|
Response
to the Government Green Paper Every Child Matters, Department
for Education and Skills From Professor Fiona Williams, on behalf of ESRC Research Group on Care, Values and the Future of Welfare, (CAVA) Department of Sociology and Social Policy, University of Leeds, LS2 9JT A Positive and Progressive Development We welcome the following aspects of the Green Paper:
Two Main Concerns Our main concerns stem from research that members of the CAVA Research Group have been conducting on experiences of parenting, partnering and children's experiences of family life (1). This has focused on the ways these have changed, what it is that matters to people and what values guide them in their close and caring relationships. From this we are developing an ethical framework as guidelines for policy makers and practitioners in a range of areas including family and child policy (2). We use this work to address the issue of values in Every Child Matters. Our main concern with the Green Paper is its weak framework of values and, in particular, the lack of reference to two key values - respect and trust. We refer here to respect for children and childhood and trust between statutory agencies, parents and children.
It should be said first that the points we welcome above do meet many of the claims that emerged in one of our research projects on local self help groups and national voluntary organizations. At the same time, however, our research also leads us to believe that it is very important that the Government spells out clearly the values that underpin its aims in child and family policy and in its strategies to build consensus around such values. The statement in the Introduction of the Report that 'Underpinning this must be not just the resources but an attitude that reflects the value that our society places on children and childhood' (p.4 our emphasis) puts this case, but rather weakly, for it is more than attitude is needed. The new Ministry and the Children's Commissioner have an important job to do in overseeing the re-organization of children's services and the meeting of outcomes, but they also have to shape a society that recognizes, protects and, most importantly, respects children. The Green Paper goes a long way in setting out structures of accountability to protect children, to recognize their needs and to create educational opportunities to enable them to become productive future citizens. In other words, it is strong on protection and recognition of needs, especially for educational achievement, but far less forthcoming in how to create a culture of respect for children and childhood. Indeed, in some respects, its strategies run counter to this. The nearest the Green Paper comes to spelling out a wider vision for childhood is in para 1.13 where it notes 'the protective factors' which foster children's resilience against disadvantage. These are:
And this last point is backed up by para 5.47 on 'Involving children in developing services'. Indeed children's participation in developing public services has grown significantly over the past decade. One recent report estimates over 100 such consultation activities (3), and we support this as part of developing a culture of respect. However, the Green Paper refers (only) twice to children's consultation in drawing up its recommendations. The first is in setting out its outcomes, where children, young people and families were consulted. Of these, staying safe and enjoying and achieving, are in part echoed by the second reference to children's views in para 2.39 where 'somewhere safe to go and something to do' is quoted with reference to the need for recreational activities. The theme of safety is developed in relation to tackling bullying, supporting victims and homeless young people and unaccompanied asylum seekers. (Anti-racism is not mentioned although it is pertinent to all of these activities (4), and unaccompanied child migrants are highlighted while the children of asylum seekers are not). However, 'enjoying' is hardly developed at all. The section on 'enjoying and achieving' in para 1.8 cites four facts, all of which are about educational achievement. Given that 'enjoying' appears to be one of the themes that came from children this is surprising. Not only does it give the impression that children's views are not very important but it also characterizes a rather dreary vision of childhood which is about getting through your exams and keeping out of trouble. This registers more about the processes of becoming an adult rather than the active enjoyment and negotiation of childhood and young personhood with friends and siblings. In order to respect children it is important to hear what they say but also to respect them as citizens of the present and not just of the future. The JRF Report Citizenship for Young Children develops a framework and strategies for the involvement not only of young people but also of young children in nurseries, schools and public services. Its strategies focus on children as creative human agents. These involve children in running their nurseries and primary schools, helping staff to develop criteria for recruitment, contributing to training, and training children in articulating their needs and making their claims. It argues that such processes should be part of the routine experiences of children, and regarded as a vital part of recognizing and developing their capabilities and right to flourish. Such strategies emphasize education as a site of children's enjoyment of their social relationships as well as a place for gaining qualifications, and this is important in the light of research which shows young people's increasing anxiety in relation to educational success. In the case of boys, the research by Frosh et al (5) on 'Young Masculinities' demonstrates that teenage boys are acutely aware of being seen as socially and educationally problematic, of being disparaged by adults in their lives, and as such they continually invoke a demand for greater respect. The researchers advocate the creation of small group discussion spaces for boys in schools where they can discuss their concerns with adults skilled in being able to listen. Such strategies would be in line with recent initiatives and pilot schemes in 'emotional literacy' in schools.(6) We welcome the new context of schools as the location for multidisciplinary children's services as a means to universal, community-based and less stigmatized access. However, we are concerned that this idea of education as the centre of a more holistic approach to children and their parents, will not fit with recent policies for schools. The thrust of education policy has been towards schools as centres of educational achievement. Head teachers have been encouraged to think of their schools as competitive institutions, striving to meet exam targets and to attract good pupils, and recent proposals give head teachers the responsibility of collecting fines from parents whose children stay away from school. The recommendations in the Green Paper propose they are to open up their gates to other professional groups, to share pastoral care of their children with them, and to be open to the community. This suggests an uneasy tension between achievement, accessibility and proscription which will not necessarily encourage trust amongst all pupils or parents. Indeed, the focus on schools reinforces the marginalisation of those who are excluded or who exclude themselves from school. We think these recommendations provide an opportunity to reframe the testing and target-centred culture of education towards broader values of education as supporting children to develop their emotional, physical, intellectual and creative capabilities.(7) We think that there needs to be greater emphasis in the Green Paper on measures to break down mistrust between statutory agencies, parents and children. Our research suggests that at the root of this mistrust is a fear of the power of the state to take children into care, combined with a sense of devaluation of the efforts that many parents make, albeit in diverse ways, to live up to aspirations of being a good and responsible parent. The proposal to introduce electronic dossiers as part of a universal approach to protect all children, raises important issues of civil liberties, as well as the maintenance of trust and confidentiality, and the balance between privacy and protection. Indeed, given the history of deep suspicion and anxieties that parents have towards social workers and child care intervention, this multi-disciplinary intensification of child protection services underlines a fundamental prerequisite for guarantees of confidentiality, of cultural respect for the diverse ways people may live their lives, and for the protection of the vulnerabilities of children to any misuse of information about them. Our research on parents' self help groups showed that the impetus to form such groups often came out of the experience of indifferent or high-handed professional practices, and in common with other research (8), found that parents wanted access to support but it had to be the right sort of support. Indeed, the wrong sort of help can be damaging to people's self-esteem and their capacity for involvement with others. The principles upon which self help groups offer support include informality, trust, reciprocity, mutual respect, and non-judgmental commitment which has been built up over time. We also found that what it means to be a 'good mother' or a 'good parent' and a concern for the welfare of children was the main impulse behind the decisions that parents made in relation, for example, combining paid work with child care, or negotiating divorce, separation or repartnering. Most parents, we found, were acutely aware of their responsibilities to their children and needed time and support to follow these through rather than reminders to carry them out. Indeed, time, especially for mothers, is the crucial factor in juggling their responsibilities, and we think more reference and recommendations and connections could be made in the Green Paper to the need for children's services to be buttressed by family friendly employment practices, work/life balance initiatives, and strategies to allow parents to find good quality, affordable child care provision to suit their circumstances and aspirations (9). At a more general level the principles of protection, trust and respect are undermined by the Green Paper's endorsement of the punitive elements in the youth justice system, truanting and parents' physical chastisement of their children. We support the views of the Report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights on the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child on these matters. We note the DfES's memorandum in response to this report which insists that custodial sentences for 10 and 11 year-olds are rare and that such sentences are only ever used as a last resort, however, this does not convince us that these policies uphold the principle of protecting vulnerable and troubled children and respecting all children. We also fear that this position helps legitimize punitive disciplinary actions of parents towards their children. In respect of strategies to engender trust between statutory agencies, parents and children, then we have two comments. The first is that much stronger emphasis needs to be given to strategies detailed in paras 2.38-2.41 on 'Building strong and vibrant communities'. Local, rooted, community and self-help groups currently struggle to survive year after year with little stable funding, yet often provide parents and children with the support they need. The relationships and credibility they develop with local communities takes time and long-term commitment which needs much greater recognition. We have found in our research that community based workers, paid and unpaid, who facilitate minority ethnic groups are extremely overstretched in trying to act as mediators between minority ethnic groups and the statutory services. There is a laudable aim of locating services in the community, but the Green Paper tends to locates parent and children in terms of their relationships with each other and with professionals, rather than the networks of mutual care and support of which they are part, and the meanings which these give to their lives. We think that a greater emphasis on community could also encourage innovative thinking on the re-design of public spaces in a manner which respects childhood and their need for safety, especially from traffic. Our second comment on engendering trust and respect refers to the core training for all professionals working with children (para 6.41). We think it very important that a shared value base is developed between professionals working in different disciplines. In part this is because teachers and social workers, for example, might bring with them different practices around issues such as confidentiality. But it is also a way of creating a dialogue around key values (such as protection, respect, human flourishing). Specifically we would suggest that the first heading of 'Understanding the developmental nature of childhood' is extended to 'Understanding the social construction of childhood'. The developmental model of childhood, while important in recognising the difference that age and physical development has, tends to be framed within an approach to childhood which sees it as a series of steps to competent adulthood rather than a way of understanding children, whatever their age, as actors in their own right. We think that the second heading of 'parents, parenting and family life' could be supplemented with 'friendships, networks and communities'. This would give professionals a better way of understanding the diversity of children's experiences and the networks and cultures in which they are embedded. We would also suggest extending the last heading, 'Listening to and involving children and young people' to a much broader consideration of values and strategies to recognize, protect and respect childhood. Work we have been doing at Leeds University is developing a practical 'ethic of care'. The care ethic demands that interdependence be seen as the basis of human interaction; in these terms, autonomy and independence are about the capacity for self-determination rather than the expectation of individual self-sufficiency, and the values of solidarity, reciprocity, commitment, and love are emphasized. This approach has been used in relation to developing work of caring organizations such as Parentlineplus (10). We think it might provide a useful way for practitioners from different disciplines to examine and develop their work with children. We can provide more information on this if needed. Finally, there is the question of money. The reforms are to be introduced without any commitment to increased expenditure. In some ways, it is possible to support the argument that it is professional cultures and organisational inertia that require changing, and this comes from political will and creative commitment rather than injections of money. However, social services work has suffered form chronic underfunding and lack of support for front line staff. So-called unskilled care workers have amongst the worst conditions and lowest pay in the workforce. Although teachers' pay has recently improved it has taken a long time to achieve this; community groups stagger on not knowing where their funding will come from. All of this reflects a low value placed on work and activities which are central to society's well being. Devolving to schools and local authorities the responsibility for instituting reforms directed and monitored by central government without increased funding may not be the best way to start such a process of major change. It is difficult to see how many of the aims of the green paper will not be undermined without a commitment to more funding. Endnotes (1)For work of the ESRC CAVA Research Group see www.leeds.ac.uk/cava. See also work of the Centre for Research into Family, Kinship and Childhood: www.leeds.ac.uk/family. [back] (2)See for example Smart, C. Neale, B. and Wade, A. (2001) The Changing Experience of Childhood, Cambridge, Polity Press. Williams, F. (2001), 'In and Beyond New Labour: Towards a New Political Ethic of Care', Critical Social Policy, 21(4), 467-493. Neale, B. and Smart, C. (2001) 'Good to Talk? Conversations with Children after Divorce' Young Voice, London, Williams, F. (forthcoming 2004) Rethinking the Family Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation, London. Mason, J. (2000) Deciding Where to Live, CAVA Workshop Paper, No. 13. Available at: www.leeds.ac.uk/cava/papers/workshoppapers.htm. Irwin, S. (2003) The Changing Shape of Values, Care and Commitments, Paper prepared for ESPAnet Conference: Changing European Societies - the role for Social Policy, 13-15 November 2003, Danish National Institute of Social Research, Copenhagen. Williams, F. (2003) The Politics of Parenting and Partnering in Local Support Groups: Mobilisation, Care and Support. Paper presented at CAVA's Initial Findings Presentation, May, University of Leeds. Williams, F. (1999) Good Enough Principles for Welfare, Journal of Social Policy, Volume 28, Issue 4, pp. 667-687. Neale, B., Flowerdew, J., and Smart, C. (2003), Drifting Towards Shared Residence? Family Law, December, Volume 33. Duncan, S., et al, (2003) Motherhood, Paid Work and Partnering: Values and Theories, Work, Employment and Society, 17; 2, pp.309-30. Duncan, S., et al (forthcoming, 2004) Mothers and Childcare: Policies, Values and Theories, Children and Society, 18. Sevenhuijsen, S.L. (2003a) 'The place of care: the relevance of the ethic of care for social policy', in: Feminist Theory 4 (2003), 2: 179-197. [back] (3) Neale, B.(2003) Citizenship for Children: Strategies for Development, York, JRF. [back] (4) A recent project on child care services for black and minority ethnic communities has amongst its recommendations strategies to track equality and anti-discriminatory practices through the services and the training and recruitment of those who work in the services (Day Care Trust, 2003). [back] (5) S Frosh, A Phoenix, R Pattmen (2002) Young Masculinities, London, Palgrave.[back] (6) See www.w-lb.org.uk [back] (7) For a vision affecting younger children See Brannen, J and P Moss (2003) Rethinking Chikdren's Care, Open University Press, Buckingham [back] (8) Ghate, D.and N.Hazel (2002) Parenting in Poor Neighbourhoods: Stress, Support and Coping. London, Jessica Kingsley Publishers. [back] (9) Evidence from research suggests that mothers/parents highly value the affective content of child care and the most important indicator of its quality (Duncan, S., et al, (2003) Motherhood, Paid Work and Partnering: Values and Theories, Work, Employment and Society, 17 : 2, pp.309-30. Duncan, S., et al (forthcoming, 2004) Mothers and Childcare: Policies, Values and Theories, Children and Society, 18. [back] (10) Sevenhuisjen, S (2001) 'Report on the 'Proper Thing to do' - seminar with Parentline Plus. Unpublished [back] |
||
 |
|
|
