A
couple of days ago I was looking out of the window when I saw a
neighbour across the road, - obviously just been to the supermarket.
She
was dashing backwards and forwards from her car to the house, carrying
bags of shopping. Then I saw her little daughter, toddling along
and carrying a huge bag of toilet rolls, almost as big as herself.
She managed to lug it along and up the couple of steps into the
house. Helping Mummy. Copying Mummy.
Just
as it has been since humankind evolved from whatever strand of apes,
monkeys or lemurs we evolved from. The young have copied their parents,
learning skills so that they in turn can play full responsible roles
as adults. At one time, it was a matter of learning how to crack
nuts, where the best fruit trees were, how to hunt together as a
team, what herbs made you feel better when you had eaten something
bad, how to placate the spirits that ruled the unknown. Now it’s
a matter of knowing how a mobile phone works, or how to use a computer,
or which shelves in the supermarket you can find the crisps on,
understanding the dynamics of human behaviour - or how to carry
the toilet rolls into the house, if you’re a beginner.
So,
if learning how to do adult jobs is so important to children, why
do we use laws which stop them working? Why do we insist that they
have to spend all their time in school, studying academic subjects
which a fair percentage find boring or irrelevant? Why don’t
we let them work - at least for some of the time?
The
obvious answer is that a couple of hundred years ago very few children
had the chance of a full education. They were seen as little workers
with nimble fingers and small bodies, who could climb up chimneys,
work in confined spaces in coal mines or thread looms dexterously.
The children were vulnerable and suffered nasty accidents. They
needed protection.
And
so we had the various Acts passed in Parliament by campaigners who
did a good job ensuring that children were safer and had the chance
of education to develop their skills and be better prepared to play
a role in the wider society as skilled adults.
More
recently things have been taken further. The United Nations Convention
on the Rights of the Child has laid out a lot of good measures to
ensure that children’s needs are met, and that they are protected
during their growing years.
I’m
not against children being protected, I’m not against them
having rights, and I’m all for neoteny, extending learning
opportunities to university level for any children who can make
good use of the experience.
I’m
just asking whether that’s the whole picture and whether we’ve
got the balance right.
Take
children’s rights for instance. It’s always seemed to
me that rights are one aspect of relationships in which the stronger
party is saying to the weaker party, “I respect you and I
acknowledge that you need a certain amount of space”. The
stronger party could use force and deny the rights of the weaker
party, but is choosing not to do so, for the sake of better human
relations between the parties, among other things.
But
the weaker party should not just be a passive consumer of rights;
that becomes self-indulgence. If the relationship is to work, the
weaker party needs to respond and play a role, taking on some responsibility
for the relationship being a two-way thing.
As
far as children are concerned, they need rights to protect them
as they are small and vulnerable, but they also need to be able
to respond and take on responsibilities and acknowledge the roles
they can play in society. Of course, a lot of them do their bit
already - delivering papers, helping do jobs at home, in part-time
jobs in burger outlets, or as carers when their parents depend on
them.
I’m
all for this - within limits. For some children, getting to know
what the real world of work is like may help them appreciate what
skills they need to learn and apply themselves more at school and
college, rather than simply finding it an irrelevant bore. Without
motivation children actually learn more slowly and the learning
is forgotten more quickly. Real living skills are picked up most
effectively when their effect can be seen in practice. Teaching
is then tested in life, and life experiences can be analysed and
lessons learnt in life can be re-inforced through theoretical teaching.
At
present, my guess is that our emphasis on academic subjects and
our persistent testing are driving education and work apart in different
directions. We need to tie them together again. Children need to
see that they are learning the skills they need for life, and the
future of humankind will depend on them being skilled and motivated
to play full roles as adults. If children only did school work in
the morning, and spent their afternoons doing something of use to
the community, either in real jobs or voluntary work (or maybe in
leisure pursuits), I reckon they would learn just as much as they
do at present and it would be more relevant.
Indeed,
for some children I would back the lowering of the school leaving
age. Why should we insist on school attendance when we do not insist
that adults work? To be motivated, people need to see the point
of the activity, whether it is schooling or employment.
Of
course, children still need protection from dangerous activities,
things that would prevent their proper development and even exploitation
within the family when excessive demands are made on them as carers.
But overall I think that there’s room to shift the balance
a bit, and expect them to start to carry responsibilities in response
to the rights they enjoy. The emphases on child protection, 
education
and improved leisure should not be seen as permission for children
to do whatever they feel like or be antisocial.
The
first stage for the little girl in becoming responsible is helping
Mummy by heaving the bag of toilet rolls back into the family nest
after the hunting trip at the supermarket. The final stage should
be a highly skilled adult, aware of the rights of others and keen
to fulfil her responsibilities in society. Let’s get the blend
right in helping her achieve this goal.
