PARTNERS IN HUMAN RIGHTS EDUCATION EVALUATION PROGRAM

(click here for the report's accompanying graphs)

����������� Children in Minnesota and around the world face problems of violence, child abuse, crime gangs, guns, war, domestic violence, homelessness, hate crimes, hunger, racism, poverty, and discrimination every day.� Locally, children witnessed shootings on the grounds of the J.J. Hill Elementary School and North High School.� Daily, our youth deal with issues involving drugs, crime, and abuse in their schools, neighborhoods and communities.� These attacks on the dignity of persons must be addressed through education and example.� How children learn about these experiences will affect their development and futures as local civic leaders and international citizens.� By teaching human rights, Partners in Human Rights Education assists students to understand these growing problems and be part of the solutions by advocating tolerance and respect for diverse peoples.

����������� The Partners Program takes its structure from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.� In its Preamble, the Universal Declaration states:

Recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world.

These principles have consistently been reaffirmed since the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948, most recently by over 180 governments attending the 1995 United Nations Fourth World Conference on Women.� While the principles in the Universal Declaration are not always practiced, they are increasingly invoked by world leaders to draw the boundaries of acceptable behavior by governments and individuals.� To increase awareness of these rights and responsibilities through education, the United Nations had declared 1995-2004 as the Decade for Human Rights Education.

The Partners in Human Rights Education Program

����������� Community leaders designed the Partners Program in 1992 with the help and encouragement of local teachers who believed that outside resource people teaching basic human rights would enhance their existing curriculum, especially cultural diversity programs.� Thirty-two lawyers were trained in Fall 1992 by the Minnesota Advocates for Human Rights and Human Rights Center to teach human rights to primary and secondary students.� The volunteers were linked with teachers to form 20 teams.� The teams reached approximately 600 students in 1992-93.� Since the initial season, the Partners Program has trained more than 1,000 lawyers, teachers, and community representatives and reached more than 20,000 students throughout Minnesota.� In addition, outgrowths of the project include a program at St. Thomas University, human rights radio programs, and a speakers� bureau.� The Otto Bremer Foundation, The St. Paul Companies, and Medtronic have provided important support to the development and growth of the Partners Program.

����������� In particular, this report is designed to assess the impact of a human rights curriculum developed by the Partners in Human Rights Education Program, a joint initiative of the University of Minnesota Human Rights Center and the Minnesota Advocates for Human Rights.� This report briefly presents preliminary findings. This report is designed to serve two audiences: (1) teachers interested in implementing human rights education in their own classrooms, and (2) researchers and policymakers concerned with evaluating human rights education curricula and interventions.� As follow-up studies and data analysis continue, more formal reports will be released.

Methods

Sample

����������� Fifth and sixth grade students in a Minneapolis public school� were assigned either to a four-month human rights curriculum or to a control group.� The assignment occurred by classrooms: one 5^th and one 6^th grade class comprised the experimental group and one 5^th and one 6^th grade class the control group.� The final sample consisted of 58 students, 34 in the experimental group (i.e., who received human rights education) and 24 in the control group (i.e., who received normal instruction).� Males and females were approximately equally represented in the total sample as well as in each of the sub-groups.� Students in both the experimental and control groups were predominantly of African-American descent (see Table 1 for a detailed description of the demographics of the sample).

Methods-Assessment

����������� In February of 1997, all students completed an 87-item survey instrument developed by the Search Institute in Minneapolis.� Measures focused on: knowledge about human rights; pro-human rights attitudes and values (e.g., affirmation of diversity, perceived personal efficacy, opposition to human rights violations, and values supporting social justice, freedom, caring and the non-violent resolution of conflict); and self-reported behavior. Several measures of indirect consequences were also included (e.g., achievement motivation, bonding at school, school success).

����������� In May 1997, this same instrument was administered to both experimental and control groups as a first post-test.� A delayed post-test was also administered in the Fall of 1997, but those results are still being analyzed.� To enrich the post-test assessment, teachers completed ratings for all students on 11 dimensions.� Among them were �ability to resolve conflict nonviolently,� �concern for human rights,� and �empathy.�� To approximate a longitudinal design, directions and response options for these ratings were as follows: �Between February 1997 and today, this student, in view, has shown (strong positive change, some positive change, no change, some negative change, strong negative change).

Methods-Human Rights Education

����������� All teachers in the designated human rights education classrooms received a four-hour training designed to address four primary questions: (1) How can the Partners in Human Rights Education help you bring human rights alive for your students?; (2) What are human rights?; (3) What is human rights education?; and (4) How can we put human rights education into practice in classrooms and in the community?�

During the course of the project, human rights education teachers used participatory teaching methods to involve students in the exploration of human rights and responsibilities.� Activities included mock trials, role plays, and debates, based on human rights issues.� Students were encouraged to question why problems exist and discuss possible solutions.� An understanding of international human rights definitions is important in uncovering possible solutions to the growing problems in our society, including crime, violence, abuse, drugs and lack of housing.� In addition to learning about human rights in their classrooms, students also demonstrated their understanding through human rights action projects in their communities.

Analyses

Results were examined by comparing post test scores for experimental and control group students both on individual survey questions, as well as on scales constructed by researchers at the Search Institute.� The individual questions examined were selected from the total sample of survey questions based on two criteria: (1) their theoretical importance to the researchers, and (2) the likelihood, based on initial examination of the results, that the there would be a significant difference between experimental and control subjects responses to the question.� Ten questions were selected using these criteria.� As far as the scales are concerned, the Search Institute developed four scales addressing students� knowledge (e.g., awareness and knowledge of human rights issues), values and beliefs (e.g., caring values, commitment to peace and justice), behaviors and skills (e.g., prosocial behavior, empathy) and �developmental assets� (e.g., assertiveness, honesty).� Alphas for the scales ranged from .71 for the developmental assets scale to .82 for the values and beliefs scale.�

Differences between posttest scores on both the individual questions and the scales described above were then examined using analyses of covariance (ANCOVA).� ANCOVAs measure the impact of a factor (in this case human rights education) on a dependent variable (in this case the posttest score) adjusting for differences on a covariate (in this case the pretest score).� A significant ANCOVA score supports the hypothesis that human rights education impacts the responses obtained for that particular question or scale.

Individual survey questions and scales were also tested to see if they violated the homogeneity of slopes assumption underlying the ANCOVA.� If a question violates the homogeneity of slopes assumption it means that the covariate (pretest) and not the factor (human rights education) is influencing the difference in dependent variable scores (posttest).� The sampling method used in a study is sometimes the cause of a homogeneity of slopes assumption violation.� For example, rather than making experimental and control group assignments based on a random sample, students who volunteer to participate in an after-school program are assigned to the experimental group and those students who do not volunteer are assigned to the control group.� Pre-existing differences between students who are willing to volunteer and those who are not might influence the impact of the program separate from the program itself.

Results

See tables 2-5a, bar graphs

Partners in Human Rights Education Evaluation Program

Table 1 � Demographics

Partners in Human Rights Education Evaluation Program

Results

Table 2 � Scale Descriptives

Partners in Human Rights Education Evaluation Program Results

Table 3 � Target Question Descriptives

�

Partners in Human Rights Education Evaluation Program

Results

Table 3 � Target Question Descriptives (continued)

Partners in Human Rights Education Evaluation Program Results

Table 4 � ANCOVAs for individual survey questions based on pre- and posttest scores

����������������������� ����������������������� ����� ����������������������� ����������� ��������ANCOVA����� ������� Homogeneity of Slopes Assumption

Partners in Human Rights Education Evaluation Program Results

Table 4a � ANCOVAs for individual survey questions based on pretest and follow-up scores

����������������������� ����������������������� ����� ����������������������� ����������� �������������ANCOVA����� ������� ����������������������� �������Homogeneity of Slopes Assumption

Partners in Human Rights Education Evaluation Program

Results

Table 5 � ANCOVAs for scales based on pre- and posttest scores

����������������������� ����������������������� ����� ����������������������� ����������� ��������ANCOVA����� ������� Homogeneity of Slopes Assumption

Partners in Human Rights Education Evaluation Program

Results

Table 5a � ANCOVAs for scales based on pretest and follow-up scores

����������������������� ����������������������� ����� ����������������������� ����������� ����ANCOVA����� ����������� ����� ����� ���������Homogeneity of Slopes Assumption