|
On 27 June 2008 Early Childhood Australia's CEO, Pam Cahir, spoke at the ACT Children's Plan Community Network Forum on Creating Child Friendly Environments in Your Community
The notes from Pam Cahir's 'Meaningful consultation with children: Raising children's voices' speech are provided below.
Acknowledgment of traditional owners
Before I begin I wish to acknowledge the Ngunnawal people, the traditional owners and custodians of the land on which this forum is taking place
I acknowledge too, elders past and present and Aboriginal people here today.
In so doing I acknowledge ECA's and my own personal obligation to work towards the achievement of social justice, human rights and reconciliation with and for Australia's Indigenous peoples.
ECA does this at all meetings it attends in recognition that each and every one of us is a beneficiary of the dispossession of Indigenous people that began in 1788.
It does so too as a reminder that in every situation ECA has an obligation to think what this acknowledgement means for the work it is engaged in everyday. In short, will this acknowledgement affect the work we are going to do together today?
Acknowledgement of country must never become simply automatic and token. It must be a signal to all of us to reflect on what it means for the way we do our work every day and indeed, how I go about my own work here today.
Honoured guests, early childhood professionals and others here today who work with and for young children
It seems amazing to me that I have lived through a time where our understanding of the nature of childhood and children has evolved from a place where young children were seen as being at an early stage on the road to adulthood, and in need of guidance and steering along their path and where the most important criteria by which to judge the effectiveness of our parenting, or indeed any intervention, was the subsequent (longer-term) outcomes for children. In this place children were not recognised 'as competent witnesses to their own experience' (Penn, 1999).
Now, however, the world has changed. Many people now recognise that children are not incomplete and inarticulate beings who adults must shape with appropriate early intervention programs. Rather, children are regarded as consumers of services in their own right who can be consulted about how they are treated. We now know that children can provide informed comment on what they experience, and that this comment can and should influence the nature and shape of the community in which they live.
I do like Helen Penn's concept of children 'as competent witnesses to their own experience' and I will come back to this.
There are many people here today who have much more experience than I in consulting with and listening to young children. You have experience of consulting with children in many areas, such as the legal system, child protection, family conflict situations and in community development generally. This is specialised and complex work and I do not want to pretend to have such expertise.
What I want to do today is to talk about the ideas that sit behind the notion that children are 'competent witnesses of their own experience' and so should have a real voice in our communities. These concepts are all clearly reflected in the ACT Children's Plan.
I will do this by reflecting on the:
- United Nations' Convention on the Rights of the Child
- concept of social inclusion
- Early Childhood Australia's Code of Ethics
- concept of child-friendly cities
- implications of sociocultural and child development theory, for children's rights and for the way we consult with young children.
Lastly, I will talk a little bit about the everyday work of listening and responding to children and come back to my own particular response to the implications of seeing children as competent witnesses to their own experience
The requirement to consult with children has a strong basis in international law
In 1989, 192 countries including Australia signed the United Nations' Convention on the Rights of the Child. In 1991 the Australian government ratified the Convention, an international treaty which has the status of international law. It is important to understand the requirement of international treaties, to which a country is signatory, have precedence of over national laws. What this means is that Australia's national laws should be consistent with the international Convention on the Rights of the Child.
This is something which is still not agreed to by many in this country which part of the reason why some of our laws are in tension, or have been, with the international Convention on the Rights of the Child, such as the mandatory detention laws that existed in Western Australia until recently, and the laws that allowed the incarceration of children in detention centres by the previous Federal Government.
According the Convention on the Rights of the Child, children's rights fall into three categories:
- Those dealing with provision – what should be provided for children, such as basic health care and education.
- Rights associated with protection against abuse, neglect and sexual and economic exploitation.
- Rights associated with the rights of children to be heard in all matters that affect them, including that children should have their thoughts taken into account subject to their evolving capacity and with parental guidance.
The rights associated with the right of children to be heard and respected for their views are fundamental to the work of this forum. The details of these rights are set out in Article 12 of the Convention.
This article says that:
'When adults are making decisions that affect children, children have the right to say what they think should happen and have their opinions taken into account. This does not mean that children can now tell their parents what to do. This Convention encourages adults to listen to the opinions of children and involve them in decision-making – not give children authority over adults.
'Article 12 does not interfere with parents' right and responsibility to express their views on matters affecting their children. Moreover, the Convention recognises that the level of a child's participation in decisions must be appropriate to the child's level of maturity. Children's ability to form and express their opinions develops with age and most adults will naturally give the views of teenagers greater weight than those of a preschooler, whether in family, legal or administrative decisions.'
Simon, Age 12, summarised this as meaning:
'You have the right to say your opinion and adults should take it seriously.' ( Canadian Child Care Federation, 2001)
At the time when support for Australia becoming a signatory to the Convention on the Rights of the Child was being mobilised, Article 12 was one that came under significant scrutiny by those opposed to Australia's ratification of the treaty. It was argued that it was one of a number in the convention which undermined the role of parents and the family in relation to their child. The people who argued this position argued in part from the view of children needing to be shaped, rather than seeing them as competent witnesses of their own experiences.
Although real progress has been made toward acceptance of children's right to be heard there is still some way to go before this right is embedded in the way our communities operate. This is not only the case in this country. In 2003 the European Network of Ombudspersons (who are similar in some ways to our Children's Commissioners) issued a statement expressing their concerns that the right of the child to express his or her views is not taken sufficiently seriously by those who make decisions affecting the child. They said:
'It is the obligation of the States, not only to give the child the opportunity to express his or her views, but, importantly, also to guarantee that due weight is given to those views in all decision-making affecting the child.
'This obligation includes a duty to find and to use the appropriate methods for communicating with children as well as a duty to try to motivate children and young persons to take active part in the debate in society including within the family, in the classroom, in court proceedings and in all other forums that are of relevance for children. The right of the child to express his or her views includes the right to receive information on issues affecting him or her … Allowing the child to express his or her opinions and taking these opinions into account is also a condition for the protection of the integrity of the child.
'The child must have a say in how the opinions that he or she has expressed and other information relating to the child are used and disseminated, within the limits that may be necessary for the protection of the rule of law and the best interests of the child.' (European Network of Ombudspersons for Children, 2003)
Indeed, to put it bluntly, respect for children's rights to participation demands that children be viewed not just as 'subjects of study and concern', but also as 'subjects with concerns' (Prout, 2000). Article 12 demands that children's views be respected, not as evidence of their relative competence, but as evidence of their unique experiences of the world they inhabit.
How children grow and learn – a comment about theory
There is a tendency in many fields, including the early childhood field, to polarise theories about how children learn and grow – theories which compete for space as the best basis for the way we think about children. I think we do this because it is easier than the task of bringing the strengths of different theories together.
A case in point in the early childhood sector is the tension that is perceived, and indeed argued, between developmental explanations of child development and sociocultural explanations. My own view is that, of course, children's development takes place and is constructed in social and cultural environments. At the same time however, children do develop in complexity across time and across all domains. Children's development emerges and is shaped by a cultural process. This is not to suggest that children are only adults in the making – they are players in their own experience and in their own right across time. Child development theories and social constructivism support this conclusion.
However in relation to the issue of children's rights, sociocultural theory has been important in ensuring that cultural and social context are taken into account in the way these rights are achieved. This is equally important in Article 12. I would encourage you to read an article by Martin Woodhead, Early Childhood development: A question of rights (PDF). This article makes a significant contribution to this discussion. In it there is evident tension between the polarisation of what are seen to be competing theories, and personal commitment to the weight of the sociocultural arguments.
'Socio-cultural approaches to development are more consistent with the global goals and application of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. This is partly because of the need to account for diversities in the way early development is understood and experienced. But it is especially because of the recognition of young children as social actors, whose development is facilitated through social relationships, and active participation under the guidance of sensitive and listening adults.' (Woodhead, 2005)
For me, this paragraph is equally an argument about drawing on the strengths of both theories.
The commitment to Canberra as a child-friendly city
The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child underlines the growing commitment to the notion of child-friendly cities. The convention challenges cities to conceive of themselves, of the services, amenities and quality of life they provide, in a new way. The Child-friendly City Initiative advocates the adoption of governance approaches and participatory urban management that promote the realisation of the rights of the youngest citizens.
In high, middle and low-income cities alike, including Canberra, a growing number of municipalities have made the political decision to become 'child-friendly'. UNICEF suggests that the process of building a child-friendly city is synonymous with the implementation of the Convention in a local governance setting, and incorporates a number of characteristics that put children front and centre, including:
- Children's participation – promoting children's active involvement in issues that affect them; listening to their views and taking them into consideration in decision-making processes.
- A child-friendly legal framework – ensuring legislation, regulatory frameworks and procedures which consistently promote and protect the rights of all children.
In practice, the movement for Child-friendly Cities has seen young citizens take part in municipal decision-making, assist planners in designing 'the city they want', and child-sensitive quality indicators have been developed to measure progress against child-oriented goals.
All of this is by way of saying that rights arguments for consultation with children has a strong basis but, I would caution, a basis about which we need to be vigilant.
Social inclusion and the wellbeing of children – a framework for consulting with children
Social inclusion provides a way of looking at the wellbeing of children and families, and has the potential to frame a national dialogue around the creation of a just, healthy and inclusive society. It means that all children should have the opportunity to develop their talents and capacities to the full and be active and valued members of society.
A commitment to social inclusion demands that the barriers to inclusion such as disability, low income and culture be addressed. Social inclusion means that the gaps and distances between children in terms of present wellbeing and future life chances are minimised.
Social inclusion starts from the experience of the individual and challenges society to provide a meaningful place for everyone.
Importantly, under the aegis of social inclusion, diversity and difference are not merely seen as challenges to be overcome, but rather they possess their own worth – as do the commonalities of people's lives.
Whether the source of exclusion is poverty, racism, fear of difference or a lack of political power (for instance children and aged persons), the consequences are the same:
- a lack of recognition, acceptance or value
- lack of visibility (children are often invisible)
- voiceless-ness – for us today this is particularly an issue (consider who is voiceless)
- economic vulnerability – income is not destiny, but it is a major predictor of poor outcomes/exclusion for children and their families
- diminished life experiences and capacity to participate in civil society
- limited life prospects
- social exclusion provides a major threat to social cohesion.
A commitment to social inclusion leads to:
- Public policy recognition of common worth through universal programs such as health care, including child health checks, immunisation etc.
- Policies and programs, such as new parent support including prenatal programs, high quality early childhood programs etc., that nurture the social and emotional health of young children as well as their talents, skills and capabilities.
- Work and family policies that acknowledge, through inclusion, the needs of children and provide real choices for families.
- Policies that provide for involvement, engagement and the reduction of social distance between children, e.g. integrated settings, community and other services which encourage family participation and build capacity.
- An approach to policy, program development and implementation which is insistent in its commitment to hear the voices of children and, in regard to infants, the voices of those with the expertise to speak for them.
- A commitment to the rigorous evaluation of the effectiveness of programs and policies.
Here I would draw your attention to the wonderful collection of papers on social inclusion that have been produced by the Laidlaw Foundation.
Finally, I would suggest that the ECA Code of Ethics and the ECA Position Statement on Consulting with Children provide important reference points for decisions each of us make in our day to day work in relation to consulting with children. Both of these are available on the ECA Website.
In the Code of Ethics the protection and wellbeing of children is paramount, and therefore speaking out or taking action in the presence of unethical practice is an essential professional responsibility. The code says that:
'I. In relation to children, I will:
- Act in the best interests of all children.
- Respect the rights of children as enshrined in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989) and commit to advocating for these rights.
- Recognise children as active citizens participating in different communities such as family, children's services and schools.'
The fundamental ethical question is 'What should I do?'. The ECA Code of Ethics provides a framework for supporting professionals who work with young children in resolving the day-to-day ethical questions which confront them.
The answer to 'what I should do?' in relation to consulting with children will be a personal one. It is a question which will challenge us to go beyond responses that are framed in what we always do or what other people do or what everyone does. It will challenge us to consider the assumptions we make about children as being capable.
This issue is not just confined to settings where children's entitlements are under challenge. Consulting with children means really listening to them, and is an everyday issue for each of us. There is rarely a single answer to the question 'what should I do?' and so I commend to you the ECA Code of Ethics and the challenges it poses.
Finally, I consider Penn's notion of children as 'competent witnesses to their own experience' and ask each of us – do we believe this to be true?
At what point do we believe that children are 'competent witnesses to their own experience'? When children are infants and they cry? When we decide that they need to learn to go to sleep so we let them cry? When we decide that a cry is a call for help, that they are telling us something and that we should respond?
Children's right to participation and to be consulted begins at the beginning and we need to find ways, different ways, to make this a daily experience for the full diversity of children.
Thank you for this opportunity to speak with you about such an important issue.
References
Canadian Child Care Federation (2001). Keeping the promise: Children's rights in plain language. Interaction, 15(2), 10, www.cccf-fcsge.ca/practice/children%27s%20rights/promis_en.html
Early Childhood Australia (2006). Code of Ethics. Canberra: Author. Retrieved 31 July 2006, www.earlychildhoodaustralia.org.au/code
European Network of Ombudspersons for Children (2003). Statement on communication with children. Retrieved 31 July 2008, www.ombudsnet.org/enoc/resources/infodetail.asp?id=10536
Penn, H. (1999). The rights of young children. London: Institute of Education, London University. Retrieved 31 July 2008, http://action.web.ca/home/crru/rsrcs_crru_full.shtml?x=33731
Prout, A. (2000). Children's Participation: Control and self-realisation in British late
modernity. Children & Society 14(4), 304–315.
UNICEF (1990). Convention on the Rights of the Child. New York: Author. Retrieved 31 July 2008, www2.ohchr.org/english/law/crc.htm
Woodhead, M. (2005). Early Childhood Development: A question of rights. International Journal of Early Childhood, 37(3), 79–98.
If you liked this article, you can 'social bookmark' it with others who might be searching for good content on early childhood. This means you can share your favourite webpages with others, or just keep an online list of your bookmarks so you can access them on any computer.
Read more about social bookmarks
|
|
