gestures, crying, babbling and other forms of body languages (Murray, 2019) these expressions are meaningful and have an important message to convey. Children offer distinct insider perspectives as they develop connections to their environment, provide valuable insights, and challenge adult-driven agendas (Koller & Farley, 2019; Tay-Lim & Lim, 2013). When children’s views are acknowledged, they perceive themselves as having influence. Honneth (1995) asserts that for children to experience authentic participation, it is essential that they are loved, cared for, and recognized for the contributions they make. Article 12, which affirms the child’s right to be heard, suggests that if research addresses a sociocultural perspective on children and young people’s learning, development, or participation in society, their rights can only be fully respected if they are actively engaged in the research, contributing their own perspectives (Lundy et al., 2011). This emphasises the importance of participatory research, advocating for the inclusion of children and youth in studies that directly concern them (Lundy, 2007; Preston et al., 2019). This begs the need for involving children in participatory research with matters that concern young children (Lundy, 2007; Preston et al., 2019). Participatory research encompasses a variety of practices, ranging from participatory data collection methods to approaches that actively involve children and youth in decision-making throughout all stages of the research process, including study design, data collection, and dissemination (Montreuil et al., 2021).

Whilst there have been empirical studies on researching with children, most of these have occurred in the West and a dearth of participatory research exists in Africa. In Australia, children have been engaged in research to explore their perspectives about their early childhood settings, schools and communities and their transitions from one context to the other which include transitions from school and school-aged care (Dockett & Perry, 2014a, 2014b; Perry & Dockett, 2011), learning environments (Dockett & Perry, 2012, 2014a) and child friendly communities (Dockett et al., 2011; Dockett & Perry, 2012). As such children’s perspectives have influenced policy as well as practice (Dockett & Perry, 2014a, 2015). To explore young children’s perspectives on belonging a study carried out by Juutinen et al. (2025) conceptualized belonging as a relational, multi-dimensional, and a contested construct. Research methodologies such as photo elicitation, walking interviews and participatory observations were used. Three factors were identified that reveal how to approach children’s perspectives on belonging, a deliberate choice of method, careful selection of children and conscious interpretations of children’s perspectives. In another recent study undertaken in Australia, Watson and Newman (2023) explored children’s views about their early childhood setting as they wanted the children’s ideas to be incorporated into the design of a new inclusive centre. Through multimodal data such as child led photo taking tours, photo elicited interviews and interview elicited drawing, the findings revealed that children showed a preference for the outdoors with places for hiding, safety, cleanliness and authentic rather than fake resources.

In the South African context, Du Preez et al. (2019) conducted a study that examined the experiences and understandings of social justice among nine-year-old children through the use of narratives and artefacts. The findings indicated that children expressed a strong desire to live in fair and democratic societies, highlighting their aspirations for justice and equality. This research underscored the need for civic education to be meaningfully integrated into both policy and practice, advocating for the recognition of children as active civic participants in all dimensions of social and community development.

More recently, Shaik (2024) investigated young children’s perceptions of decision-making within early childhood centres, with a focus on identifying the contexts in which such decisions are made. The study found that children’s understanding of decision-making was largely shaped by the choices afforded to them at home, as facilitated by their parents. Within the early childhood setting, opportunities for decision-making were limited and primarily restricted to domains such as art and play activities typically permitted during designated “free play Fridays.” In contrast, decisions related to formal learning areas, such as language, remained predominantly under the control of teachers. These findings suggest a need to reconsider pedagogical approaches in early childhood education to create more inclusive and participatory environments that acknowledge children’s agency.

Theoretical Inspirations

Lundy’s Model of Participation

Lundy’s model has been utilized in early childhood and other disciplines as well. Moore (2019) examined the perspectives of practitioners and parents in the United Kingdom regarding the concept of child voice, focusing on how children’s voices can be heard in ways that foster an open listening environment. This approach aims to stimulate professional dialogue and enhance the understanding of rights-based pedagogy. Correia et al. (2022) recently analyzed the application of the elements of space, voice, audience, and influence within the context of early childhood education. In South Africa, Shaik (2023) used Lundy’s model of participation to explore final-year student teachers’ understandings about children’s participatory rights in the Reception Year (Grade R) and how these understandings influence their practice using Lundy’s model of participation. This was the first study carried out in early childhood education in South Africa using Lundy’s model of participation.

In the current study, Lundy’s model of participation was used to analyse what the children’s voices suggest about how they can influence the co-construction of a children’s participatory rights framework for early childhood care and education in South Africa. Lundy’s model of participation emphasizes four key concepts: space, voice, audience, and influence. Space refers not only to a physical environment but to an inclusive setting where children’s views are valued and given importance. Voice, in this context, extends beyond spoken words, encompassing various forms of expression, thereby emphasizing the need to consider diverse ways of meaning-making (Lundy, 2007). The concept of audience ensures that children’s views are communicated to individuals who hold the responsibility to listen and act upon them. It is crucial that adults actively engage with children by enhancing their capacity to listen, through both verbal and non-verbal means. According to Welty and Lundy (2013), this right of audience guarantees children the opportunity to express their views to those responsible for listening and making decisions based on their input.

Methodology

The adoption of a participatory research methodology was deemed most appropriate for this study, as it positioned children as active contributors to the research process rather than passive subjects of investigation (Clark & Moss, 2011). Clark and Moss (2011) further expound that young children are meaning makers and their perspectives matter when using appropriate methods. The inclusion of children in the research process facilitates the interpretation of their perspectives through child-centred lenses, rather than relying exclusively on adult-driven accounts of their experiences, which has historically dominated the field (Montreuil et al., 2021). Children’s involvement at various stages of the research process differs from the use of participatory methods of data collection. In this study the participatory method was to focus on gathering data directly with children (Montreuil et al., 2021) as I found it important that their perspectives influence the children’s participatory rights framework. Often there is blurred information regarding the research process with children, a participatory method entails collecting data directly with children as was the case of this study and in contrast a participatory research approach entails children actively involved in making key decisions in relation to the research process (Montreuill et al., 2021). Although multiple data collection methods were employed including group conversations using puppets, child-led tours, and the use of photographs the findings reported in this paper are derived solely from the group conversations facilitated through puppetry. The reason for this was that this data generated the most dialogic and meaning-rich perspectives of children’s experiences aligned to the research question. This data therefore provided a nuanced interpretive analysis which was coherent with the reflexive thematic approach.

A total of forty children, comprising both boys and girls aged between three and five years, participated in the group conversations. Each session lasted approximately 45 min and was conducted at two privately owned early childhood education centres located in the southern suburbs of Cape Town. These centres cater to children aged three to 6 years, including those enrolled in Grade R. Despite common assumptions that young children may be unable to engage meaningfully in dialogue due to their developmental stage, existing literature suggests that group conversations can be highly effective in eliciting children’s perspectives, as they often encourage peer-supported dialogue and mutual assistance (Graue & Walsh, 1998).

The centres involved in the study operate as profit institutions and are well-resourced, offering indoor and outdoor learning environments conducive to play-based learning. Both centres have a total enrolment of approximately 80 children each. For the purposes of this study, forty children were purposively selected by their teachers—ten boys and ten girls from each centre. English served as the Language of Learning and Teaching (LOLT) at both sites. All educators at the centres held either a Level 4 or Level 5 qualification in Early Childhood Education.

Given that the study involved young children, it was classified as high-risk, necessitating a comprehensive ethical review process. Ethical clearance was secured from the Faculty of Education, the Health and Wellness Committee at the Cape Peninsula University of Technology, as well as the Western Cape Education Department. Although the study was conducted within privately owned centres, it was still necessary to obtain official consent from the Education Department due to the involvement of minors in educational settings.

The central research question explored how children’s voices might inform the development of a participatory rights framework in early childhood care and education within the South African context. As such, it was essential not only to obtain parental consent but also to seek assent from the children themselves. Assent was facilitated through child-friendly forms featuring visual symbols: a smiley face to indicate willingness to participate and a sad face to signify non-consent. These forms were distributed by the children’s teachers. Parents were provided with detailed consent forms outlining the study’s objectives, the measures in place to ensure confidentiality and anonymity, and the voluntary nature of participation, including the right to withdraw at any stage without consequence or no reason (Bertram et al., 2025).

Fleer and Li (2016) mentioned that many researchers have commented on the difficulty of engaging young children in the interview process and that the question–answer format is less successful than entering into a dialogue or extended conversation: “We need to conceptualize the interview as a dialogue and conversation, where children feel comfortable in putting forward their own thoughts”

Data collection was conducted through group conversations facilitated by the use of puppets and visual images, which served as tools to help children articulate their learning experiences. Engaging young children in the interview process presents unique challenges, as traditional question-and-answer formats often prove less effective. Instead, entering into dialogic or extended conversational interactions is more conducive to eliciting meaningful responses from children (Fleer & Li, 2016). Dialogic interactions foreground the central role of talk and language in facilitating communication, sharing, and the co-construction of ideas (Maine, 2025). Establishing a safe and inclusive environment in which children feel secure and confident in expressing their thoughts is fundamental to fostering authentic engagement (Fleer & Li, 2016). As part of this effort, children were invited to name the puppets used during the data collection sessions, thereby promoting a sense of belonging and personal investment in the process. At Centre A, the children selected the names Leya for the female puppet and Luke for the male puppet, while at Centre B, the puppets were named Mia and Mike. This participatory act of naming served not only to enhance the children’s sense of agency and connection but also acted as a catalyst for further inquiry and dialogue. For example, the children expressed curiosity regarding the size discrepancy between the male and female puppets. In response, an explanation was provided that the female puppet represented a full-term birth, whereas the male puppet was depicted as having been born prematurely, which accounted for his smaller stature. This narrative approach supported relational engagement and deepened the children’s interest in the unfolding activities.

The use of hand puppets contributed to a reconfiguration of the power dynamic between the adult researcher and the children by fostering a safe environment in which children could exercise greater control over their responses, thereby facilitating a more engaging and enjoyable atmosphere (Coyne et al., 2021). Green (2012, as cited in Coyne et al., 2021) demonstrated that puppets can be effective tools for initiating conversations, as children tend to perceive them as peers rather than authority figures, thereby fostering greater comfort and a stronger inclination to communicate with puppets than with adults.

The narrative continued with a story about the puppets’ first day at two different schools—one adopting a more formal approach to the Grade R (Reception year) curriculum and the other emphasizing a play-based, informal learning environment. This storytelling context facilitated a natural entry point for children to share their own experiences of learning and the degree to which they felt their voices were heard within their educational settings.

To support open communication, conversational prompts such as “Tell me about…” were employed in place of more interrogative “why” questions. This approach, combined with close attention to body language, facial expressions, and pauses in conversation, allowed for deeper insights into the children’s perspectives (Dunphy & Farrell, 2011).

The data analysis approach was adopted using reflective thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2022). This approach places emphasis on the active and interpretive role of the researcher in meaning-making. This process included a strong familiarity with the data through scrutiny in the manuscripts which was followed by the generation of codes which captured relevant features related to the research questions. Coding included an organic process which was not a mechanic process and allowed for patterns of meaning through continuous engagement with the data. Themes were thereafter identified, reviewed and refined through reflexive consideration of both the data and my interpretive lens. The final themes then represented a reasoned and meaningful interpretation of the data which was developed through an iterative and reflective process of analysis and interpretation.

Reflexivity was built into the analytic process. I was constantly aware of how my personal assumptions, professional background, and previous experiences with the research context could influence interpretation and meaning-making. These insights and decisions were documented using analytical memos and reflective journaling, which promoted transparency and self-awareness in data interpretation. Continuous engagement with the data and critical reflection on coding decisions ensured that interpretations were based on participants’ accounts, while also acknowledging the researcher’s active role in constructing meaning and shaping the analytic narrative.

Findings

A central aim of this study was to explore how children’s voices contribute to the co-construction of a participatory rights framework within the context of early childhood care and education. This inquiry was grounded in the recognition of children as active agents capable of expressing their perspectives and influencing their educational environments. Through the analysis of the data, four key findings emerged: teacher-dominated spaces and voices; space and voice within the constraints of free play Friday, teachers and mummys know best: adult authority and the limitations of children’s agency and children’s influence as a counter-narrative

Teacher-Dominated Spaces and Voices

Exploring how children’s voices influence the co-construction of a participatory rights framework for early childhood care and education was a central focus of this study. A critical first step in this process involved exploring how children are afforded space and voice within early childhood settings, particularly in relation to how their preferences and perspectives are heard and acted upon. Understanding the dynamics of these interactions provides insight into the extent to which participatory rights are operationalised in practice. The following excerpts are illustrative of this.

Tell me about where you have a voice here in the centre? (Researcher)

In the concerts. (Child 3)

Do you tell teacher today I want to paint. Do you tell her that? (Researcher)

No. (Child 3)

Why not? (Researcher)

Only when we do art. (Child 3)

Ok so tell me, who decides when you want to play? (Researcher)

Teacher. (Child 3)

Do you tell teacher that you want to play in the fantasy area or does teacher tell you to go there? (Researcher)

Teacher. (Child 4)

Teacher tells you to go there. OK, so tell me, do you ever tell her where you want to go? (Researcher)`

Yes. (Child 6)

When do you do that? (Researcher)

To the toilet. (Child 9)

The above excerpts highlight that children are in an early childhood space that is controlled by the teacher whereby children are told where to go to and thus do not freely express on their own terms where they would like to go to. The children expressed that the teacher decides when the children should play and where they should play. Concerningly, the children indicated that it was only for the toilet routine that they would be able to tell her that they needed to visit the toilet. Children’s voices encompass the diverse ways in which children express their views, feelings, and expectations. These expressions are not limited to verbal communication but extend to multiple modes of representation, including visual arts, music, writing, drama, movement, facial expressions, and even silence. Although children express themselves through multiple modalities and there are well-documented benefits to listening to their perspectives, research indicates that only a small number of children feel genuinely heard and respected, despite their awareness of their right to express themselves (European Commission, 2021). Teachers’ limited awareness of what genuine children’s participation entails can impede the realisation of participatory practices in educational settings (Correia et al., 2023). When teachers themselves have been educated through rigid, transmissive pedagogies, they are less likely to support or facilitate meaningful participation. This tendency is often reinforced by entrenched notions of teacher authority and an unwillingness to share power with children.

Space and Voice Within the Constraints of Free Play Friday

Tell me about when do you decide what you would like to do? (Researcher)

On a Friday we decide what we want to do, (Child 11)

Sometimes we do something this side, then on free play Friday she lets us go in the dolly corner, we can go to the blocks, we can do whatever art we want, we can do art (Child 13)

ok, and also, we can go outside and play (Child 13).

‘Teacher tells us in language where we must go and in art we getting to show where we wanna go’ (Child, aged 11).

Child 11 was forthright and brave to indicate that it was only during art and play that they had the opportunity to make decisions. This is further confirmed in the following statement when he indicates

I decide to go play or to do art. (Child 11)

I decide I want to do my homework. (Child 14).

It was essential to determine from the children who holds the authority in decision-making within the classroom context. To gain further clarity, they were prompted to specify whether they themselves or the teachers typically make decisions. The following notable responses were elicited:

“Teacher, teacher, the teacher decides,” several children exclaimed in unison. (most children)

Upon hearing this the teacher quickly responded by indicating the following

Not only freeplay Friday, every day. What do you do? free play Friday, even when it’s every day. (Teacher)

Although the teacher asserted that children are afforded opportunities to make daily choices regarding their activities, the children strongly emphasized that such decision-making is primarily confined to “Freeplay Friday.” This perspective is reflected in the following responses provided by the children:

Upon hearing this response another child very confidently shouted

NO... only on art. (Child 15)

Only in art? Ok (researcher)

We can choose where we want to go, where we want to go and do art. (Child 15).

In the excerpts from both the early childhood center A and center B children had opportunities to make decisions but it was controlled by adult authority. The children in both center A and B vehemently expressed that they had the opportunities to express their preferences but only during art and on a free-play Friday. Concerningly in early childhood center A one child expressed that he only tells teacher what he wants when he needs to go to the toilet. Far too often adult centric agendas influence children’s voices negatively to provide with the space to express their desires. Koller and Farley (2019) and Tay-Lim and Lim (2013) warn that children contribute unique insider perspectives as they form relationships with their surroundings, offering meaningful insights that can critically interrogate and potentially disrupt adult-centric agendas. Adults possess varying degrees of conversational authority compared to children, as they often regulate and control when and how children are permitted to speak (Sacks, 1992; Speier, 1973). Whilst so children should be afforded the opportunity to be consulted about their views regarding procedures, the programme and decision- making in the early childhood context (Clark & Moss, 2005; Groundwater Smith et al., 2015; MacNaughton et al., 2007). Lundy prioritises space as an inclusive space not confined to ideas of a physical space. Space is where children feel safe and comfortable to express themselves and make decisions and where children can express themselves that goes beyond spoken words (Lundy, 2007).

From the excerpts, children expressed that they could go where they wanted to go but these choices were restricted to art and play whilst the teacher indicated where they could go for language. When children were asked where they have a voice one child stated that she had a voice in the concerts. Children should be made aware of what it means to have voice and how their voices need to be prioritized and how it can contribute to improving practice and overall success of the center. Children should be provided with opportunities to make choices about curricula planning and events (Houen et al., 2016). The concept of children’s voices acknowledges the multiplicity and diversity of children’s perspectives, extending beyond mere hearing to encompass active listening, attending to and engaging with children’s thoughts, feelings, preferences, and needs (Murray, 2019).

Teachers and Mummy’s Know Best: Adult Authority and Limitations of Children’s Agency

A significant finding in this study occurred when a little girl alarmingly made the following statement when asked about how her teacher listens to her.

It’s very important for us children to listen to the teacher but the teacher and mommies mustn’t listen to us. (Child 17).

That’s interesting. Tell me about why you think so? (Researcher)

They big … (Child 17)

The above statement was concerning as the little girl implied that adults voices are important and needed to be listened to. The words ….for us children to listen to the teacher but the teacher and mommies mustn’t listen to us implies that children believe that adults hold authority and therefore their voices must be privileged, recognizing adult authority. The child thus assumes a hierarchical view of participation whereby she sees the value in listening to adults voices yet her voice does not count. Research has revealed that even the youngest of children have demonstrated that they are competent in the co-construction of their own social world (Gunnarsdottir & Bateman, 2017). Adults who interact with children whether they are parents or teachers often dominate the conversational floor than do children and it is often evident that adults control children’s speaking turns (Sacks, 1992; Speier, 1973). Adults often set the stage for making children believe that they are incompetent and incapable and that adults voices matter as opposed to children’s voices. There is limited guidance on how professionals who work with young children to incorporate children’s perspectives in a practical way (Sargeant & Gillett-Swan, 2019). The above excerpts reveal that the girl believed that children should be audience to teachers and mommies whilst teachers and mommies do not have to be audiences to children. If children believe this the cycle will continue for children to have low self-confidence in their capabilities and that their voices also matter. Failing to acknowledge children's perspectives and denying them a sense of agency may lead to experiences of misrecognition (Altmeyer, 2018; Lepold, 2019).

Children’s Influence as a Counter-Narrative

Whilst the conversation continued on seeking the children’s perspectives on how their teacher listens to them, a little boy confidently shouted out,

I’m smart already. I don’t need my teacher to make me smart. (child 17)

While adult-dominated environments often lead children to perceive that adult questioning serves primarily to evaluate their knowledge—prompting them to respond in ways they believe are expected, even to nonsensical inquiries (Einarsdottir, 2007; Hatch, 1990)—a contrasting perspective emerged in this study through the confident expression of a young boy. His response reflected a strong sense of agency and self-assurance, highlighting that children possess the capacity to view themselves as intelligent and capable social actors. Reconceptualist scholars in early childhood education assert that children are competent and reflective agents who actively construct their own realities. They are recognized as social actors capable of influencing societal issues and policies that directly affect their lives (Dahlberg et al., 1999; James & Prout, 1997). Whilst it is understood that children do have agentic capacities to influence their lives, it is also necessary for teachers to create inclusive and safe spaces for children to express their voices.

Considering that this perspective was unique, it provides an important counter-narrative that children have agency to show their own capabilities. Reflexively this excerpt reveals how teacher dominated contexts may limit or even suppress children’s agency whilst simultaneously children have the ability to construct their self-identity, learning autonomy and self-confidence despite finding themselves in adult dominated contexts. This single yet powerful perspective contributes to a better understanding of the overall theme by demonstrating the conflict between compliance with adult authority and the desire for self-directed learning.

This belief is especially championed by reconceptualists in early childhood education as well as scholars within the new sociology of childhood, both which emerged in the 1990s (James & Prout, 1997). These scholars have shown evidence of children as active, competent, and reflexive constructors of their own worlds, and they have argued that children have a rightful place as social actors capable of influencing societal matters and policies that directly impact them. This has involved a reconceptualization of children and childhood by seeing the child as actively engaging the world and adeptly constructing ideas and theories (Dahlberg et al., 1999). Malaguzzi (1993) characterizes the child as possessing rich potential, strength, competence, and agency, emphasizing their inherent connectedness to both adults and peers. In this scenario it is evident that this boy had the confidence to show that he can have influence on his life to be smart and does not necessarily need to rely on the teacher to become smart. When children perceive that their voices are influential and respected, it fosters a culture in which they feel valued and acknowledged. Children need to believe that their voice matters. Although the above theme is illustrated through the account of a single child, this narrative was selected because it captures conceptually rich and analytically significant aspects of children’s experiences. Consistent with Braun and Clarke’s (2019) reflexive thematic analysis, such examples are not treated as isolated instances but serve to illuminate broader patterns of meaning across the dataset, providing depth and insight into the phenomenon under investigation. Listening to children is a critical pathway to earning their respect (Korczak, 2017); however, teachers must also foster an environment in which children perceive their voices as meaningful and valued, rather than seeing adult perspectives as the only ones that matter. While it is essential that professionals and institutions actively listen to children (Correia et al., 2022), it is equally important that children recognize that their own voices hold significance in shaping their experiences. The analysis generated insights into how children experience learning and authority in early educational spaces. Themes were constructed through reflexive engagement with participants’ accounts, highlighting patterns of meaning while recognising moments of divergence. Most children’s responses reflected the dominance of adults in learning spaces, yet outlier statements revealed instances of self-assertion and emerging agency. Data was used to enrich interpretation rather than as the sole basis of thematic construction.

Discussion and Conclusion

This study revealed persistent power imbalances in early childhood settings wherein teacher domination and control supersedes children’s agency limiting children’s voice and autonomy. The girl’s perspective that adults do not have to listen to children illustrates hierarchical norms that are internalized through possible socialization about what positionality adults hold, limiting children’s agency and power. However, moments of self-assertion such as the boy’s declaration of confidence and independence, highlight children’s potential to act as capable agents when supportive spaces are provided. These dynamics highlight the need for adults to create spaces that are dialogic where children’s voices are genuinely listened to. Genuine participation requires that teachers and children share power and teachers position themselves as co-learners who respond to children’s perspectives. Ensuring such practices can disrupt cycles of passive conformity and affirm children’s competence to their learning experiences which is an avenue to advancing the children’s participatory rights framework recognizing them as valued and respected social actors.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

I extend my sincere gratitude to the children and teachers who participated in this project. I am also deeply appreciative of the support provided by the National Research Foundation (NRF), whose Thutuka funding made this research possible.

ORCID iD

Naseema Shaik

Ethical Considerations

The study was approved by the Faculty of Education, the Health and Wellness Committee at the Cape Peninsula University of Technology, The ethics approval reference number is CPUT/HWS-REC 2023/S16. Consent was also approved from the Western Cape Education Department. Although the study was conducted within privately owned centres, it was still necessary to obtain official consent from the Education Department due to the involvement of minors in educational settings.

Funding

The author disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the National Research Foundation (138410).

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Akyol

Erdem

(2021). Children’s participation from the perspectives of teachers. Journal of Pedagogical Research, 5(2), 188–202. https://doi.org/10.33902/JPR.2021167549

Altmeyer

(2018). A theory of recognition as framework for religious education: Reading Axel Honneth from a pedagogical and theological perspective. Journal of Beliefs & Values, 39(4), 416–428. https://doi.org/10.1080/13617672.2018.1442979

Bertram

Formosinho

Gray

Pascal

Whalley

Koutoulas

Loizou

Vandenbroek

(2025). EECERA ethical code for early childhood researchers. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 33(1), 4–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350293X.2024.2445361

Brantefors

Quennerstedt

(2016). Teaching and learning children’s human rights: A research synthesis. Cogent Education, 3(1), 1247610. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2016.1247610

Braun

Clarke

(2019). Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 11(4), 589–597. https://doi.org/10.1080/2159676x.2019.1628806

Braun

Clarke

(2022). Thematic analysis: A practical guide. Sage.

Clark

Moss

(2005). Spaces to play: More listening to the mosaic approach. National Children’s Bureau. https://www.ncb.org.uk/Page.asp?originx_1778yu_2124

Clark

Moss

(2011). Listening to young children: The Mosaic approach (2nd ed.). National Children’s Bureau.

Correia

Aguiar

The Participation Consortium . (2022). Children’s right to participate: The Lundy model applied to early childhood education and care. The International Journal of Children’s Rights, 30(2), 376–403.

10.

Correia

Aguiar

Taelman

Wyslowska

Barros

Correia

Markowska-Manista

Araújo

S. B.

Magalhães

Pessanha

(2023). Children’s voices in early childhood education and care. In Frankel

(Ed.), Establishing child-centred practice in a changing world, part B (pp. 9–22). Emerald Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1108/978-1-80455-940-620231002

11.

Correia

Camilo

Aguiar

Amaro

(2019). Children’s right to participate in early childhood education settings: A systematic review. Children and Youth Services Review, 100, 100–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2019.02.031

12.

Correia

Aguiar

Amado

(2020). Children’s participation in early childhood education: A systematic review. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 28(2), 224–239. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350293X.2020.1735743

13.

Coyne

Mallon

Chubb

(2021). Research with young children: Exploring the methodological advantages and challenges of using hand puppets and draw and tell. Children & Society, 35(5), 813–830. https://doi.org/10.1111/chso.12452

14.

Dahlberg

Moss

Pence

(1999). Beyond quality in early childhood education and care: Postmodern perspectives. Falmer Press.

15.

Department of Basic Education [DBE] . (2015). The South African national curriculum framework for children from birth to four. Government Printer.

16.

Department of Higher Education and Training [DHET] . (2017). Policy on the minimum requirements for programmes leading to qualifications in higher education for early childhood development educators. Government Printer. (Government Gazette No. 40750).

17.

Dockett

Main

Kelly

(2011). Consulting with children: Experiences from a transition to school project. Early Child Development and Care, 181(7), 887–901. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2010.491271

18.

Dockett

Perry

(2012). Transitions to school: Perceptions, expectations, experiences. Springer.

19.

Dockett

Perry

(2014a). Continuity of learning: A resource to support effective transition to school and school age care. Australian Government Department of Education.

20.

Dockett

Perry

(2014b). Participatory rights-based research: Learning from young children’s perspectives in research that affects their lives. In Saracho

O. N.

(Ed.), Handbook of research methods in early childhood education: Review of research methodologies (Vol. 2, pp. 675–710). Information Age Publishing.

21.

Dockett

Perry

(2015). Transition to school: Times of opportunity, expectation, aspiration and entitlement. In Parnell

Iorio

(Eds.), Rethinking readiness in early childhood education: Implications for policy and practice (pp. 123–140). Palgrave Macmillan.

22.

Dunphy

Farrell

(2011). Indoor play provision in the classroom. In Harcourt

Perry

Waller

(Eds.), Researching young children’s perspectives: Debating the ethics and dilemmas of educational research with children (pp. 128–142). Routledge.

23.

Du Preez

Joubert

Middeljans

(2019). Discovering child citizens’ understandings and experiences of social justice. Citizenship, Teaching & Learning, 14(1), 107–126. https://doi.org/10.1386/ctl.14.1.107_1

24.

Einarsdottir

(2007). Research with children: Methodological and ethical challenges. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 15(2), 197–211. https://doi.org/10.1080/13502930701321477

25.

European Commission . (2021). The EU strategy on the rights of the child and the European child guarantee. Communication from the commission to the European parliament, the council, the European economic and social committee and the committee of the regions. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52021DC0142

26.

Fleer

(2016). A child-centered evaluation model: Gaining the children’s perspective in evaluation studies in China. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 24(3), 342–356. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350293x.2016.1163934

27.

Gaches

Gallagher

(2019). Children as research consultants: The ethics and rights of no research about them without consulting with them. In Murray

Swadener

B. B.

Kylie

(Eds.), The Routledge handbook of young children’s rights (eBook ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780367142025

28.

Graue

M. E.

Walsh

D. J.

(1998). Studying children in context: Theories, methods, and ethics. Sage Publications.

29.

Green

(2012). Listening to children: Exploring intuitive strategies and interactive methods in a study of children’s special places. International Journal of Early Childhood, 44(3), 269–285. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13158-012-0075-9

30.

Groundwater-Smith

Dockett

Bottrell

(2015). Participatory research with children and young people. Sage.

31.

Gunnarsdottir

Bateman

(2017). Toddler agency and conversation analysis. Early Childhood Folio, 21(1), 33–38. https://doi.org/10.18296/ecf.0030

32.

Hatch

J. A.

(1990). Young children as informants in classroom studies. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 5(2), 251–264. https://doi.org/10.1016/0885-2006(90)90047-5

33.

Honneth

(1995). The struggle for recognition: The moral grammar of social conflicts. Polity Press.

34.

Houen

Danby

Farrell

Thorpe

(2016). Creating spaces for children’s agency: ‘I wonder.’ formulations in teacher–child interactions. International Journal of Early Childhood, 48(3), 259–276. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13158-016-0170-4

35.

James

Prout

(1997). Constructing and reconstructing childhood: Contemporary issues in the sociological study of childhood (2nd ed.). Falmer Press.

36.

Juhl

(2023). Exploring young children’s agency in everyday transitions. Bloomsbury.

37.

Juutinen

Einarsdottir

Emilson

(2025). Approaching children’s perspectives on belonging: Methodological and ethical challenges. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 33(5), 792–803. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350293X.2025.2480809

38.

Kanyal

(2014). Children’s rights: 0–8 years. In Kanyal

(Ed.), Children’s rights 0–8: Promoting participation in education and care (pp. xi–xiv). Routledge.

39.

Koller

Farley

(2019). Examining elements of children’s place attachment. Children’s Geographies, 17(4), 491–500. https://doi.org/10.1080/14733285.2019.1574336

40.

Korczak

(2017). The child’s right to respect ( de Leeuw

, Trans.). Council of Europe Publishing. (Original work published 1929).

41.

Lansdown

Jimerson

S. R.

Shahroozi

(2014). Children’s rights and school psychology: Children’s right to participation. Journal of School Psychology, 52(1), 3–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2013.12.006

42.

Lepold

(2019). Examining Honneth’s positive theory of recognition. Critical Horizons, 20(3), 246–261. https://doi.org/10.1080/14409917.2019.1644810

43.

Lundy

(2007). Voice’ is not enough: Conceptualising article 12 of the United Nations convention on the rights of the child. British Educational Research Journal, 33(6), 927–942. https://doi.org/10.1080/01411920701657033

44.

Lundy

McEvoy

Byrne

(2011). Working with young children as co-researchers: An approach informed by the United Nations convention on the rights of the child. Early Education & Development, 22(5), 714–736. https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2011.596463

45.

MacNaughton

Hughes

Smith

(2007). Early childhood professionals and children’s rights: Tensions and possibilities around the United Nations general comment no. 7 on children’s rights. International Journal of Early Years Education, 15(2), 161–170. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669760701288716

46.

MacNaughton

Smith

(2008). Engaging ethically with young children: Principles and practices for consulting justly with care. In MacNaughton

Hughes

Smith

(Eds.), Young children as active citizens (pp. 31–43). Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

47.

Maine

(2025). Building the foundations of dialogic pedagogy with five- and six-year-olds. Education Sciences, 15(2), 251. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15020251

48.

Malaguzzi

(1993). For an education based on relationships. Young Children, 49(1), 9–12.

49.

Mayne

Howitt

(2019). Embedding young children’s participation rights into research: How the interactive narrative approach enhances meaningful participation. International Journal of Early Childhood, 51(3), 335–353. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13158-019-00255-2

50.

Montreuil

Bogossian

Laberge-Perrault

Racine

(2021). A review of family-focused practices in early childhood intervention. Journal of Family-Centered Care, 3(1), 1–15.

51.

Moore

(2019). Using the lundy model of child participation with adults. In Murray

Swadener

B. B.

Smith

(Eds.), The Routledge international handbook of young children’s rights (pp. xxx). Routledge.

52.

Murray

(2019). Hearing young children’s voices: Children’s participation in early childhood education. International Journal of Early Years Education, 27(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669760.2018.1547621

53.

Organisation of African Unity . (1990). African Charter on the Rights and Welfare. of the Child.

54.

Perry

Dockett

(2011). What did you do at school today? Exploring young children’s perceptions of starting school. UNSW Press.

55.

Pierce

Reysen

Katzarska-Miller

(2010). The search for a definition of global citizenship. In Reysen

(Chair), Global citizenship: Americans within the world. Symposium Conducted at the 54th Annual Meeting of the American Studies Texas Association, Commerce, TX, Texas A&M University–Commerce.

56.

Preston

Stones

S. R.

Davies

Preston

Phillips

(2019). How to involve children and young people in what is, after all, their research. Archives of Disease in Childhood, 104(5), 494–500. https://doi.org/10.1136/archdischild-2018-315118

57.

Raby

(2014). Children’s participation as neo-liberal governance? Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 35(1), 77–89. https://doi.org/10.1080/01596306.2012.739468

58.

Ree

Emilson

(2020). Participation in communities in ECEC expressed in child–educator interactions. Early Child Development and Care, 190(14), 2229–2240. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2019.1566230

59.

Republic of South Africa . (1996). The constitution of the Republic of South Africa, bill of rights. Government Printer.

60.

Sacks

(1992). Lectures on conversation (Vol. 1). Blackwell.

61.

Sargeant

Gillett-Swan

J. K.

(2019). Voice-inclusive practice (VIP): A charter for authentic student engagement. The International Journal of Children’s Rights, 27(1), 122–139. https://doi.org/10.1163/15718182-02701002

62.

Shaik

(2021). Supporting student teachers for a participatory pedagogy through Shier’s model of participation in grade R (reception year) South Africa. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 43(2), 251–264. https://doi.org/10.1080/10901027.2021.1881663

63.

Shaik

(2023). Most of the time we are taking decisions for children: Student teachers’ understandings of children’s participatory rights in the reception year (grade R), South Africa. The International Journal of Children’s Rights, 31(4), 916–940. https://doi.org/10.1163/15718182-31040008

64.

Shaik

(2024). Children’s decision making in early childhood education. In Shaik

Moodley

(Eds.), Towards a transformative pedagogy for early childhood care and education (Vol. 43, pp. 75–90). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-59648-3_5

65.

Shier

(2001). Pathways to participation: Openings, opportunities and obligations. Children & Society, 15(2), 107–117. https://doi.org/10.1002/chi.617

66.

Sivertsen

A. H.

Bjørgen

(2025). Children’s participation positions in various activities within Norwegian early childhood education and care (ECEC) institutions. Early Child Development and Care, 195(4), 299–312. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2025.2478889

67.

Smith

(2011). Respecting children’s rights and agency: Theoretical insights into ethical research procedures. In Harcourt

Perry

Waller

(Eds.), Researching young children’s perspectives: Debating the ethics and dilemmas of educational research with children (pp. 11–25). Routledge.

68.

Speier

(1973). How to observe face-to-face communication: A sociological introduction. Goodyear Publishing.

69.

Tay-Lim

Lim

(2013). Privileging younger children’s voices in research: Use of drawings and a co-construction process. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 12(1), 65–83. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940691301200135

70.

Theobald

(2019). UN convention on the rights of the child: “Where are we at in recognising children’s rights in early childhood, three decades on.?” [Guest editorial]. International Journal of Early Childhood, 51(3), 251–257. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13158-019-00258-z

71.

United Nations . (1989). Convention on the rights of the child. Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/convention-rights-child

72.

United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child . (2005). General comment No. 7 (2005): Implementing child rights in early childhood (CRC/C/GC/7/Rev.1). United Nations.

73.

Watson

Newman

(2023). Children’s voices: Inclusive early childhood placemaking with children. Journal of Early Childhood Research, 22(2), 258–271. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476718X231195714

74.

Welty

Lundy

(2013). A children’s rights-based approach to involving children in decision making. Journal of Science Communication, 12(3), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.22323/2.12030302

75.

Zachrisen

(2016). The contribution of different patterns of teachers’ interactions to young children’s experiences of democratic values during play. International Journal of Early Childhood, 48(2), 179–192. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13158-016-0166-0