By
the nature of a webmag the respective locations of the writer and
the reader of material is of little consequence. I usually write
material while I am in London, UK, and dont know where the 40,000
or so visitors to the website each month live and work. So as far
as you are concerned there is no change: another In Residence column
has been produced (in this case, in the nick of time). As a matter
of fact, it was written at the end of a lecturing trip to the Philippines
and Singapore, and by the time you read this I will be back in London.
On the flight out I took with me the UK government's Consultation
Document heralding a long-awaited major initiative in childrens
services. It is called Every Child Matters (Cm 5860, 2003). I have
it beside me as I write. Alongside it is a remarkably similar document
published by the Philippines government, Child 21 (Executive Order
310, 2000).
Both publications set out a vision and
programme for their nations in the years ahead, and I propose to
compare these mission statements. I have already often argued in
webmag columns that we have been experiencing a worldwide paradigm
shift in adult perspectives on children and childhood, and that
the Convention on the Right of the Child is tangible evidence of
this. Both plans reflect this international vision, although the
Filipino document is the more specific of the two about the links
with CRC. It states that We recognise that every Filipino child
has inherent rights to survival, protection, development, and participation;
thus it is our ardent desire and will that these rights be fully
realised by the year 2025. The aim of the UK paper is, to ensure
that every child has the chance to fulfil their potential by reducing
levels of educational failure, ill health, substance abuse, teenage
pregnancy, abuse and neglect, crime and anti-social behaviour among
children and young people.
Each
paper then sets out the intended outcomes of the plans. They
have in common a concern with health, safety, reaching potential,
active involvement in local communities and as citizens of a
nation. And to achieve this (the timescale in the Philippines
is by 2025; that in the UK, by 2020) some radical new ways of
thinking, and new look services and governance, are seen as necessary.
In both cases what is envisaged is one of the most comprehensive
and far-reaching reforms in childrens services ever imagined.
Some of the examples given in the UK are childrens centres in
all of the most deprived areas, Childrens Trusts, combining the
functions and responsibilities of the existing education, health
and social services departments, and a Minister for Children,
Young People and Families. The Philippine government envisages
mainstreaming child rights and child development with local Councils
for the Protection of Children, coordinated support by government
departments, and the involvement of NGOs, religious groups and
the business sector, in a broad based partnership.
But
there are differences and I would like to indicate a few of these.
The UK document comes out of one of a long and sad series of
child abuse scandals and enquiries; the Philippine document is
set in a wider and broader context. The latter refers to God-loving
families, a peaceful, progressive, gender-fair and child friendly
society; growing safe in a healthy environment and ecology; free
and protected by a responsive and enabling government, indigenous
cultural heritage, and in harmony and solidarity with others.
The interesting point for me is the way the UK tends to respond
to crises and to work out from them determined to avoid a recurrence
of abuse and death (this has been often commented upon in relation
to childrens legislation since the 1948 Children Act), while
its Filipino equivalent starts with a broader canvas, and then
seeks to fill it in. Both then set out a variety of standards/targets,
strategies and intended outcomes.
History
will judge (assuming we remember this bold initiatives in fifteen
to twenty years time) whether child-friendly worlds have been
created as a result of such visions. The issue of poverty and
access to economic resources is possibly the most critical practical
matter when considering how life for poor children is to be improved,
and the UK document is more specific about its plans in this
respect as far as I could see. But both documents sounded and
felt as though they had been produced by adults for children
(as indeed they had), and that vital elements of a child friendly
world, like play, exploration, animals, birds, fishes, water
stories were somehow in the background, assumed, or overlooked.
Protection, care and needs are more common words, than play,
fun, laughter and spontaneity. You might think that this is inevitable
in government publications.
But as I prepare to fly back to Europe
I have three abiding memories of my time in the Philippines (there
are actually 7,107 islands that make up the whole nation according
to my reference book). The first was the experience of children
and young people leading worship in Tagaytay City and Cebu, with
dance and rhythm, in silence and prayer, with drama and questions,
that challenged and inspired 400 adults who were involved in childrens
work and ministry. The second was my very first experience of snorkelling
on coral reefs, and the indescribable combinations of movement,
colour and shapes that overwhelmed my senses, and my wish that every
street child in the Philippines could have the same (relatively
simple and cheap) opportunity to do what I had done and to see what
I had seen. The third was an oil painting presented to me by a conference,
and presented by the artist himself, an eight-year old street child
named Dave. It is a work of quite astonishing insight, depth and
technical brilliance, and representing suffering, storm, despair
and hope in quite extraordinary creative tension.
Where
I wonder do these experiences figure in the visions of the two
governments, and how important are they in their scale of outcomes?
Spirituality, the natural world and creativity: are there any
more important elements in a vision of a child-friendly world?
Keith
J. White lives and cares for children and young people in Mill
Grove where his family has lived for four generations.
Since 1899 it has been a family home where children unable to
live with their own parents have been welcomed. |
