A critical analysis of past and current discourses of children, childhood and care and a review of how these discourses might influence policies and practices in my setting
In this essay, I will provide a critical analysis of some past and current discourses of children, childhood and care, and attempt to review how these discourses have influenced policies and practices in my setting. This paper has been divided into four parts, one of which is organised in three subsections. The first part will explore some challenges of past and current discourses of children, childhood and care: the shift in positioning from needs to rights; the shift in positioning from being there to being in relationship; and the shift in positioning from deficits to strengths. In part two, I discuss how influences, alongside regulatory pressures are shaping policies and practices in my setting. I end my paper with a summary of the mains points relating to the challenges discussed. I include a section listing all the sources I have used in researching for this assignment. Throughout this essay the term ‘parent’ is defined as meaning a person acting as a mother, father, primary carer or guardian to a child.
1. Exploring some challenges of past and current discourses of children, childhood and care.
This part of the essay is divided into three subsections and explores some of the challenges of past and current discourses of children, childhood and care. Challenge 1 is a review of the shift in positioning from needs to rights. Challenge 2 explores the shift in positioning from being there to being in relationships; and challenge 3 considers the shift in positioning from deficits to strengths.
Challenge 1: The shift in positioning from needs to rights
The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) (1989) recommend that decision-making on behalf of children and young people should be guided by actions that promote their ‘best interests’ (Article 3). The rights-based approach frames current policy and practice by acknowledging children’s strengths and resilience as well as recognising their vulnerabilities. Lansdown observed that (2005 p.4) “the vulnerability of children derives, in some part, not from their lack of capacity, but rather, from their lack of power and status with which to exercise their rights and challenge”. In the debate about children’s needs, Woodhead indicated that (2006, p.28) that “The shift in the young child’s status within policy and practice is also signalled by the move away from policies based mainly around adult constructions of children’s needs.”
Developmental psychology has tended to view children as passive recipients of care rather than active participants. Piaget’s (1958) viewed cognitive development in four stages and was critiqued by Vygotsky who believed Piaget overlooked the importance of cultural and social interactions. In recent years, there has been a shift in the thinking about a child’s early relationships. Bronfenbrenner (1993) has helped us to understand the importance of fostering relationships with children and families. He explained that a child’s life is rooted in multiple and interrelating contexts and shaped by systems and cultural institutions he or she interacts with, for example, family, friends, neighbours, school and wider structures such as local services. However, some frontline practitioners might say that constructions of family are much more complex than depicted and that the systems around children are not always straightforward. Neuroscience also confirms that the developing brain is influenced by the interactions with the environment and evidence suggests that early positive experiences with caregivers can help build resilience to lessen the negative effects of dysfunctional environments. (National Scientific Council, Harvard, 2007).
In thinking differently about children, Moss and Petri (2003, p22), refer to the Reggio Emilia approach and the concept of the ‘rich child’ in contrast to the traditional discourse of the vulnerable child. Moss and Petrie’s view is that (2004 p 23) children are “rich in potential, strong, powerful, competent and most of all, connected to adults and other children”.
The shift in positioning from needs to rights reflects an attempt capture the views, wishes and feelings of children, and as Holland et al, (2008 p23) summarised when drawing conclusions from research about children in care and their everyday lives,
These understandings of children and young people enable us to frame our communication with young people in terms of active participation by the young person, a willingness by the adult to listen over a sustained timespan and a broad conceptualisation of what the young person is communicating to us. Where necessary, we can also work with the young people’s narratives to enable them to ‘restory’ their lives and plan for positive and practical change.
Challenge 2: The shift in positioning from being there to being in relationship
The quality of parent-child interactions is being increasingly identified as crucial to child learning and development outcomes. Responsive relationships provide a strong start for lifelong learning, behaviour, and health. Some evidence (Social Exclusion Task Force, 2006) shows that the longer a child spends in an unfavourable environment, the more difficult it is to recover from the detrimental effects.
If a child is not talked to she will not develop speech and language capacity. If she is not given opportunities to use her developing motor systems, she will not develop motor skills, and most devastating, if she is not loved, she will struggle to love others
Furnivall (2011, p.1 emphasised that, “Looked after children benefit from developing secure attachments with their caregivers and interventions should support the development of these, whether children remain at home or are cared for outside their family.” Golding (2008, p.25) explained why attachments and relationships are important:
When a child experiences warm, sensitive and responsive parenting in the early years, it develops a secure attachment which enables it to trust other people with whom it comes into contact; and in contrast, when parenting is insensitive, neglectful or rejecting, the child forms an insecure attachment which decreases its sense of safety, wellbeing and security.
One response to the importance of emotional warmth and security was to recommend the appointment of key persons in nursery settings (Elfer, Impact case study, REF3b, 2014). Interesting findings from the research also revealed some anxieties about personal and professional boundaries in caring.
As the key-person role has become established in policy, so practitioners have expressed their anxieties about forming such close individual relationships, including that parents will be resentful of such close relationships and that nursery attachments may undermine those at home.
As highlighted by Whalley (2003, p.81) when discussing subtle interventions with staff at Pen Green Centre, Vygotsky was interested in role of the social and cultural environment in children’s development and ways in which others more skilled challenged and extended children’s learning. Bruner extended this line of thinking and found that child’s learning can be developed if play is scaffolded by sensitive adults.
In contrast, Scarr (1992, p.10) suggested that for most children, parenting differences have little effect on children, she says that “children make their own environments, based on their own heritable characteristics.”
Although the environment is key, numerous studies have suggested that close family type relationships are crucial to child’s wellbeing. Maier (1978 p. 6) noted that “Rhythmic action contains the experience of repetition with the promise of further repetition and hence the opportunity for experiencing predictability.”
It appears that a growing interest in factors influencing childhood learning and development has made parenting an important topic in policy and practice. Supporting parents is integrated in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (Article 18.2), and recommends “that while the family is responsible for guaranteeing a child’s rights, families must be supported in this role by the State.”
Challenge 3: The shift in positioning from deficits to strengths
Evidence suggests that practice that recognises the strengths and resources within the family rather than the deficits is more effective. Garfat highlighted (2003 p 14) the importance of role of the family in current child and youth care practice, he remarked that “In working with our families, our “client” is the family not just the youth and, therefore, our interventions must demonstrate a caring for all.”
The Munro Review of Child Protection found many social workers in England reported that that they had insufficient time to work with families (2012 p 18). In 2011, Ofsted identified that the voice of the child had been missing from a summary of serious case reviews. In Munro’ s progress report (2012) she explained her thinking in redesigning services around the child and the family.
In my review, I used the concept of the child’s journey to look at service provision from the viewpoint of the child or young person rather than the provider. This draws attention to the number of different services who may be in contact with family members and have an influence, direct or indirect, on children and young people.
One of the principles underpinning the Signs of Safety approach highlights the importance of working relationships with families and services not only in child protection practice but in all service areas working with children, young people and families. In the following section I want to explore how these discourses are influencing policies and practices in my setting.
2. Rise to the challenges: Thinking critically about my setting
I work for a children’s service in a local authority in a mostly, but not exclusively rural area in the east of England. The authority has experienced a difficult period over the last few years. In 2013, Ofsted judged services for looked after children inadequate. In 2011, children’s social services were rated inadequate. Despite several reviews and consultations, staffing restructures and more money allocated to support vulnerable children, the authority has been perceived to be failing to enable children looked after to achieve their best possible outcomes.
In the last 12 months, the increasing pressures about reducing the numbers of looked after children and delays in the social care system has created a sense of urgency about the need to work differently and to rise to the challenges. There is a growing awareness of “the need for a politics of care at every level” (Tronto, 2010, p.162). Integrating the Signs of Safety approach into social work practice marks the beginning of an organisational and cultural change. The approach is being developed from practice-led evidence in child protection (Turnell, Munro, Murphy 2014). The shift in thinking has moved away from a deficit problem-based approach to a more reflective, relationship-based strengths approach to working with families. Placing an increased focus on attachment-informed practice is a key priority.
The following definition of corporate parentings is taken from a local authority website in 2016,
Corporate Parenting is the term used to recognise the collective responsibility of local authorities actively to promote the life-chances of children in care and care leavers “as if they were my child” and provide them with the best possible care and protection
Difficulties arise, however, when the term ‘corporate parenting’ is perceived as contradictory because of a perception that children in care placements are at risk of poor outcomes.
Lord Elton, in a debate in the House of Lords about children looked after (2005), raised the following question, “Corporate care is, I think, an oxymoron. What is being done to give these children individual adults who care for them individually? His view is significant as it highlights the need for employing staff who value caring and can be emotionally present for children in their care (Austin & Halpin, 2002). However, Boddy (2013, p.4) points out that, “Quality and continuity must go together, if services for looked after children are to establish and ensure children’s developing sense of identity and belonging”.
There is an aspiration to invest in skills development. The local authority is setting up a new social care academy to support the recruitment and training of social care staff. However, one of the limitations in thinking about the politics of care (Tronto, 2010, p.160) at every level, could be as Anglin (2001, p.4) remarked, “… social work is only interested in, and only has room for, an overview or introduction, while youth and care workers require and in-depth understanding combined with intensive integrative practice experience at the interpersonal level.”
Developing services that are fit for purpose to support and empower children, families and frontline staff is not an easy process. However, there are opportunities for positive change and “the space to work things out consciously” (Tronto, 2010, p.160). The local authority is slowly moving away from being a service that is too insular to one that is more outward looking and transparent in its processes and procedures. The structure is now regarded by Ofsted as fit for purpose with greater consistency in policy and practice.
3. Conclusions
In this essay, focussing attention on my setting, I have attempted to analyse some past and current discourses of children, childhood and care. The following themes have emerged: the shift in positioning from needs to rights; from being there to being in relationship; and deficits versus strengths. In summary, the evidence gathered in researching for this assignment suggests that effective practice with children and families is more reflective, relationship and strengths based rather than deficit-based that only identifies needs. This essay has also thrown up further questions about skills development. Developing services that are fit for purpose to support and empower children, families and frontline staff is not an easy process. I recognise the tensions and differences between services, providers and users. I believe that colleagues want to do things differently and understand different perspectives, but it takes time and resource investments.
4. References
- Anglin, J. (2001, December). A unique profession. CYC-Online Issue 35 Child and Youth Care
- Austin, A & Halpin, W. (2002, September). The caring response. CYC-Online Issue 44
- Boddy, J. (2013). Understanding permanence for looked after children: A review of research for the Care Inquiry, The Care Inquiry, Online
- Direct Work: Social Work with Children And Young People, Edited by Barry Luckock and
Michelle Lefevre, BAAF. pp. 77-94 - Furnivall, J. (2011, May) Attachment-informed practice with looked after children and young people, SIRCC – Insights www.iriss.org.uk
- Garfat, T. & Fulcher, L. Characteristics of a child and youth care approach (2011) Relational Child & Youth Care Practice Vol 24 Issue 1/2 p.7
- Golding, K. (2008). Nurturing Attachments. London: Jessica Kingsley
- Holland, S, Renold, E; Ross, N; Hillman, A. Working Paper (2008) Qualiti/WPS/005: The everyday lives of children in care: using a sociological perspective to inform social work practice: Cardiff
- Lansdown, G. (2005) Discussion Paper Written for Save the Children UK
- Looked after children –Lords Hansard 51129-02 (29 Nov 2005). www.parliament.uk
- Maier, H. (1979) The Core of Care: Essential Ingredients for the Development of Children at Home and Away from Home, Child Care Quarterly, 8(3), 161 – 173
- McLeod, S. A. (2015). Stereotypes. From www.simplypsychology.org/katz-braly.html
- Moss, P; Petrie, P, (2004), From Children’s Services to Children’s Spaces, Public Policy, Children and Childhood (3rd ed.). London and New York: RoutledgeFarmer
- National Scientific Council on the Developing Child. The Science of Early Childhood Development. (2007). http://www.developingchild.net
- Organisation Ofsted inspection reports of setting assessments/reports 2011 – 2016
- Munro, E: Turnell, A & Murphy, T. (2014) Partnering Local Authorities Transforming Children’s Services with Signs of Safety Practice at the Centre – Innovation Programme Proposal
- The Munro Review of Child Protection: Progress report: Moving towards a child centred system (2012). Retrieved from DfE
- Scarr, S. (Feb., 1992), Developmental Theories for the 1990s: Development and Individual Differences, Child Development, Vol. 63, No. 1. pp. 1-19
- Steckley, L. & Smith, M. (2011, June). Care Ethics in Residential Care: A Different Voice. Ethics and Social Welfare Volume 5 Number 2
- Social Exclusion Task Force report, (2006). Retrieved from www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/social_exclusion_task_force/publications/research/multidimensional.asp
- Tronto, J. C. (2010, July). Creating Caring Institutions: Politics, Plurality, and Purpose. Ethics and Social Welfare Volume 4 Number 2
- Utting, D. (2009) Parenting services: Assessing and Meeting the Need for Parenting Support Services, London: Family and Parenting Institute literature review
- Woodhead, M (2006) Background paper prepared for the Education for All Global Monitoring Report 2007, Strong foundations: early childhood care and education Changing perspectives on early childhood: theory, research and policy,
- Whalley, M. 2003 Involving Parents in their Children’s Learning, (2nd Ed.), Paul Chapman, London p.81