Manchester study finds children as young as five can discuss human rights

The University of Manchester reported on 8 October 2026 that children as young as five discussed human rights and proposed their own ideas about rights in a study at three primary schools. Of 34 children aged five to nine, 29 suggested a new right when asked whether anything was missing from a picturebook they had used. The finding offers a concrete example of young children engaging with a complex subject, while coming from a small qualitative study rather than a test of children generally.

Dr Rebecca Simpson-Hargreaves studied children’s responses to Dreams of Freedom, a picturebook based on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The university published its account on 8 October; the underlying work is identified in its research record as a PhD thesis awarded on 19 February 2026. The October publication reports findings from that earlier research, rather than marking the date the thesis was completed.

What the children said about rights

According to the university’s report, children drew on personal experiences, cultural knowledge and conversations with one another when discussing fairness, freedom, equality and responsibility. Their proposed rights included a “Freedom to protect wildlife,” the idea that “Men and women should have the same rights,” and a “Freedom to love.” Other contributions concerned empathy, kindness, choice, rest, play, fairness and protection. These were children’s suggested additions to the book, not a list of newly recognised legal rights.

Some children also questioned the relationship between adults and children, the university said. They asked whether adults understood children’s perspectives and why adult views were sometimes given more weight. One Year 4 pupil put it this way: “Adults think that because they run the country that they know best.” The remark illustrates one response in the research; the available account does not say how common that view was among participants.

How the picturebook study worked

The research used interviews, focus groups and creative activities with children in three primary schools. Alongside reading and discussion, children could draw and create material of their own. The university said these different ways of responding helped children with varying reading, writing and speaking abilities communicate their ideas. Its report also says the complete picturebook gave children a stronger basis for deeper reasoning than isolated extracts did within this study.

That observation concerns the activities the researchers examined. The available account does not establish that using the book would produce the same responses in other schools, or that discussion would cause lasting changes in children’s knowledge or attitudes. The thesis is described as qualitative research, and the accessible record gives no basis for estimating how many children elsewhere would propose a new right when asked the same question.

Simpson-Hargreaves said children should be able to engage actively with ideas about rights and social issues and develop and express their own perspectives. The reported examples show what that opportunity looked like for these participants: they related rights to wildlife, equality, relationships and their place in an adult-led world. Those examples are the study’s reported observations, rather than evidence that every child of five understands human rights in the same way.

What remains unclear about the findings

The university’s report gives the number of children who proposed a right and says the work took place in three schools. The accessible thesis record does not specify the schools’ locations, participant demographics, recruitment details or the duration of fieldwork. Those missing details limit how precisely readers can judge which experiences are represented in the findings and how readily the results might transfer to other settings.

The distinction matters for educators considering the report. The study describes ways children expressed views when a picturebook, discussion and drawing were used together; it does not measure whether any one activity improved learning over time. Its clearest contribution is a documented account of young participants reasoning about rights in their own words and images, alongside a question for further work: whether similar opportunities bring out comparable ideas among children in other schools.