by
Dr Keith White
General Comments
In
general I welcome the intentions and content of the Green Paper. The
seriousness of this response is indicative of the Paper’s importance
and potential, rather than its limitations and weakness.
In my October column of Children and Young People I compared and contrasted
the Green Paper with a similar document produced by the Government
of the Philippines in 2001, called Child 21. This comparison alerted
me to some features of the British Green Paper that were unique to
our social policy and history.
In
essence, although it represents an attempt to produce a broad statement
about children, the roots of the whole product are in child abuse,
children in need and child protection. This is the British way in
such matters. It is a sort of case law approach evidenced over the
post war period where legislation and policy seeks to learn from and
is driven by reactions to cases of extreme suffering and abuse. So
this purports to be a broad document and its implications could be
profound, to use a word that Bob Reitemeier of The Children’s
Society felt appropriate in his response to the Paper at a London
conference on 3.10.2003. But there is the nagging suspicion that,
despite its stated intentions, it is really and ultimately another
way of responding to the needs of children at risk. History will of
course be the arbiter in this.
The
Paper is about every child, and is describing some universal services
and provision. This is underlined by the centrality of mainstream
schools to the whole process. But where is the vision that informs
and motivates the Paper? Summaries have pointed to a list of five
positive outcomes:
-
being healthy,
- staying safe,
- enjoying and achieving,
- making a positive contribution and
- economic well-being.
They
are indeed positive outcomes, but they do not, with the best will
in the world, constitute a vision, something that sets the imagination
on fire, and motivates and inspires the populace at large. (The comparison
with the Philippines’ Child 21 is particularly revealing at
this point, for it is a vision, a bold one, that is written in a lay
person’s language, rich with references to cultural heritage,
spirituality and the natural world.)
It
may be too late to remedy things at this point in time, particularly
because the Green Paper sets out a typically British break-neck timetable
for action, but without a genuine vision the process will perish.
What do I have in mind? The Peaceable Kingdom described by the prophet
Isaiah where a child lives in harmony with the animals, and even cares
for them; the visions that inspired the great child welfare pioneers
like Korczak; the vision of the Christian Child Care Forum; the vision
of the Redbridge Children’s Network; the work of The Children’s
Society on “Good Childhood”. There is a rich pool of resources
from which to draw.
Essentially
we are talking about a vision of a child-friendly world that transcends
short-term adult political priorities, where the children’s
children, ecology, play, exploration, risk-taking, and spirituality
all feature. A vision must go way beyond matters of training, coordination,
tracking and referrals, and be ready to set necessary practical measures
within wider horizons and in a longer time frame.
Such
a vision is far from cosy and woolly. It would come down harshly on
any individuals, institutions and companies that caused children to
suffer. It would not single out individual paedophiles only, but locate
also the corporate powers that combine to destroy the experiences
of childhood and family with their remorseless marketing and alluring
images designed to create discontent and envy. It would be open to
consider whether the policy “developments” in Britain
and Europe that see an ever-increasing involvement of state and professionals
in the lives of children and families have contributed to bringing
the vision closer or not. It would be open to consider whether there
is an adequate philosophy of education undergirding the whole of our
schooling and educational systems. It would, in short, be a vision
against which to assess current and future structures, policies and
trends.
This
sounds idealistic and visionary to the point of seeming Utopian. But
we are not talking here of short-term fixes, or political expedients:
we are convinced that every child matters. This means not only today’s
children, but future generations. Put the issue the other way round:
can we afford to proceed without such a vision? Will real progress,
given limited resources, not depend on political and public will?
I do not sense that the present document will inspire and harness
such will and desire. The document says it all, if you read between
the lines: children, young people and families wanted a positive vision.
What they have got is five outcomes that suggest nothing of the potential
magic and wonder of childhood.
The
most indicative absence from anything like a child-friendly vision
of the world is the almost total invisibility of play. You might have
thought that with an outcome such as children “enjoying and
achieving” it would take some ingenuity not to mention play!
The writers, however, manage to move straight from the outcome to
the matter of educational attainment (see pages 16-17). The nearest
we get is “active involvement in family, school and community
life” (page 18). Compare that with Isaiah’s vision, if
you will.
The
point has often rightly been made that “prevention” is
an imprecise concept and process. In reality, given limited resources,
social services will always make protection a priority over prevention.
(See, for example, David Thorpe, Community Care, 18-24 September 2004,
page 34.) It will happen again unless we are able to galvanise the
imagination of the public about a child-friendly world that goes beyond
protection and prevention and stirs longings, creativity and dreams.
If
I am told that this is not the purpose of this Green Paper and all
its sets out, then we are still awaiting the document that the title
indicated it might be. The longstanding institutional divisions between
education, child care and health in the UK have prevented the development
of an integrated vision, and this surely was the moment to set it
out, or at the very least, to instigate a national process aiming
to achieve one. It has some laudable outcomes, it is true, but it
is not what is needed long term.
Specific
Responses
(These
are made in relation to the actual text of the Paper rather than to
the questions at the end of each section.)
Health
and Juvenile Justice
The
Paper is describing an integrated approach to children, and Children’s
Trusts are a tangible manifestation of how this might work: “integration
of key services around the needs of children, in particular, education,
social care, health, youth justice and Connexions” (page 69).
What is not clear is how far the health and juvenile justice systems
will become fully part of the new approach and organisation. The key
passages are probably on pages 9, and 69-73. These refer to “some
children’s health services” and “Youth Offending
Teams”. If every child matters, then there can surely be no
excuse for excluding any child or young person from the vision. The
organisational challenges are immense, with issues of non-uniform
geographical areas, and different systems of operation, accountability
and funding. But this Green Paper is surely about all or it is nothing.
If it is not fully inclusive, then a change of title is necessary.
The
Voluntary Sector and Community Groups
Here
the history and pedigree of British social policy makes itself especially
felt. Voluntary organisations and communities are mentioned, and they
are to be involved in the whole process, but this Paper is really
about the reorganisation of the statutory operations and services.
This is the core agenda: the voluntary sector and community groups
are peripheral. And there is some sense in this. You have to start
somewhere, and the overhaul of children’s services in the interests
of all children and families if long overdue.
But
as Bob Holman has argued already, in the real world of children and
families it is voluntary and community groups that are on the ground
and in tangible contact with neighbourhoods and families. The role
of extended families, neighbours and faith groups is recognised in
general by this Government, but it is understated in this document.
It is unclear how the voluntary and community sectors will be involved
in Children’s Trusts, for example. Without them there will not
be any possibility of an integrated approach to children and families.
It
is hardly surprising that there is little or no reference to community
development in the Paper. It is a little understood approach to social
change. But in short it is about starting at the grass roots and developing
potential within people and communities. If the intentions of the
Paper are to be realised then it is essential that people feel that
local schools, parks and children’s centres are not something
provided by others for them, but that they belong to them. Children
will never be or feel safe unless they know that a family and neighbourhood
take responsibility for their well-being. Parenting is not just about
biological relationships: it takes a village to parent. Until this
realisation finds its way into the process, the Paper will be largely
about a reorganisation of local government, rather than a major milestone
in creating a better world for children.
For
some reason the British seem to eschew models devised on the continent,
but could I continue to advocate the insights of U. Bronfenbrenner,
The Ecology of Human Development, Harvard, 1979? This would provide
an easily comprehensible model or map for the purposes. Without such
a map it is difficult to work out what is in the minds of the writers
of the Paper.
Residential
Child Care
This
is all but invisible in the document. The whole focus is on fostering
as the response to the needs of children who cannot live in their
own families. At the same time the Paper urges the participation of
children, young people and families in decision-making. In view of
this it would make sense to note and act upon the stated wishes of
many, in a series of research projects, for an alternative to foster
care. It would also make sense to see how many residential communities
have become resource centres for their local communities. From 1975
at Mill Grove we have tried to operate an integrated model of children’s
services including health, social work, early years play and learning,
community development, and close partnership with local schools. This
seems to be invisible in inspections of the place, and largely unknown
to our local authority. It may be a complete exception, but it would
be worth finding out.
Extended
Schools
There
is a long history of community schools and the like in the United
Kingdom, and the Paper needs to acknowledge the lessons learned from
this experience. The reality is that organisational and bureaucratic
factors stand in the way of releasing the potential of state schools,
and making them genuinely available as resources to local communities
out of school hours. This is where the importance of vision comes
in again. Unless there is political and public goodwill for this bold
intention, the plans will founder on well-charted rocks.
But
it is not just a matter of premises and hours: it goes deeper. We
lack an educational philosophy in Britain that goes beyond schools
and educational attainment. We cannot integrate play, care, holidays,
parenting and experiences of the natural environment into a learning
model. Schools educate; families care; hospitals treat you. The three
institutions are conceived as if they were separate compartments.
The opportunity at last presents itself to see education and learning
going way beyond the doors of schools. But this is a very long-term
project indeed. Does the Green paper indicate a will to take this
path?
Social
Pedagogy
In
this response and reflection I have been drawing from a range of experience,
knowledge and theory in the fields of child development, community
work, social work, and education. Perhaps the most important influence
is that of Social Pedagogy or Social Education. We lack a word for
it in English, but there have been groups of professionals working
at ways of introducing this European approach into Britain. One useful
document is the Radisson Report of workshops held in 2000 and 2001
in Manchester, edited by a former Director of Social Services, David
Lane. On re-reading this report with the Green Paper in front of me,
I was struck by how beautifully the concept fits the ideas in the
Green Paper. It seems to me that if we cannot make the connection
now then we may have to wait decades for another opportunity. The
place to start is with training the workforce. Once again it is about
long-term vision and intentions. The Government has a ready-made model,
practical and tried, that will serve it well. It would be tragic to
spurn it.
Summary
This
response has focussed on some of the weaknesses and limitations of
the Green Paper. In some respects it might be seen as a critique of
it. So before creating the impression that the Paper has little to
offer, let me reaffirm the purpose of this extended response. I see
the Paper as representing an historic opportunity in the development
of British attitudes and policies towards children and childhood.
Such opportunities come only rarely. For this reason I have drawn
attention to those elements that must be part of the whole process
if it is to stand any chance of succeeding.
Others,
like Tony Blair in his introduction, may see it as a much more limited
approach and document, primarily about improving services for children
at risk. Even so, I would argue that a vision for a child-friendly
world is imperative, whether we are thinking about children at risk
or all children. Indeed, the matter is of such concern that, even
if the Green Paper’s proposals are enacted, there will still
be the need for a fuller, more fundamental debate, which would in
my view warrant the establishment of a Royal Commission to consider
all aspects of the position of children and young people in Britain
today.
And
whatever happens I will seek to give what I can at Mill Grove, in
the Children’s Fund, Children’s Network and Children’s
Trust in Redbridge, and in professional groups and journals, to assist
at the birth of a vision that I believe is still awaiting its announcement
in Britain. To this end I would be willing and happy to meet with
representatives of the Government to discuss the substantive issues
I have raised. This response is being made available to the groups
of which I am a part, and also to the wider public. I would be grateful
therefore for comments and reactions as part of a process in which
I hope it will become clear that every child really matters.
Keith White writes :
About this article : A response on behalf of several groups
I
have been asked to prepare a response to the Green Paper by several
organisations and groups: Mill Grove, Caring for Children, the Christian
Child Care Forum and the Redbridge Children’s Network and Children’s
Fund Partnership Group. The views in the paper seek to take account
of the perspectives of these groups but they are largely my own and
are not necessarily representative of those of these groups.
About
Keith White : The background and experience informing this response
For
nearly thirty years I have lived alongside and cared for children
in need. My wife, Ruth, and I are committed to continuing this for
the rest of our lives. The setting is Mill Grove, a Christian residential
community and home of a worldwide extended family. Like Bob Holman’s
(Community Care, 18-24 September 2003, page 20), the response is informed
by a direct and continuous involvement with children, young people
and their families.
Over
this period I have reflected not only on the lessons and meaning of
individual life stories of children in need, but also on theories
of child development, and the history and development of British social
policy. I have a background in community development and social work,
and have lectured in Social Work, Child Care and other related subjects
in the UK, USA, and the Far East. I have been a lecturer in Sociology
in Spurgeon’s College, now part of the University of Wales,
for 25 years. The response is therefore one set in an international
context.
I
have also written in this area, and been active in organisations such
as the Social Care Association, the National Council for Voluntary
Child Care Organisations, the UK Christian Child Care Forum, Frontier
Youth Trust. I was a member of the Barclay Committee on the future
of Social Work, advocating a thoroughgoing community-based form of
service.
Currently
I chair the Redbridge Children’s Fund Partnership Group, and
the Redbridge Children’s Network (which links 160 or so voluntary
organisations and groups concerned with children in the borough).
In the past few weeks I have been invited to join the steering group
of the Redbridge Children’s Trust. I am a council member of
Caring for Children, and chair the management group of the web magazine,
Children and Young People. I am also a committee member of our local
Community Association and Chair of the group that produces research
reports every five years on the profile, needs and aspirations of
the Maybank neighbourhood. I am a Trustee of an outdoor activity centre
in North Wales. I have just completed five years’ research on
an Indian educational and child welfare pioneer.
My
hope is that this background information will help to throw light
on the above response. I write as one who has tried to find ways,
however imperfectly, to demonstrate by life as well as by word that
“every child matters”.
