A
contribution to a workshop on Generation Perspectives at the 7th
International Child and Youth Care Conference, “Promise
into Practice” at the University of Victoria, Canada
by David Lane
Words
and Meanings
When
I was nine years old, in 1951, I went to a residential school. It
was called a preparatory school because it prepared children for public
schools, which in Britain are private schools. In the preparatory
school and the public school I experienced not only schooling in the
classroom but also a wide range of sporting, leisure and cultural
activities, often based on the houses into which the schools were
divided.
Today
these activities might be termed child and youth care, residential
social work, youth work, social care or social education, but they
were terms we did not use then.
When
I started work in 1964, I worked with juvenile delinquents in an approved
school, so called because the Government had approved the schools
for the purpose. At that time, some of the population still used the
nineteenth century term reformatory for such schools. Nowadays in
England one would talk of young offenders and community homes with
education.
Later
in my career I was responsible for residential hostels for people
with mental handicap. Previously they would have been called mentally
defective. In Britain they are now called people with learning difficulties
or learning disabilities. I believe that some people term them differently
abled in the United States, while in Russia they still call the study
of their needs defectology.
I
mention this bit of personal history to show how confusing language
can be. Since I was a child, all the terminology has changed. Not
only that, but there are differences between North America and the
United Kingdom. Winston Churchill said that Britain and America were
two countries divided by a common language. His comment could probably
be applied to differences between any two English-speaking nations
around the world, and maybe to any two states within the United States,
or any two provinces within Canada. Certainly, within the British
Isles there are nine quite separate jurisdictions within different
laws and terminology (not counting the Republic of Ireland). So much
for the unity of the United Kingdom, or the United States!
The
Problems of Learning from Each Other
With
such a difference in terminology, how do we know whether we are talking
about the same thing when we compare the systems we find in different
countries, or the systems which have existed at different times in
our history? Even when we use the same words we may mean different
things. American public schools are quite different from British public
schools, for example. Or words may have different connotations : to
call people youths in Britain, for example, often implies a slur,
suggesting that they are anti-social or are committing offences, and
the acceptable term is young people.
How
do we avoid misunderstandings? The answer is that we need to keep
talking until we understand each other, just like any other situation
which human beings approach from differing viewpoints.
Although
I have been talking of confusions in the use of English, the same
points could be made of people who use different languages. Translation
is not a matter of finding simple equivalences. There are all sorts
of differences based on the way in which different peoples think,
their assumptions and the associations which they attach to words.
The French education, for instance, is a broad term relating to a
child’s whole upbringing, while in British English education
usually refers to formal schooling.
But
are these differences important? Why should we consider the systems
of other countries or other times, as long as we know what we are
doing in our own situation at the present?
Wearing
blinkers may help a horse from being frightened or distracted, and
if it has a good jockey, it may win the race. That does not work for
child care professionals. They need to use initiative and imagination
if they are to address the individual problems and potential of the
individual children with whom they work. If they are to do this, they
need to have open minds, ready to listen and learn from others. They
need to be able to question, challenge, analyse, think and create.
Blinkers narrow one’s view of the world. They may simplify the
situation but they do not help one to address reality. To be effective
professionals we need to be open to learn from others.
Learning
from Other Countries
One
of the fascinating aspects of international contacts is the realisation
that other people do things in ways which are often quite different
from those to which one is accustomed. In Hungary I visited a children’s
home for over three hundred children and in Israel one for five hundred
and sixty children, while the average size in Britain now is about
eight children or young people.
Is
one country wrong and the other right? In all these countries the
professionals defended their systems. Are some systems intrinsically
better than others, and are some of the professionals wrong? And if
one country’s system appears to be better, is it actually transferable
to another country with its different culture and legislation? Or
are both systems right, if they are suited to their countries? And
if so, how do we tell whether the professionals’ views are correct
or just rationalisations?
As
it so happens, there are hundreds of experts from Western European
countries who are helping Eastern European countries develop their
children’s services at present. By and large, they are working
for the closure of the large institutions and trying to develop family
support systems and foster care, but how do we know that one system
is actually better than another? Are the Western European professionals
simply acting in faith, like missionaries going to lands they believe
need to be saved?
The
curious thing is that in studying different countries one becomes
very aware of the commonalities as well as the differences. I have
recently published articles concerning the services needed by street
children in Russia, Tanzania and India. In each country the authors
reported the distinction to be made between children who live all
the time on the street and those who have homes but spend most of
their time on the streets. The children in each of the countries need
somewhere to belong, the chance for education, health care and the
opportunity to learn skills for the job market.
Although
the three countries are very different in climate, culture and economics,
the common humanity of the children means that they are trying out
similar ways of survival, and those working with them are coming up
with similar solutions to meet the children’s needs.
The
Lessons of History
If
one examines the history of services for children and young people,
a similar pattern emerges. Of course there are differences between
countries, but the similarities can be surprising.
As
countries developed through the industrial revolution, children were
at first ignored and they were not seen to have specific needs. Then,
individuals such as Pestalozzi in Switzerland or Thomas Coram in England
battled to alert people to children’s needs. In the nineteenth
century the main response was the establishment of large institutions
to protect children and provide shelter, food and protection. In the
twentieth century, there was increasing awareness of the dangers of
institutionalisation, followed by moves to reduce the size of children’s
homes and schools and to develop more individualised care and treatment.
By the end of the century there was international acceptance of the
importance of children’s rights.
There
are, of course, dangers in summarising the history of world childcare
in one paragraph, and maybe the subject of the comparative development
of systems around the world would make a good theme for a doctoral
thesis.
It
would not be a matter of purely academic interest. Countries which
are now going through the process of urbanisation and industrialisation
face the same pressures which Western European countries faced in
the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, but they can learn from the
models which were set up then, and devise ones for themselves in the
knowledge of the effectiveness and consequences of previous models
and systems.
Lessons
Learnt
I
was raising questions earlier as to how we know who is right and which
systems work. Actually I do believe that there is a growing body of
research and practice experience which points in certain directions,
but we do not work in an exact science, and there are many points
on which experts disagree.
I
have been associated with the field of childcare and social education
in one way or another for nearly forty years now, as a practitioner,
trainer, writer, senior manager and policy-maker. Based on that experience
and the changes I have seen, for the purposes of this paper, I offer
five lessons which have emerged for me.
Economics
The
first is that we cannot develop, run or judge services for children
and young people without taking account of the social and economic
context in which they are set. This may be true of all professions,
but it is of primary importance in working with children.
Children
require help because of the problems which their society is facing.
They are stigmatised or helped by their society. The resources granted
to meet their needs depend on the views of their society. Their integration
into the adult community depends upon the willingness of their society
to offer them support and worthwhile roles.
To
meet the needs of children and young people generally, the primary
task is to develop a strong economy, not to invest in children’s
services. With good levels of employment, reasonable wages and the
availability of housing, many families and young adults will solve
their own problems and not require expensive professional help.
To
use the well-known analogy, it is better to stop people falling into
the river than to offer brilliant rescue packages once they have fallen
in. Some will need help, however strong the economy, and they will
require good services, but their numbers will be much reduced if the
economy is sound.
Similarly,
the availability of child benefits will enable families to care for
their children, countering the pattern found in some Eastern European
countries of children being put into state care simply for economic
reasons. The availability of accommodation, too, will reduce the number
of social casualties who have to live on the street.
People
with these basic requirements – a job, an income and a roof
over their heads - are less likely to have other problems, such as
offending histories, addiction, ill health or mental health problems.
These problems will affect some people, regardless of the state of
a country’s finances, but getting the basic economy right is
the primary foundation of good childcare.
Reflecting
the Culture
Secondly,
any solutions to the problems faced by children and young people have
to reflect the cultural values of the countries they live in. A country
may of course be made up of a variety of cultures and its population
may belong to a number of religious faiths. Whatever the reality of
the situation, it will need to be addressed.
There
is no “single size which fits all” in meeting children’s
needs world-wide. In some countries, for example, the bonds of the
tribe or extended family are strong and can be relied upon. In Western
countries, the amount of movement and the small size of nuclear families
has weakened these ties. The systems devised to provide services which
compensate for children’s needs have to take account of these
differences.
Similarly,
religious susceptibilities have to be taken into account, as do the
value placed upon education, sexual mores, attitudes to material wealth
and health care. In all these respects, if solutions are forced onto
a population, they are liable to fail or have unintended consequences.
The
moral is that, whatever ideas we bring or create, we need to tailor
them to the existing culture or realise that we face the daunting
task of changing the culture, for example in outlawing female circumcision
or changing established sexual behaviour patterns in the face of HIV/AIDS.
Everyone’s
a Neighbour
When
I was brought up as a child in Britain, I was well aware of the varying
cultures around the world, if only because Britain had either colonised,
or fought against, almost every country in the world at some stage
in its history. I doubt if I was typical of children around the world
at that time. Even today, there is massive ignorance of other countries
and incredible insularity throughout the world.
Yet,
more than ever before, what happens in one country affects what happens
in another. This was brought home forcibly to the people of the United
States on 11th September 2001, when they realised that they were vulnerable
to attack by people of whom most Americans had never heard before.
There
are massive movements of people world-wide today, on a scale never
seen before, whether as holiday-makers, business people, international
politicians, economic migrants or asylum-seekers. Every country has
a proportion of immigrants and intermarriages. Although one human
reaction to such movements is rejection and ethnic cleansing, the
world’s population is now inextricably intermixed. It is something
which we and our children will have to live with.
The
implications for childcare are manifold. There is the massive problem
of helping children settle in countries as refugees or immigrants.
There are the difficulties of identity of second-generation immigrants
who feel they do not belong anywhere. There is the international trafficking
of children and child prostitution. There are people who abuse children
as sex tourists.
No-one
in any part of the world can be completely protected and cocooned
from external influences any longer. To address these problems, there
is the need for tolerance throughout the world of each others’
beliefs and cultures. This is of course the responsibility of governments
and people generally, but it is worth noting that people working with
children and young people are not just bystanders in all this movement
and interconnection.
Bringing
up children properly has a vital role to play in making the world
a happy and safe place. An examination of the childhoods of the key
figures who have initiated disorder and carnage often shows abuse
and severe unhappiness. Good childcare actually makes the world a
safer place for everyone. As they say, “The hand that rocks
the cradle rules the world” – for good or ill.
The
Social Individual
During
the twentieth century there were conflicting trends in politics, reflected
in childcare. There was the socialist approach towards solutions for
society as a whole, leading to nationalisation, state planning and
controls, collectivisation and large state orphanages. There was also
the individual approach, seen in the capitalist system, personal opportunities
to succeed, personal rights and in childcare, treatment plans for
individual children and young people.
In
meeting the needs of children and young people, both approaches have
had weaknesses, the former producing institutional responses which
failed to take account of individual differences and the latter focusing
only on the child in isolation, failing to take account of his or
her families, neighbourhoods and wider communities.
Solutions
to children’s problems for the future need to treat them as
valued individuals in their own right, but living within the wider
context of their families and communities. Ignoring or over-emphasising
either is a recipe for failure. In the end, each child will need to
function as an adult, a responsible member of the wider community,
and needs to learn to function socially.
It
is for that reason that removing children and young people from their
communities, other than for brief periods, will not be effective,
and it is because of the need to address individual needs that mass
solutions will not have the desired effect.
The
Social Education Profession
My
last point is to consider the implications for people who work with
children and young people. In many countries they are known as social
pedagogues or social educators. In the United Kingdom, we have a host
of titles and the profession is splintered, but parts of it are known
as childcare.
It
is my view that it is time to establish a world-wide profession, and
I personally advocate the term social education as the most readily
acceptable. It is different from the established professions of teaching,
nursing and psychology, but it covers work with children and young
people of all ages in a wide variety of settings, using a number of
working methods. However, I believe that these jobs share a common
core of skills and knowledge and would gain from sharing a common
identity.
Is
social education a profession? It may not have the traditional hall-marks
of many other professions, such as a language outsiders do not understand,
or a large body of literature which is independent of other professions,
since we borrow a lot from psychology and sociology.
However,
it is vital that people who work with children and young people hold
professional values and conduct themselves professionally. I also
believe that it will be good for workers to share a common professional
identity of which they can be proud.
In
line with the patterns of migration described earlier, people who
work with children also travel world-wide in search of work now. Common
forms of training and education, registration of workers and shared
codes of practice could all contribute to establishing high standards
of care world-wide. When I began my career, training for childcare
workers was limited, but over the last four decades opportunities
have increased. Now, in the twenty-first century, we need to look
for world-wide solutions. In particular, international registration
could help to track abusers who travel round the world to take advantage
of vulnerable children in care.
Finally,
a major reason for emphasising the professional nature of the work
is my belief that the commitment and motivation of workers is absolutely
vital to the quality of what they offer to children and young people.
They need to have the right attitudes and values if they are to form
the sorts of relationships with the children and young people which
will transform their lives and enable them to find solutions to the
problems they face.
Conclusion
The
problems facing people working with children and young people today
are massive, but there are also great opportunities for addressing
those needs. We are backed by the United Nations Convention; governments
are alert to the problems faced by children; although we could always
do with more, we must acknowledge that we are supported by extensive
funding; we have international organisations such as FICE and AIEJI
which can bring workers together, as can electronic networks. There
are a lot of pluses to match the problems.
We
have exciting times ahead, a lot to learn and a lot to do.
David C. Lane
29th
July 2003
