Prospera Tedam on the need for the UK to meet UN expectations … Keith White on the need for more than rights-based demands … Rachel Harrington on not being hit … Maureen O’Hagan on rights and responsibilities … Valerie Jackson on children’s right to choose … Jane Lane on race equality teaching … Monika Niederle on Q4C - a rights-based quality assurance scheme … and the Editorial.

In addition, two more Key Texts by Robert Shaw … another part to Kathleen Lane’s post office story … reports on FICE in Bulgaria and NCERCC in Manchester … an invitation to celebrate 60 years of SCA from Nick Johnson … some comments on the Baby P case … and, of course, News Views..

Praise and Criticism

The UK was commended for its increase in spending on children and issues affecting them, its plans to strengthen discrimination legislation through the further legislation, for the implementation of the Every Child Matters agenda and the five outcomes for all children in England and Wales, as well as for the Childcare Act 2006, and for its focus on young children.

On a less positive note, the report highlighted the ongoing failure by statutory and non-statutory bodies to protect the rights of children from Roma and travelling communities, migrant, asylum-seeking and refugee children and children from lesbian, gay and transgendered backgrounds, to be free from discrimination.

The report also recommended a review of television programmes which exploit children and blamed the media for the further exploitation of children through broadcasts.

Recommendations Require Action.

For this purposes of this article, the author is concerned with the Committee’s recommendations around dissemination, training and awareness-raising for parents, adults, professionals and children in respect of the UNCRC and related children’s legislation.

The report commended the UK Government for making some attempt at training professionals in human and children’s rights provisions. I, however, feel that this training is inadequate and knowledge about these provisions is low. The question then is, how should awareness be raised and information disseminated to ensure that the information reaches all or most people about the rights of children.

The media - television, radio and newspapers - could be used to highlight the provisions of the UNCRC 1989 and Human Rights Act 1998. Talk shows could be a useful vehicle for knowledge and information dissemination.

Public areas such as bus stops, canteens, restaurants, local authority buildings and charities could publicise this information in various languages to ensure that the content of the UNCRC reaches significant numbers of people.

Schools, nurseries, childminders, playgroups and child health clinics should also become actively involved in sharing and encouraging learning about what children’s rights means and the importance of ensuring that children’s views are respected and listened to. A specific recommendation contained within this report is that UK schools incorporate the UNCRC within the curriculum.

Faith-based organisations, in the author’s view, have a duty to promote the understanding and respect for children as individuals and so should be involved in disseminating the provisions of the UNCRC and other rights-based policies and legislation.

Must Do Better.

The UK’s next report to this Committee is due in January 2014. It would be useful if professionals working with children and young people and educators involved in the training of all levels of childcare professionals could reflect on the issues raised in this report, and begin to identify how individual and corporate practices could lead to a more favourable outcome for children and how this could improve the international perception of the state of children’s rights in the United Kingdom.

The full UN report can be accessed at http://www.crae.org.uk/pdfs/Final_CRC_concluding_obs_08.pdf

Prospera Tedam is Course Leader on the BA Social Work course at the University of Northampton.

Let me begin by saying that on balance it seems to me that the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989) was a “good thing”. I did not oppose it, like the USA and Somalia, but neither did I welcome it with enthusiasm and open arms. The middle way is to believe that having an agreed statement of some of the basic standards and conditions we aspire to for the children of the world makes good sense.

So why am I uneasy, not just about the Convention, but about the use of rights language, in general?

Rights Are Ignored.

First, like Jeremy Bentham, though not necessarily for the same reasons, I have come to fear that rights talk is always at risk of being “nonsense on stilts”. Rights are in essence rhetorical devices, if not flights of fancy, in that they cannot be guaranteed or enforced. So when we look around the world at this very time, and think of the lot of children and young people in the countries that have signed the UN CRC what do we find? Sadly, it is demonstrably true that millions of children are deprived of the most basic of these rights for any number or combination of reasons, including war, famines, disease, corruption, selfishness, greed, lack of imagination and so on. But, I hear you say, is not this the very case that needs to be made for the whole notion of rights: the world is a very dangerous place for children and do they not therefore need all the protection that they can get? Indeed, but we should be very careful about the language we use. Is it not better put as a vision that we have for children, an aspiration for a better, more child-friendly world? We long for the ushering in of this new world, but we cannot guarantee these rights. When war erupts in a region, there is not even the mutest voice raised in articulating the CRC: rather it disappears from view. From the children’s point of view, is it worth the paper it is written on?

For the record it might be worth noting that in the past few years I have had the privilege of staying in many countries on every continent of the world, and so I have seen the condition of many children first hand. I am not sure that it is realized in the West just how desperate life is for millions of children. I will not speak here about gender, but the realities of life for girl children around the world (when they survive abortion, and infanticide) continues to horrify me.

For the record too, I believe that life for many children in the richer parts of the world is not “good enough” (to use the phrase of Donald Winnicott). I tried to spell out the five basic ingredients of a good enough childhood in my book, The Growth of Love: they are security, boundaries, significance, community and creativity. Many children lack the very basic security that comes from attachments to fathers and mothers and family members, and that will not falter as a result of separations and splits between parents, for example. And many lack the basic elements of family or community life, where there is a sense of well-being of the groups of which the children are a part.

Rights Talk is Clumsy Language.

Second, there is a limit to what we can put into the language of rights. We can talk about the right to formal education (whatever that may mean worldwide), and the right to a name, and so on. But what about the stuff or essence of emotional life: interdependence, loyalty, trust and love? The language of rights becomes clumsy and inappropriate at this point, rather like English in North Wales: it may do for very practical business matters, but when it comes to feelings and the affairs of the heart, only Welsh will do.

And this is not a small matter, as if rights language covers nearly everything, and leaves just a few minor gaps. Rather the converse: the really important things in a child’s life simply defy the language of rights. We could set up institutions like schools, hospitals and children’s homes, based on the language of rights, and from these rights derive minimum standards, but only the most starry-eyed of legislators would ever fool themselves that they could create anything resembling the warmth of family, home and parenting.

Bring in Children’s Rights Officers, professionalism and every other resource you wish to choose, and you may prevent some of the abuses of children, but you will not provide a substitute for the reciprocity, warmth and love inherent in the parent-child relationship.

Demanding Rights is a Source of Conflict.

Third, rights talk creates insoluble conflict (Jonathan Sacks, The Politics of Hope, p. 241), because there are inevitably competing claims: the child versus the group as a whole; the child versus another child and so on. If we raise the consciousness of a child about her rights there is a genuine risk that this will breed disillusionment as she discovers that what she was promised or what she thought she was promised cannot be delivered. Families, communities and associations are built not on the notion of the fundamental rights of each individual, but on a sense of belonging. “We” is as important as “I” in the process of daily living.

What is more, true belonging requires that each member of a group is prepared at times to lay aside their rights in order for others, and the group as a whole to function effectively. Teamwork requires personal sacrifice.

Communities Cannot Be Based Only On Rights.

When I first shared a flat with other university students a fundamental truth of human society struck us all: if each one of us insisted on his rights and did only what was agreed in our informal contract, then the condition of the flat degenerated. The well-being of the place required that we each did more than seemed to have been agreed. Rights in themselves did not lead to the creation of community and communal living.Years later I came to live in the residential community called Mill Grove, and it is here that the need for a firmer foundation than rights is essential for the establishment of living, thriving families or communities. Rights presume that somewhere there already exist such groups, but their origins lie rooted in other soil.

As you will have gathered, I could go on to develop this general line of argument, but I hope that what I have written is enough to give the gist of how I have come to see things after a lifetime of reflection, scrutiny and experience.

Perhaps this all seems unduly negative, not least as we prepare for the 30^th Anniversary of the Year of the Child. But I beg to differ. It does no one any good, if we settle for pretence rather than truth. So let me conclude in the spirit of John Bunyan who wrote in his preface to Pilgrim’s Progress, “Him that liketh it, well and good: him that liketh it not, let him produce a better.”

An Alternative To Rights?

What is my preferred alternative to rights and rights talk? It is to draw from the deep well of human experience, and to dream dreams of a better world. The Judaeo-Christian tradition is rich in such visions. Inspired by these dreams and longings, we must then try to distil some key elements that we can aim for, and then to go about trying to deliver them in whatever situation we find ourselves. Therapeutic communities are a modern example of those who have set about this task with tenacity and imagination.This alternative is modest by comparison with the global CRC, but it is only by taking little steps that we can climb mountains, and by lighting candles that we can begin to dispel the darkness.

That said, I am aware that at what for Christians is the season of the year when we focus on the Christ-child, we often read the words at the beginning of John’s Gospel: “To those who received him…he gave the right to become children of God”. The language of rights is not wholly foreign to the Christian story. This, however, is a fundamental and single right that does not take us into a whole field of rights-discourse. It is a right that is purchased and guaranteed by the death, the blood of Jesus as the Lamb of God. It is sealed with a sacrifice, not a bill of rights.

I hope and pray that next year will be one in which we take steps, however small towards a more child-friendly world: if so, this will not, in my view be primarily because we espouse conventions of rights, but because we are individually and collectively willing to lay aside some of our rights in order that children may give and receive love. (Such a process gives due weight to a principle of duty, which is at the heart of justice.)

Happy Christmas

May I wish you a happy Christmas, whatever your faith or none. We will be performing A Christmas Carol at Mill Grove this year once again, and will be reminded again that it is a change of heart that leads Scrooge to share what he has with Tiny Tim and the Cratchett family, not assent to a list of rights. I am always moved by this story, - in a way that you can see I will never be moved by the CRC.Though happy that the CRC exists, I rejoice that A Christmas Carol connects with heart as well as head in a way that meant a better life for one child and family.

Perhaps it is a matter of age that I will now settle for such small changes in single families, rather than attempt the grand sweeps and gestures. I would be interested to know what you think.

To me, this is nonsensical. Surely everyone should have equal protection in the law? If anything, children need extra protection from assault, not less. ‘Smacking’ means to hurt a child deliberately, and this should not be an acceptable thing to do.

Some parents claim it is their right to hit their children and the state should not intervene. But children are not the property of their parents. Violence against anyone, including anyone in the family, should be illegal and the state should intervene to stop people getting hurt.

There are numerous other reasons why hitting children should be banned. Firstly, adults need to set a good example for young children to follow. The idea that if someone does something you dislike, you hit them, is surely not a message we want children to pick up.

The UK is also under international pressure to give children equal protection. For instance, the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child and the European Committee on Social Rights have both said the UK needs to update its laws. The UK is behind several countries such as Germany, the Netherlands and Spain, which have all outlawed corporal punishment.

Thirdly, the vague wording of rules over hitting children leaves children open to more serious abuse. One person’s ‘reasonable punishment’ will seem extreme to others. Research has also shown that parents often hit their children harder than they mean to. A complete ban on violence against children removes any ambiguity.

News reports frequently feature statistics on how many parents support smacking. Children’s views are rarely mentioned. This needs to change.

The Children are Unbeatable! Alliance is a campaign to make hitting children against the law. They are looking for people, especially children and young people, to get involved in their campaign. If you want to get involved you should sign up to the Children are Unbeatable! Alliance, on the website: www.childrenareunbeatable.org.uk/children for young people or www.childrenareunbeatable.org.uk for adults. Or for more information, contact Elinor Milne, Children’s Campaign Co-ordinator: phone/text: 07504 738 741, email: elinor@childrenareunbeatable.org.uk.

Rachael Harrington was aged 18 when she wrote this article, which has also appeared in Debatable (Issue 5, February 2008), published by UK Youth Parliament, RUCKUS (Issue 10, Summer 2008), published by the National Youth Agency, CHIPS Chat (Summer 2008) and Exchange (Issue 7, Summer 2008), published by the NSPCC.

Over the intervening years since Live Aid*, there have been images of children whose basic rights are not being met in the format that most of us in ‘civilised’ developed countries would recognise. Does this mean that they have been deprived? Most of you would probably respond with a resounding ‘Yes’.

I would like to challenge that perception and I will use an example from the video footage I have seen on news programmes or charity publicity drives.

Whose Rights?

One child who clearly remains in my memory is a little girl aged about four whose days were spent sifting through rubbish dumps for pieces of glass and metal for her mother to sell. Her hands were already scarred by cuts from the broken glass. Her skin was gnarled and dry from the hours spent picking through unmentionable debris. In her family she was one of the wage earners. She assisted in its survival. She made up the team which held onto each member for as long as possible.There would never be a chance for her to debate whether her rights were being acknowledged and provided for. She didn’t have time to think about how different her life could be if she were adopted by some well-meaning wealthy western family who would talk to her about her roots but who would also remove her from her culture and the things that make her who she has become. Her right was to be her family’s member. Her right was to work so hard that sometimes she cried with exhaustion. Her right was to work and live a short life possibly raising her own family in similar straitened circumstances.

Children are born into families whose situations are far from ideal in any recognised sense. Whilst we can view this particular child through tears and a veil of impotence, provided she is being protected from deliberate harm and provided she gets to share the food that the family acquires, who are we to state that she is not receiving the rights that should be hers? I would argue that what affected the majority of viewers was the fact that she was doing this work at all. We judge everyone’s lifestyle by our own standards and of course, this one failed.

On the Doorstep

I use another example of children’s rights - one that is much closer to home. Consider a child whose family work very hard indoors and out, in all weathers and with the real possibility of being injured or hurt in some way. Their rising time is usually 5.00a.m. Their parents and sometimes the children are out in the fields tending to their animals, keeping them safe, helping them give birth, and keeping them free from parasites and disease. They do not have the luxury of long lie-ins at weekends. Some times there is not enough money to pay for new clothes or shoes. Some families struggle more than others and some parents cannot manage any more and choose to die rather than continue to face even more debt and eventual ruin. When a devastating disease wipes out complete herds or flocks, there is nothing for them to do but pick themselves up and try again. I am of course talking about the farming community.

During the Foot and Mouth epidemic of the early 2000s for example, many farmers lost all of their animals including much loved rare breeds and pets. A harsh consequence of this was that collies, bred to herd sheep and cows, had no work left to do and were either shot by their owners or sold to people who did not understand the importance of keeping these dogs active. Many dogs became aggressive and were euthanised.

Wealth Versus Poverty

There are some wealthy farmers, especially where there are thousands of acres of land and well-bred livestock. A high number of farming families, however, live a hand-to-mouth existence. Their children are partners in the daily struggle to make ends meet. The children are raised to understand the importance of self-sufficiency and economy. When these children reach adulthood, increasing numbers of them are turning their backs on such a life. They do not want to continue the practice of work, work, and work.In this climate, in this culture, there are choices that can be made. The children in these families can exercise their right to choose how to live. The rights of these children can be accommodated by their own intervention. Where there is no room for choice, there is no decisions to be made.

* Live Aid 1985 was the first internationally organised concert to raise money for African people whose grasp on life was slipping away due to famine, war and political plotting.

In recent years there has been a great deal of debate about children having rights and whether these should be placed above the rights of adults. We need to remember that Aries (1960) points out that in fact there is no such natural state as childhood; it is something which is constructed by society. Therefore, regardless of the rights of the child in some societies the state called childhood is disregarded, as can be demonstrated where you have 8 and 9 year old boys being recruited as soldiers and 10 and 11 year old girls being trafficked by sex traders.

According to Dahlberg et al (1999: 18), recent accepted terminology for rich countries in the world being in the minority and poor countries being in the majority, the UK is among the minority countries where there are strong opinions that alongside the concept of rights should go responsibilities.
Landsdown (1996) found that some of the common reasons put forward for this are that:

- children should not have rights unless they were capable of being responsible;

- children are not able to make decisions;

- giving children rights threatens family life and relationships, etc.

Sources of Conflict

These views have become more to the fore in the UK since we have had a number of incidents of knife and gun crime amongst teenagers. These young people have been viewed as being totally irresponsible. Contrary arguments to this analysis are that those who supply teenagers with guns and knives are at fault. Furthermore, the influence of TV and video games suggests that these types of attacks do not lead to death; for example, characters who are killed in films or television plays are seen alive and well in other programmes shown at a later date.In contrast to this we have seen in the UK during the past week, a 13 year old girl asserting her rights by refusing to have a heart transplant and taking the responsibility for this decision by explaining her reasons to the Child Protection Officer. She took one hour to explain why she did not want a transplant, in spite of the fact that if she does not have it at some point in the not so distant future she would die. The Officer was convinced by her arguments and arranged for the Court Order to take her into care to be abandoned (Guardian 2008).

In the minority countries commercial influence via television, advertising etc. has placed great pressures on children. As Piachaud points out, “The nature of advertising has changed. It is increasingly being directed at younger age groups. It is no longer restricted to toys but now encompasses a wide range of products. [Items] such as toothbrushes, stationery are being turned into branded goods linked with toys or movies in order to be sold to children’ (Piachaud 2008). If parents cannot afford to provide the items which the children see as their right to have, then it leads to family conflict.

Reaching About Responsibilities As Well As Rights

Some people say that it is not easy to teach children that they also have responsibilities. However, the following examples which I found will show that it is not so difficult, particularly if started at an early age.

From the website of Childline Gauteng, South Africa (2008), is the following sample:

• Children have the right to be taken seriously and the responsibility to listen to others.
• Children have the right to quality medical care and the responsibility to take care of themselves.
• Children have the right to a good education and responsibility to study and respect their teachers.

From the UNICEF website leaflet:

• If children have a right to be protected from conflict, cruelty, exploitation and neglect, then they also have a responsibility not to bully or harm others.
• If children have a right to a clean environment, they also have a responsibility to do what they can to look after the environment.

With these ideas in mind, should we be striving to encourage our children to understand that having rights is not a ‘stand alone’ concept but one intrinsically linked with responsibilities or should we remain just telling them about their rights?

References

Aries P (1960) Centuries of Childhood Harmondsworth, Penguin EducationChildline Gauteng South Africa (2008) Children’s Rights and Responsibilities www.childlinesa.org.za

Curtis A and O’Hagan M (2008) Early Childhood Care and Education 2^nd Edition Routledge, London

Dahlberg G, Moss P, Pence A (1999) Beyond Quality in Early Childhood Education and Care: Postmodern Perspectives Routledge/Falmer, London

Guardian Newspaper G2 Section (12/11/2008) Hannah’s Choice London

Landsdown G (1996) The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child - Progress in the United Kingdom in Nutbrown C Ed. Children’s Rights and Early Education Paul, Chapman, London

Piachaud D Freedom to be a Child: Commercial Pressures on Children. Social Policy & Society 7:4, pp. 445-456 2008 Cambridge University Press

UNICEF (2008) Children’s Rights and Responsibilities www.unicef.org.uk

Additional Reading:

Wheal A (2007) Children’s Rights. Respecting Children’s Rights and Understanding Responsibilities Britton Cottage Publishing, Southampton

Hidden Thoughts

It feels uncomfortable to describe someone as fat. The word is so loaded, somehow implicitly ascribing personal blame to them whatever their circumstances. A recent incident, however, brought home to me the possibly even more serious implications of the word. On the street, behind a little ‘fat’ boy, my granddaughter, just four, suddenly announced, “I hate fat people”. She then refused to talk about it, covering her ears (1). In a family where differences between people are discussed positively and openly this came as a shock. But ‘fatism’ (if that is what it might be called), like sexism, disableism, racism and all the other ‘isms’, lurks often unrecognised and unacknowledged until someone, like her, articulates its presence. The reaction of those around her probably explains her own counter-reaction to theirs. It made me wonder what other issues like this, at present relatively hidden, may be coming over the horizon to disturb us.

Readers of Race Equality Teaching will already be only too familiar with both the ‘lurking’ of racism and its overt in-your-face manifestations. But many people working in the early years field (and probably everywhere else too) have little knowledge or understanding of what racism is and is not.

Short on Awareness

So they plough on doing their work of somehow trying to implement racial equality with little concept of the racism that creates inequality in the first place - possibly thinking it does not exist in largely white rural or suburban areas. Or they may believe that the ‘victims’ themselves are responsible for what is happening and with some vague idea that it is to do with racist marches, violence and bigoted, xenophobic organisations.

Consequently they are in no position to see the work they are trying to do within a context or to have the confidence (apart from it being an apparently ‘good’ thing to do) to know why they are doing what they are doing. Not knowing why you are doing something is no basis for doing it well - and it may lead to a relatively meaningless tick-box syndrome.

There are, of course, training courses for some early years workers about ‘equality and diversity’ and ‘equal opportunities’ (whatever those words might mean). The issues are often said to be ‘threaded through’ all courses, there are ‘multicultural resources’ (often meaning black dolls and books with pictures of black people in them) and there are practitioners who ‘treat them all the same’. So that’s all right then! Except that it isn’t.

Lip Service Only

There are huge swathes of the country where lip service is paid to racial equality and relatively few early years settings (2) where active antiracist practice is in place. In particular, the private sector, which provides for 80% of all early years childcare, largely has other ‘priorities’ and lacks staff who understand the issues.

The owner of four nurseries in central London who, on hearing the title of my book, said that it did not involve them, as they were ‘all white and middle class’ there, typifies this. Another apparently highly regarded and qualified owner and member of a national advisory group devising government guidance said that early years practitioners were not prejudiced.

While in no way saying that all qualified teachers in schools understand racism or are intellectually curious, the rampant lack of appropriately qualified, informed, questioning and thoughtful staff in many early years settings may go some way to explain the gulf of knowledge about racial equality issues in general, as they apply to the care and education of young children.

This may apply similarly to some OFSTED childcare inspectors. Otherwise how have some settings passed their inspections when racial equality issues are not addressed either by the setting or the inspector? The fact that only a few early years OFSTED reports comment on these issues is an indication of the priority given to racial equality. Some readers may think that this is no different from the maintained education sector!

EYFS : Good Guidance

However, there is the potential for progress in that the new Early Years Foundation Stage (EYFS) statutory framework, introduced in September 2008, although not mentioning the term racism, has many pointers to it - for example ‘anti-discriminatory practice’, ‘helping to overcome barriers where these already exist’, ‘all children irrespective of ethnicity, culture or religion’ having ‘the opportunity to experience a challenging and enjoyable programme of learning and development’ and duties regarding ‘anti-discriminatory legislation’. These are significant contributors to what needs to be addressed to counter aspects of the package that together comprise racism.

The EYFS Practice Guidance also has allusions to racism - for example, it identifies many issues, too numerous to list, that need to be implemented in order to address factors in this package of aspects that together comprise racism - including ‘positive images that challenge children’s thinking’, ‘resources reflecting the diversity of children and adults within and beyond the setting’, avoiding ‘negative stereotypes’, supporting children in ‘developing positive relationships by challenging negative ….comments and actions towards either peers or adults’, being ‘alert to injustices’, supporting ‘children and adults to unlearn discriminatory attitudes’, talking ‘with young children about valuing all skin colour differences’ and giving ‘children information which challenges cultural, racial …stereotypes’.

Despite some of the recent valid criticisms of the EYFS, these are very positive requirements which might in the present climate be largely ignored if they were just professional guidance, as is being suggested by some critics. Ignoring these requirements may contribute to institutional racism but how many workers and inspectors have analysed the EYFS for these opportunities? How many have gone through it highlighting the examples relevant to gender, disability, family background and ethnicity, culture and religion - something that would probably be a revelation as to the threaded nature of equality issues, even if not yet exactly what we might ideally wish for?

And how many settings have linked the Government’s community cohesion agenda with the clear aim expressed through Every Child Matters for every child, whatever their background or their circumstances, to have the support they need to make a positive contribution - a contribution to the breaking down of barriers between communities? (see Lane and Ouseley 2006 for discussion).

The Missing Link

It was with all these long-known-among-antiracists issues in mind that I started to write Young children and racial justice - taking action for racial equality in the early years - understanding the past, thinking about the present, planning for the future. And the more I thought about it, the more clear it became that the missing link in all the local and national guidance and policies, practice, thinking and training for racial equality and in some pertinent legislation was even a mention of the word racism, let alone an understanding of it.

It seemed to be the key to unlocking the barriers to antiracist practice. Ranging from government ministers, national and local government departments, through OFSTED (now responsible for inspecting all early years provision) and the maintained, voluntary and private sectors to the actual practice in settings, the gulf in acknowledging racism was there (see Lane 2006 for a detailed analysis of the early years field and racism). During the writing of the book, the DfES critical paper Getting it - getting it right was published (Wanless, Dehal and Eyre 2006). This was seminal to the points I was trying to make.

Publishing the Book

So, four years and nearly 400 pages later, I have attempted to demystify racism in a way that I hope early years workers can accept and understand. I have tried to write this all in a non-threatening and sensitive way with lots of real life examples. So far as I know most readers have found the language readily accessible and the case studies helpful and relevant. Even some non-book readers have browsed through it and said that it is something everyone should read. While not believing for one moment that this will happen, I hope that the key messages in it are clear and open to further discussion.

I also hope that the book will stop people from feeling apprehensive, guilty or unable to talk about racism for fear of using the ‘wrong terminology’, having a finger wagged at them for being a racist or exposing their lack of knowledge. I hope that readers will no longer be concerned about being challenged aggressively and made to feel inadequate - shades of some racism awareness training (RAT) in the eighties. None of us would welcome that experience either! Instead, I hope the book will enable everyone to share the lack of knowledge common to so many of us and to talk freely, openly and honestly about it within an ethos of trust, equal respect and no blame.

Given this intent it was therefore disappointing, but hardly surprising, that the Daily Mail and the Daily Telegraph (not for the first time in relation to these early years issues, as RET readers will know) wrote destructive, distorted and ridiculing articles about the book, picking out particular bits and implying that racist toddlers commenting on spicy food would be reported to the council - words not used in the book itself. The media furore was out of all proportion and, as with the previous episode, the worldwide blogs were mostly hugely ignorant, ill thought out and, of course, anonymous. Many responses, including emails to both the publishers (the National Children’s Bureau) and myself, were obscene and insulting.

An article by that doughty ally Jenny Bourne of the Institute of Race Relations, (ironically the same surname as that of the Daily Mail journalist who clearly knew the consequences of what he wrote) can be seen on www.irr.org.uk -Media hysteria around new book. How many early years workers read the articles and were influenced by them is inevitably unknown.

What Is The Book About and What Issues Does It Cover?

The contents pages of the book can be seen on the website of the National Children’s Bureau (3). It attempts to address strategically all the relevant issues across the national early years field, from legislation and monitoring by ethnicity, through national and local government requirements, policies and procedures, inspections, training/education, research and employment to the actual practice in settings. On the way it considers racism (including a detailed discussion of institutional racism) at some length, prejudice, discrimination, stereotypes and assumptions, how children learn their racial attitudes, a review of past approaches, devising policies and schemes for racial equality, dealing with racist incidents, a critique of government practices and policies and an overall strategic implementation framework.

It addresses in detail such issues as talking about skin colours, mixed race families, terminology, living and working in mainly white areas, name-calling, learning English, bilingualism/multilingualism, valuing home languages, the role of the media, unlearning racially prejudiced attitudes, Persona Dolls, no-blame culture, ethnic composition and representation of groups, community cohesion, assessment, childrearing practices, religion, culture, families, observation, the key person approach, multiculturalism, political correctness, racist ‘jokes’, Travellers, refugees and asylum seekers and European migrants.

Some of the practice discussion has been written in more detail and more effectively elsewhere. The book does not claim to be a definitive resource of good practice. And I know that I am no expert and certainly do not know all the answers. What I hope it will be is a sort of manual and set of principles for those who wish to think seriously about early years practice and are sufficiently committed and passionate about ensuring racial equality to read about it further. It aims to provide an opportunity to reflect, to think, to question and to become confident about the reasons for working in an antiracist way.

No one bar passionate antiracists will read it all through but trainers may find it helpful to introduce bits in stages in order to engage in discussion. Also I hope that some people may dip into it, open their eyes and minds and become sufficiently interested to read further. But my main hope is that the issue of racism will cease to be the awesome enigma that it so often is and instead will become something that, through better understanding, can be faced with confidence and a commitment to remove it.

What Is Racism?

Most people in the early years field, when asked to say what racism is, cite prejudice and, less frequently, discrimination. The responses are often given as examples - refusing to offer a nursery place to a black child or witnessing a white child refusing to hold a black child’s hand. They nearly always hold the parents responsible for such attitudes. Rarely is there a wider knowledge.Clearly a basic definition is needed. I define racism as :

all those practices and procedures that, both historically and in the present, disadvantage and discriminate against people because of their skin colour, ethnicity, culture, religion, nationality or language.

But, although this is accurate, it is somewhat obtuse to those unfamiliar with such concepts. To make it more accessible the ‘practices and procedures’ can be spelt out as a package of different things that taken together comprise racism. It can then be seen more clearly as complex with different components. I have defined the package as comprising:

racial prejudice

racial discrimination

racial harassment

racial hatred

racial violence

racial assumptions

racial stereotyping

cultural racism

sectarianism and anti-religious racism

xenoracism

institutional racism

structural racism

state racism

Considering racism in this way may help to explain its complexity and clarifies the struggles, misunderstandings and misinformation that many people have when trying to define and understand it. It helps to explain that any racist incident is fundamentally part and parcel of the whole and not just a one-off event without a context. It points to how history has fashioned and still does fashion the notion of racism. Some of the components are more pertinent to the early years than others, but all may impinge in some way.

The Need to Face Racism

Talking about racism and even using the word may appear to be daunting to some early years workers and perhaps induces feelings of apprehension, often resulting in impotence to discuss it and, therefore, to address it. But because its origins are in world history, and Britain’s role in that history, it is something for which none of us was personally responsible. However, we are responsible for recognising it today and for playing our part in eliminating it, at least in our own contexts.

Understanding it enables us to better know what to do about its consequent present day manifestations in the early years and, in so doing, helps us to take responsibility to counter it. This is important because to do nothing about it or to pretend that it does not exist, especially in largely white areas, is to collude in its perpetuation. It flies in the face of the evidence, collected over more than fifty years, that shows that young children recognise different skin colours by the age of three - indeed how would they not do so when they can recognise other colours - for example, the difference between blue and red bricks, and when babies recognise the people who care for them?

And unless action is taken to enable them to learn positive attitudes to such differences, the evidence also shows that they may be learning to be racially prejudiced, possibly leading to racist behaviour in adulthood. Every racist adult was once a young child. The power of racism to affect young minds cannot be ignored.

Within this approach, institutional racism is less daunting. I discuss this with examples and then go on to suggest specific instances in the early years, which may constitute institutional racism.

Outstanding and Ongoing Concerns

Nothing discussed so far is likely to touch the ongoing concerns about the failure to address the racism in our society comprehensively. There is a series of outstanding issues that are of critical importance but which remain only on the margins of the early years agenda. They influence whether settings and training take racial equality seriously, feel reluctantly obliged to make gestures to do so or do nothing at all.

The amended Race Relations Act is an example of this. Monitoring by ethnicity, conducting race equality impact assessments, setting up key advisory groups with attention being paid to their ethnic composition or whether participants have a knowledge of racial equality issues and ensuring that research projects are not ethnocentric or culturally biased are just a few key preliminaries that are mostly ignored.

Most depressing is the fact that so few people even notice (or care about?) the failings of law enforcement. For example, most national conferences to consider the EYFS and its forerunner have barely any black representation. Who notices this? The 1998 National Childcare Strategy contains no national strategy for race equality. Nor has one been devised since then. It is as if there is no legislation about racial equality or, if there is, it does not have to be complied with consistently at all levels.

Positive and Supportive Work Being Done

However, on the encouraging side, there are positive indicators for the future. Nearly everyone working in the early years sector genuinely wants to do the best for children, so if we can unlock the resistance to considering racial equality there is real potential for change. Furthermore, there are people dotted all over the place who are already fired up with enthusiasm, determination and commitment to ensure that training and settings are taking racial equality seriously. And there are plenty of good resources on racial equality and early years for those who seek them - videos, articles and books (see www.childrenwebmag.com for such a resource list).

So why, after all these years of effort, are things apparently not changing sufficiently to be really noticed? Could it be the failure to understand racism as already discussed? Could it be that the present training programmes, both initial and in continuing professional development, are insufficiently persuasive for participants to have the determination and confidence to take personal action? Perhaps it is a combination of these factors.

A Possible Way Forward

People come to work in the early years field (as with nearly all work situations) with their own personal histories, experiences, education, family and social backgrounds. These inevitably influence their reactions, understandings and commitment to ensure racial equality in whatever they do. Where discussions, training, meetings, seminars and conferences provide little time and opportunity to consider the issues calmly, safely and in unthreatening ways, those with almost inevitably deep-seated ideas, opinions and beliefs tend to be defensive (although usually very politely) and maintain their original stance whatever alternative views are presented.

It is becoming daily more obvious from the reports of some of those involved in training as well as those with experiences of observing such training and practices in settings that the key to understanding racism comes from opportunities for people to talk together, to listen to one another and to share ideas and experiences all within a commitment to wanting the best for all children.

Such opportunities, taken over a period of time where trust is established within a no blame culture and where participants are able to bring their own ideas for calm discussion are recognised as engendering a listening open-minded and open-hearted basis for working together. This fosters a respectful ethos and permits changes to take place without any fear of shame or being found wanting. Everyone benefits. Furthermore it prepares the ground for a willingness to learn more about specific issues. For example, there is a vital link between such programmes with adults and the way adults see the importance of work with Persona Dolls to address children’s attitudes and their capacity to think critically (Brown 2008).

A programme of such training, More is Caught Than Taught (MCTT), has been developed in the United States and programmes have been run here for over ten years. Its essential components are a concern for the well being of children, opportunities to range over an array of issues that arise from living in our society and sufficient time over a period to build trust and for open and honest discussions (see Kapasi and Lane 2008 for a detailed discussion of antiracist training and MCTT).

From such programmes participants are empowered to address inequalities holistically. They are then ready and prepared to accept subsequent training on specific issues of racial equality with equanimity. Such opportunities can be life-changing and ensure a lifetime’s commitment to be pro-active for equality in principle and practice.

Of course, such programmes are time consuming and require funding. But a few local authorities, concerned that money is well spent in the long term, are beginning to recognise the benefit of the possibility of one-off, admittedly costly, programmes that are truly effective and require no further input because participants take the issues forward independently, instead of the present constant drip-drip situation of running courses on a never-ending basis but where little really changes.

Does this make sense? Is it worth trying? What do readers think?

Notes

• 1. Subsequent to this incident, and after some discussion, she decided to talk about ‘round’ people instead - she had understood how her negative opinion was hurtful and wrong.

• 2. Early years settings are subsequently referred to as ‘settings’.

• 3. The National Children’s Bureau website, www.ncb.org.uk

References

Brown, B (2008) Equality in action - a way forward with Persona Dolls Trentham Books
Kapasi, H and Lane, J (2008) Approaching race equality training in the early years. Race Equality Teaching. Summer. For MCTT see www.inspire.eu.com
Lane, J (2006) Right from the Start - a commissioned study of antiracism, learning and the early years. Focus Institute on Rights and Social Transformation (FIRST) www.focus-first.co.uk
Lane, J and Ouseley, H (2006) We’ve got to start somewhere: what role can early years services and settings play in helping society to be more at ease with itself? Race Equality Teaching. Spring

Wanless, P, Dehal, I and Eyre, R (2006) Getting it. Getting it right: Exclusion of Black Pupils - Priority Review. DfES. Formally published by DfES in March 2007.

Jane Lane is an advocate worker for racial equality in the early years. She is the author of Young Children and Racial Justice - Taking action for racial equality in the early years - understanding the past, thinking about the present, planning for the future.

This article was first written for the Autumn 2008 edition of Race Equality Teaching, and thanks are due for permission to reprint.

The UN Convention Says…

Article 9.2 of says, “… all interested parties shall be given an opportunity to participate in the proceedings and make their views known.”Article 12.1 says, “States Parties shall assure to the child who is capable of forming his or her own views the right to express those view freely in all matters affecting the child, the views of the child being given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child.”

Article 12.2 says: “For this purpose, the child shall in particular be provided the opportunity to be heard …”

Starting the Project

FICE (Fédération Internationale des Communautés Educatives) bases its work on the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Participation of children in any decision that affects their life has to be a basic principle in alternative care.

So there were reasons enough for FICE to be happy being one of the three international organisations (together with SOS and IFCO) in setting up a huge project to develop Quality4Children Standards for out-of-home child care in Europe.

Children Central to Setting the Standards

Q4C Standards were not only made for children in out-of-home care, they were made in cooperation with children, their parents, caregivers, professionals. FICE, SOS and IFCO always tried to make sure that they used a participatory approach in the process of managing the project. Young adults who had experienced out-of-home care were part of the steering group from the very beginning.

Children, their parents, care givers and professionals told their stories about good practice in this field. The Standards were formulated out of these stories, and twice there was an opportunity for the storytellers to give feedback on the wording of the Standards. It was important that every storyteller could find his/her story in the Standards.

Identifying the Links Between UNCRC and Q4C

While the UN Convention is quite a detailed document, the aim of the Q4C working group was to keep the Standards succinct, in order to be able to apply them. In all, eighteen Standards were drawn up, based on stories provided by the children from many countries.

Experts have identified the ways in which the Q4C Standards and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child relate to each other. While the UNCRC lays out the children’s rights, the Q4C standards identify the criteria against which the services should be judged.

As one of the many connections you can find between Q4C and the UNCRC, let me give you just a typical example.
Q4C Standard 3: A professional decision-making process ensures the best possible care for the child.

References In the UNCRC

To the child:

3/1 “In all actions concerning children … the best interest of the child shall be a primary consideration.”

3/2 “State Parties undertake to ensure the child such protection and care as is necessary for his or her well-being …”

6/2 “State Parties shall ensure to the maximum extent possible the survival and development of the child.”

19 “State Parties shall take appropriate … measures to protect the child from …violence, injury or abuse or negligent treatment … while in the care of … legal guardian(s) …”

20/1 “A child temporarily or permanently deprived of his or her family environment … shall be entitled to special protection and assistance provided by the State.”

23/1 “State Parties recognize that a mentally or physically disabled child should enjoy a full and decent life, in conditions which ensure dignity, promote self-reliance and facilitate the child’s active participation in the community.”

23/2 “…recognize the right of disabled children to special care …”

23/3 ” … assistance in accordance with paragraph 2 … shall be provided free of charge …”

39 State Parties shall take all appropriate measures to promote physical and psychological recovery and social reintegration of a child victim … Such recovery and reintegration shall take place in an environment which fosters the health, self-respect and dignity of the child.”

To the parents:

3/2 “…taking into account the rights and duties of his or her parents …”

5 “State Parties shall respect the responsibilities and duties of parents … to provide appropriate guidance … ”

6/2 See above.

18/1 ” … that both parents have common responsibilities, …have the primary responsibility for the upbringing and development of the child. The best interests of the child will be their basic concern.”

20/3 “Such care could include, inter alia, foster placement, kafalah of Islamic law, adoption or if necessary placement in suitable institutions for the care of children …”

23/1 See above.

23/2 See above.

23/3 See above.

39 See above.

To the child protection services or care organisations:

3/1 See above.

6/2 See above.

23/1 See above.

23/2 See above.

23/3 See above.

39 See above.

To the responsible person or caregiver:

2 See above.

3/1 See above.

5 See above.

6/2 See above.

20/3 See above.

23/1 See above.

23/2 See above.

23/3 See above.

39 See above.

It will be seen that the single Q4C Standard is reflected in a large number of the UNCRC clauses. You can get access to the full version of the reference frame of the eighteen Q4C Standards on the Q4C website (www.qualiy4children.info) in - at the moment - twenty one languages. Some more languages will be available quite soon (for example Hebrew).

EU Reactions To the Q4C Standards

When the Standards were presented in Brussels at the EU Commission, Ms Ferrero-Waldner, Commissioner for External Relations and European Neighbourhood Policy said, “… I particularly focus on an effective protection on the rights of the children, taking into account their individual needs and evolving capabilities, with the Union acting as a beacon to the rest of the world. The promotion, protection and fulfilment of children’s rights have become an important political priority in the internal and external policies of the EU.”

And she continued, “In this context the Quality4Children Standards complement our efforts in policy-making, especially in cases where children cannot live with their parents. On the basis of real life stories they outline common Standards aimed at ensuring and improving children’s and young adults’ development opportunities in out-of-home childcare over Europe. I am convinced that these Standards form a valuable contribution and an important further step towards the harmonisation of our childcare system in Europe.”

Meanwhile, Quality4Children Standards have become known not only all over Europe, but also in all other continents of the world. The next challenge - which we are at present working on - is to implement these Standards. Working according to the Q4C Standards in the field of out-of-home care also means to work according to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. And having in mind the Convention on the Rights of the Child when working and dealing with children brings you to the Q4C Standards as the highest possible level of participation.

Advocacy for Q4C and implementation of the Q4C Standards are the best possible support to make States Parties fulfil what they have promised to do on the Rights of the Child by signing the 49 Articles of the UN-Convention. IFCO, SOS and FICE are making every possible effort to push this process forward.

Monika Niederle has been President of FICE-International since 2006, and she has played a major part in developing the Q4C Standards, both when she was President of FICE-Austria and in her current role.

Along the way, many other landmarks have been passed, each the achievement of people who were battling to improve things for children. These developments have not happened by accident; they have required hard work, taking on vested interests such as the owners of the coal mines, for example, and they have needed resources.

It is often said that investing in children is important because they are our future. The fact that it is said often does not make it a trite truism. The time, effort and money are worth investing for a variety of reasons. The first is that children deserve to have a good life for their own sakes. Our children and grandchildren are the coming generations in our families, and as they have relied on us, we may come to rely on them. And for economic reasons, too, the country needs the up and coming generations to have the knowledge, skills and capabilities for the country to succeed in the world context, whether through invention, design, manufacturing or services.

But if children are to succeed and to contribute to the country’s success, they need not only the attributes mentioned above, but also the right attitudes and values. Knowledge and skills are no use if the possessor is not motivated to use them or uses them for the wrong ends. The wider community does not benefit if individuals serve only their own purposes. We need young people who are prepared to work hard, who are committed to serving the community, who want the world to be a better place, who are prepared to make sacrifices, who are prepared to carry responsibility.

This is the other side of the rights coin. As it spins, you see both sides and they are the same coin. Children deserve the rights they need to be protected, to enjoy good health, to enable them develop, to be educated, to obtain employment, to find a place in the wider community, to be valued and respected. But it is a matter of give and take. In turn, they need to respect others, to make their contribution to family life, to work hard at school and college, to avoid infringing the law.

It would be easy to write an Editorial to bemoan all the things going wrong with today’s young people - the binge drinking, the drug abuse, the early pregnancies, the vandalism and the anti-social behaviour - but, as in any generation, there is also a lot to applaud which does not hit the media headlines - the hard work at school, the voluntary activities, the successes at sport, the concern about the environment, the care for dependent parents.

In recent years, we have emphasised children’s rights. That has been important, and there are ways in which their rights should still be extended. However, it is also important that we should expect children to be responsible in turn. Indeed, you might say that it should be their right to be responsible, to make choices and take decisions appropriate to their age. In the same way that the right to free speech requires of speakers that they use that right responsibly, avoiding slander and malice, children need to learn that they have been granted their rights in order that they in turn will learn to respect the rights of others. To pass that learning on is a legacy worth more than money.

The digests prepared to date have been written by Robert Shaw, but if any reader wishes to contribute, please get in touch, to ensure that we have not already prepared a digest on the text in question. We are pleased to announce that the series is sponsored by the Scottish Institute for Residential Child Care, and we are most grateful to them for their support.

Advisory Council in Child Care (1970) Care and treatment in a planned environment: a report on the community home project London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office 0 11 340214 7

The Advisory Council in Child Care was one of a number of committees set up by the Home Office to advise it on its responsibilities for child care, some of which it had held since the 19th century and some of which it had acquired through the Children Act 1948. In preparation for the integration of the approved schools, some of which dated back to the time of Mary Carpenter, the remand homes which had been set up under the 1908 Children’s Act, the children’s homes which local authority Children’s Departments had managed since 1948 and the voluntary homes managed by organisations such as Barnardo’s and the National Children’s Home into a comprehensive system of child care under the Children and Young Persons Act 1969, the Advisory Council undertook a number of projects of which this was perhaps the most fundamental.

The report represents one of the few attempts to integrate the educational model of childcare which is still alive in continental Europe with the therapeutic model which had come to dominate childcare in English speaking countries. Although it failed in the sense that its ideas were discarded only a few years later by the newly established Social Services Departments, it is a rare attempt to encapsulate what is involved in running a home for children with emotional and behavioural difficulties.

Key Ideas

• environmental therapy
• participation in decision-making
• positive reinforcement rather than penalties
• creating a learning environment
• family and community involvement
• planned admissions and discharges
• small group living with respect for children’s privacy
• opportunities for children to carry out normal domestic activities including cooking meals
• non-residential assessment

Contents

In the ‘Introduction’, the authors set out the background to the project, the attempts to draw on a wide range of experience to inform the report and the framework of the report.

In Chapter 1 ‘Children and their needs’, the authors argue that most children in care are there because of background factors, including broken families, social and emotional factors, difficulties outside their homes, disability, mental health, ethnicity and unsuccessful prior placements. Their problems may present in a range of behavioural difficulties but the focus of the project is on those children whose symptoms include anti-social and aggressive behaviour.

In order to deal with these symptoms it is necessary first to meet children’s physical and relationship needs in ways that assure them of a sense of worth and offer them the security to learn, to make mistakes, to appreciate the needs and feelings of others, to make decisions, to communicate and to achieve. However, children in care usually have needs beyond these and staff will also need to maintain family relationships and further their education.

The authors argue that all these things do not have to been provided through long term residential care but may be provided through partial- or non-residential care or any combination of all three. Nor do all these needs have to be met in the one setting; some might be met through community resources.

The ages of children in such homes may be 8-18 and some homes may be mixed sex homes.

In Chapter 2 ‘The living situation’, the authors argue for environmental therapy in which positive acceptance underpins relationships, emotional and behavioural responses are recognised as normal and dealt with as such by staff, children are involved in decisions about daily living and positive reinforcement rather than penalties are used to manage behaviour.

Participation and shared decision-making will enable children to learn how to live harmoniously and to develop agreed social controls; even where staff have to make certain decisions, they will be made in consultation with the children. Rather than authority being external, it will come from the group of staff and children of which the child is a member and through which children will share in daily living including all the routines, ceremonies and customs that develop.

The authors envisage that each community will have rules but these must not suppress behaviour so that the symptoms of a child’s disturbance cannot be discerned and the child helped to understand the impact of their behaviour on others, a process which may need adapting to the child and the stage in their development.

Children should contribute to the care of the establishment in some way, they should have an amount of pocket money which they are free to spend as they see fit and staff should not seek to prevent them from making mistakes but support them in dealing with the consequences of their mistakes.

Children should be treated as individuals, with personal possessions, privacy in personal care and in relationships and respect from staff. They need support to deal with their sexual development, their communication and any religious interest they may have. With few exceptions, children’s families will be involved in planning for and regular contact with the child, and children will be encouraged to join in community activities and helped to make constructive relationships with members of the local community.

A group focus should inform the management of a home; children should have access to groups and to adults outside their own group. The authors argue that small homes do not have the breadth of staff available to meet children’s needs, that children should see both men and women carrying out roles in the groups and that successful group management is a result of good staff communication rather than the quality or quantity of particular staff.

There should be preparation for admission and for discharge and access to specialist facilities for children with medical or other conditions and everyone who works with a child should be encouraged to contribute to the child’s record.

In Chapter 3 ‘The staff’, the authors argue that the staff should create an environment which is shared with the children; they need to be people who enjoy working with children, who can bring their own interests to the job, who can accept the difficulties presented by children with emotional and behavioural difficulties and can call on help when needed but who can see their work as part of a wider environment in which the child’s family plays a part. For this they need sound leadership from a director who is both at the centre of the work of the staff and part of the wider networks of which the home is a part.

The authors envisage homes having administrative staff, part-time staff in a range of roles from specialist subject teachers to clerks, night staff, students, trainees and volunteers. They recommend that staff work an 80 hour fortnight so that every other weekend is free and that child care staff spend at least two days in the home as part of the selection process.

In Chapter 4 ‘Staff training’, the authors draw on work by the Central Training Council in Child Care to argue that the child care worker’s role is to mobilise all the resources available to promote the welfare and healing of children which involves assessment, planning and working with the child’s family. They suggest that study of the individual child, structures and patterns of society, communities and residential institutions and social work should be complemented by practical experience and that staff should have opportunities for further professional training.

In Chapter 5 ‘The buildings’, the authors argue that homes should be close enough to community facilities to be able to use them, organised in living group areas with the option for children to have single bedrooms or a clear space in a shared bedroom dependent on the child’s wishes. The living group areas should include spaces for noisy and for quiet activities along with educational areas which may be used as a school during the day and as spaces for hobbies in the evening. Children should also be able to have pets.

The authors also make recommendations for the rooms to be used by the administrative and other staff, for spaces for visitors, whether family or professional, and for the staff, recommending that the director should not have an office but rather a study in which people can feel relaxed and at ease. They stress the importance of having rooms and facilities in which children can perform domestic tasks such as cooking, washing or ironing and suggest arrangements for basins and toilets which reflect what children might find in a modern house.

They recommend that any staff accommodation should be arranged to allow independent access and that there should be space for car parking for non-resident staff and for outside activities, whether educational or leisure, for the children.

In Chapter 6 ‘Education’, the authors argue that education should be integral to the life of a home but envisage that there would be specific educational provision on site, at least initially, for the majority of the children covering basic education, creative activities, physical education and science. There should be a library and the opportunity for those unable to move into a local school to study technical subjects in preparation for employment. Part time work outside the home should be encouraged as part of preparation for work.

In Chapter 7 ‘Assessment’, the authors look forward to the integration of the previously separate facilities for the assessment of children. They argue that assessment should be undertaken, albeit using the facilities of an assessment centre, on a non-residential basis if at all possible and that recommendations on treatment should not be confined to specific types of intervention. The assessment should be based on existing information and a study of the child and their family’s history and current circumstances.

They also make a number of recommendations relating to the environment of an assessment centre, the staff and education which reflect their earlier recommendations before discussing the process of diagnosis, the nature of a case conference, treatment implications, the form of the assessment report and the place of assessment within the Children Act 1969.

In Chapter 8 ‘The next stages’, they outline the next steps envisaged for the project.

Discussion

Though a mere 78 pages long, this report presents an ideal of children with emotional and behavioural difficulties being dealt with in a planned, holistic fashion living their daily lives in a respectful and accepting environment in which both their wider developmental needs and their specific difficulties are dealt with sensitively by teams of staff who use of a wide range of interventions from noisy games to quiet reading, domestic activities to outings, schooling to keeping pets and who maintain the children’s links with their families and the community.

It needs to be considered alongside Spare the child (Wills, 1971), a dramatic account of the difficulties involved in changing entrenched attitudes within the old approved school system, which involved the subordination of education to a Freudian approach rather than, as the Committee is advocating, an integration of the two.

Perhaps most striking in comparison with other authors in this series who, if they approach the subject, tend to approach it indirectly is the emphasis on respecting children and making relationships with them which assure them of a sense of worth. The emphasis on participation which had found different expression in Homer Lane (Bazeley, 1928), Makarenko (1936), Neill (1962) and the children’s republics in the aftermath of the Second World War (Brosse, 1950) marks the beginning of a renewed interest in the contribution children might make to their care, exemplified in Roy Parker’s address to the NCH Conference the following year (1971) and the Who Cares? Project (Page and Clark, 1977).

The report’s advocacy of parental involvement reflects what had been known within the approved school system for many years (Heywood, 1978) while the stress on staff bringing something of their own interests to residential care echoes the experience of Winnicott and Britton (1957). Their recognition of the significance of personal space and buildings can be seen in the way Homer Lane approached the development of the Little Commonwealth (Bazeley, 1928) and was to be explored by Bettelheim a few years later in A Home for the Heart (1974) but features very little in other texts on residential care, the notable exception being Blumenthal (1985). Their advocacy of on-site education was to receive unexpected support from Taylor and Alpert (1973) and Fanshel and Shinn (1978).

It also goes much further than anything currently available today in seeing residential units as both embedded in and potential resources for the community - a theme taken up fifteen years later in a very different world by Berridge (1985).

The suggested size of units (60 residents), the occasional sex-stereotyping of male and female roles in residential care and the limited attention to recording may jar for a modern reader. But these are small points alongside the breadth of the vision, a vision which, had it been implemented with, for example, modifications to take account of changing views about the size of residential units, might have avoided the incarceration of so many young people in the 21st century.

References

Bazeley E T (1928) Homer Lane and the Little Commonwealth Allen & Unwin, London

Berridge D (1985) Children’s homes Blackwell, Oxford

Bettelheim B (1974) A home for the heart Thames & Hudson, London

Blumenthal G J (1985) The development of secure units in child care Gower, Aldershot

Brosse T (1950) War-handicapped children: report on the European situation Publication No 439 United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, Paris

Fanshel D and Shinn E B (1978) Children in foster care: a longitudinal investigation Columbia University Press, Guildford

Heywood J S (1978) Children in care: the development of the service for the deprived child Routledge & Kegan Paul, London, third edition

Makarenko A (1936) Road to life: translated by Stephen Garry Stanley Nott, London Originally published as Pedagogicheskaia poèma

Neill A S (1962) Summerhill: a radical approach to education Victor Gollancz, London.

Page R and Clark G A (Eds) (1977) Who cares? Young people in care speak out National Children’s Bureau, London.

Parker R A (1971) Planning for deprived children National Children’s Home, London

Taylor D and Alpert S W (1973) Continuity and support: following residential treatment Child Welfare League of America, New York

Wills, W. D. (1971). Spare the child: the story of an experimental approved school Penguin, Harmondsworth

Winnicott D W and Britton C (1957) Residential management as treatment for difficult children. In Winnicott D W (Ed.), The child and the outside world: studies in developing relationships, chapter II:6, pages 98-116 Tavistock, London