Overview of Childhood Needs and Feelings - Essay Example

?Children’s views, needs, wishes and feelings are at the heart of national legislation and international agreements and conventions. Critically discuss the implications of this for early years’ practice in the United States. Introduction Too often is it said that the children are the future of the world. They represent a potential for humanity which exceeds the current human living conditions. In order to secure such potential, various conventions, treaties, and laws have been passed in the international and domestic levels. Current conventions seeking to protect the rights and feelings of children include the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which serves as the template of human rights, including children’s rights. From such international law, the Convention on the Rights of the Child has been specifically drawn. The Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action also provide various legal guidelines on the protection of children’s rights and welfare. For various states, specific provisions are laid out, including the Equal Protection Clause in the US, the basic rights of children as protected by the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution. More provisions on the protection of these rights are also specifically indicated by various countries. These laws and policies seek to protect children from human rights violations, treating these children as vulnerable members of society. This paper is based on the premise that children’s views, needs, wishes and feelings are at the heart of national legislation and international agreements and conventions. In relation to current policy, this essay shall critically discuss the implications of such premise for early years’ practice among children. First, an initial overview of childhood needs, views, and feelings in relation to national laws and conventions will be presented. Secondly, a discussion on children’s human rights as guaranteed by the UN and other legislative bodies shall also be presented. Thirdly, this essay will also provide the considerations made for children’s feelings and needs in relation to the specific laws and conventions. Fourth, the No Child Left behind Policy of the US will also be discussed in order to detect current trends in children’s rights policies. Fifth, a relationship between the NCLB and the international conventions will be considered. Sixth, the impact of these laws on the improvement of children’s welfare shall be presented. Finally, this essay shall end with a summary and a conclusion of the different points discussed and detailed. Body Overview of childhood needs and feelings Children’s feelings and needs have been brought sharply into international focus and attention during the First World War when millions of children experienced significant hardships as a result of international human conflicts (Fortin, 2003). In effect, the sufferings of these children served as the foundation for children’s rights. Eglantyne Jebb had a crucial role in the establishment of the 1924 Declaration of the Rights of the Child (Glendon, 2002). These rights were primarily based on her Christian faith (Glendon, 2002). The foundations of children’s rights then were on the protection and nurturing of the child, securing their moral privileges including their need for love and understanding (Fortin, 2003). Various rights are granted to humans, especially as soon as they reach the age of majority. One of the most important rights granted to these humans include the right to vote; however, children or minors below the age of 18 are not granted this right. In general, children do not seem to have control of the things which happen to them or the matters which concern them (Fortin, 2003). This is very much apparent in daily situations and activities including school, religion, and upbringing. School subjects are compulsory for them to attend and study, mostly based on their location; moreover, for most children until the age of 14, their religion must be that which is inherited from their parents (Fortin, 2003). Parents decide, for the most part, most aspects of their child’s life, including their values, and culture. Moreover, as is most often seen among children, even their friends and other people they can socialize with are usually predetermined by their parents. Children rarely have the voice or the venue to air their feelings, their needs, or their decisions on matters relating to their life (Freeman, 2011). Bellamy is firm in declaring that “giving children a voice is a cornerstone of the Convention of the Rights of the Child” (in Patel, 2012). Although no child was involved in inking the provisions of the Convention, it was a convention which nevertheless accepted and acknowledged the fact that children do have rights of their own (Freeman, 2011). These rights and needs include their right to fulfil their biological needs for food, healthcare, shelter, clothing, developmental needs like education, healthcare, and political needs like criminal and civil rights (Freeman, 2011). Safety and security is also a basic right for these children. The rights of these children are classified in different ways. One classification represents rights into the following categories: provision, protection, and participation (Children and Families in Canada, 2008). The rights of provision are based on the need for children to an adequate standard of living, healthcare, education, play, and recreation. Protection rights are based on the need for these students to be free from abuse, neglect, exploitation, as well as discrimination (Freeman, 2011). Finally, children also have rights to participation. This is based on the need for children to take part in communities and to be included in programs and activities for themselves (Children and Families in Canada, 2008). Other classifications for these rights include classifications on the economic, social and cultural rights of children, as well as their environmental and developmental rights (Children and Families in Canada, 2008). Based on these rights, needs, and feelings, the United Nations and other international and state legislative bodies have sought to legalize the provision of these children’s rights and needs. Children’s human rights (United Nations) The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child has sought to secure various rights and needs for children around the world. There are 193 countries that have since ratified this treaty, which is more or less inclusive of all UN members, except for the United States, Somalia, and South Sudan (Lansdown, 2005). Although the US has been a strong supporter in the establishment of their treaty, it remains a holdout in its ratification. Nevertheless, the rights of the child as legally established by this treaty primarily includes specific indications on children having basic rights, including the right to life, to his or her identity, to be raised by his or her parents within a specific cultural tradition, and to establish a relationship with his or her parents regardless of the parental marital status (Franklin, 2001). The Convention also emphasizes that states must make sure that parents take responsibility for their children. Children have the right to express their opinions and where appropriate for actions to be taken on these opinions (Franklin, 2001). Children’s needs also revolve around freedom from abuse and exploitation as well as privacy, with excessive interference nullified by the convention. The Convention also indicates that ratifying states establish legal support and representation for children under judicial issues in relation to their care, with their viewpoints to be considered in these cases (Arts and Popvoski, 2006). These cases may include parental custody and choice of schools or religions. The imposition of the capital punishment as well as other degrading or cruel forms of punishment is also forbidden by the Convention (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2006). This would include acts of physical or mental violence on children which the convention expressly prohibits and to which it has set up legislative, administrative, social, and education measures. In interpreting the European Convention on Human Rights, the European Court of Human Rights has also utilised the provisions of the Convention in order to provide legislative basis for adjudication (Arts and Popvoski, 2006). As far as the US is concerned, its support for the international provisions as laid out by the UNCRC has been deficient. It remains one of the three countries who have not ratified the Conventions. Nevertheless, its support for children’s rights, needs, and feelings have been secured in other ways (Young, 2008). The legal concept of “best interest of the child” provided a strong recognition of children’s rights independent of their parents. In support of such legal concept, mothers have been able to gain leverage in their rights over their children during the tender growing years, at least below the age of 7 (Kaslow, 1996). In effect, during parental divorce or separation, mothers are often favoured over fathers because of the acknowledgement of the more dependent and nurturing bond between the mother and child during the tender years (Rodham, 1973). Aside from this measure, orphanages also emerged as a child-supportive environment and alternative for parents who have died or who are unable to care for their children. Once more, these provisions have been laid out for the best interest of the child (Ahearn, et.al., 2007). Public schooling also spread and rapidly replaced homeschooling with the state and the parents prioritizing the best interest of the child in terms of intellectual and skills development (Ahearn, et.al., 2007). Laws considering the feelings and needs of children were also secured with the restrictive policies laid out by anti-child labour laws, including juvenile law provisions protecting children from abusive parental practices (Brownlie and Anderson, 2006). These measures were able to indicate more decisive and active roles for children, reducing parental measures and establishing the foundation for the current provisions protecting American child welfare and educational structures (Brownlie and Anderson, 2006). No Child Left Behind Act One of the strongest policies involving children’s rights in the United States is the No Child Left behind policy which basically seeks to secure standards-based education policy for all children (Hayes, 2008). This act indicates that all states must secure the assessment of basic skills and must secure these assessments for all students based on select grade levels in order to be entitled to federal school allocations. The Act does not indicate national achievement standards as standards are based on each state (Peterson and West, 2003). The NCLB has secured the federal impact of public education via annual testing, annual educational progress, teacher assessments, report cards, as well as changes in funding. Through the NCLB, the feelings and needs of children in relation to quality education has been brought to the foreground of American legal policy making (Peterson and West, 2003). In relation to early years practice, the NCLB has sought to secure policy in order to ensure that the educational opportunities are offered to children at the soonest time possible. Issues in its implementation however have been noted, especially with the local governments where, in an effort to comply with the NCLB provisions, teachers have been prompted to teach outside their supposed areas of expertise (Peterson and West, 2003). As a result, local governments have supported federal takeover on the implementation of the NCLB provisions as local standards have not secured specific educational standards for children. Nevertheless, the goals of the NCLB have been secured in terms of improving the performance of students, complying with their academic and developmental needs, especially in learning, reading, writing, mathematics, and the language arts (Hess and Petrilli, 2006). Impact of the NCLB The impact of the NCLB has not been specific for various target students, including the gifted students. In this case, the needs of specific students have not been given sufficient attention (Berkhart, 2008). Beyond the reading, writing, and arithmetic focus of the NCLB program, no specific program has been set to support the needs of gifted students. The NCLB does not secure essential programs for the gifted and talented students. Instead, the federal support for these students has decreased in the last 8 years (Berkhart, 2008). Nevertheless, some states have been able to remedy the situation by implementing advance placement programs for students, supporting these programs in order to ensure that students are able to fulfil and develop their full potential (Johnson, 2005). The goals of the NCLB have been criticized for being too idealistic or for being unrealistic (Abernathy, 2007). The NCLB expects that every child must be at grade level math and reading by 2014, however, this is not likely to unfold. Instead, the NCLB seems to create a situation for schools to be secure manipulation in their test results in order to reflect the desired NCLB results (Abernathy, 2007). In other words, some of these schools have been prompted to reflect a favourable reclassification of their drop-outs in order to prevent negative results in their reports. In the end, the NCLB does not accurately and adequately secure the needs of children (Abernathy, 2007). Moreover, false data from these reports have also added to the illusion as to the efficacy of the NCLB. Overall efficiency The NCLB is seemingly based on a 100% success rate however, such figure is not attainable because of disadvantaged and special education students which are not given much room or much attention under the NCLB provisions (Stecher and Vernez, 2010). Moreover, the specific qualities and needs of students have not been considered by the NCLB, especially in relation to students who cannot perform at the same pace as other students their age. State standards usually minimize the educational gap between the rich and poor districts, however, most states still implement a common – one-size-fits-all policy or strategy for their students (Stecher and Vernez, 2010). Specifically in states with significant standards, schools can be accused of not improving the academic performance of students with academic difficulties, including their students with developmental disorders (Stecher and Vernez, 2010). In the end, the ‘no child’ concept of the policy is actually not actually the 100% rating in this case, but a 95% more realistic rate. In the end, although the NCLB lays down a foundation for the improved education of children, the implementation of policies is not based on realistic components; moreover, failing to consider the specific qualities of children is a primary failing of the NCLB (Yell and Drasgow, 2009). Such failing has had a significant impact on the effective development of children. NCLB and migrant children The NCLB has established provisions for the poor, the underserved, and the migrant children. It requires schools to give attention on the academic achievements of underserved children, including those who are economically disadvantaged, the disabled, and those belonging to the ethnic and migrant subgroups (Capps, et.al., 2003). The migrant student population in the US has grown significantly in the past years, with the population share of students rising from 6 percent in the 1970s, to 20 percent in 2000 (Capps, et.al., 2004). The projected figures are expected to rise to 30% by 2015. Some of these students are foreign-born and non-English speakers; however, others are second generation migrants with most of them being bilingual or native English speakers (Capps, et.al., 2004). Elementary schools are often presented with challenges as far as these children are concerned, with some of these issues relating to the limited English proficiency (LEP) of students as well as the English proficiency, income, and educational level of parents. The general practices on the segregation of LEP students may prevent teachers and schools from ensuring the goals of the NCLB (Capps, et.al., 2003). Based on the Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS) about 50% of LEP students go to schools where more than 30% of their fellow classmates are also LEP. On the other hand, only about 4% of the non-LEP students attend schools where more than 30% of their classmates are considered LEP (Capps, et.al., 2004). Moreover, more than 50% of non-ELP students are in schools where less than 1% of their classmates are LEP. These segregation practices are very much significant considering the fact that a limited number of LEP students represent the overall student population. The schools with significant number of LEPs are likely to face challenges in terms of improving the performance of their LEP students and therefore secure the NCLB goals (Capps, et.al., 2002). Majority of the high-LEP schools are found in bigger cities, but a growing number of these schools are being seen in smaller cities and some rural areas with more immigrants being spread out in various parts of the globe. In recent years, the number of low income migrant children has been growing in the grades pre-K to 5 program (Capps, et.al., 2004). Trends indicate that the children of migrants are slowly joining the ranks of low-income and disadvantaged children in elemental and secondary schools. The NCLB calls for economically disadvantaged children to be improved in their passing rates and academic performance (Capps, et.al., 2004). In effect, a large influx of immigrant families would also likely increase the economically disadvantaged groups in most American schools. There would not have been an issue with this situation, however, there seems to be a strong relationship between LEP and low income (Capps, et.al., 2002). About two-thirds of LEP children from pre-K-5 belong to the low income group; and 60% of LEP children within the 6-12 group are also low income. These results seem to be related to studies in Los Angeles and New York City which indicated limited English proficiency being highly linked with poverty (Capps, et.al., 2004). Aside from poverty, migrant children also have to deal with the fact that their parents may have had limited formal education (Capps, et.al., 2004). A third of children of immigrants in the pre-K to 5 parents do not have high school education. This implies that migrant parents are not often familiar with the school institutions and systems. Some of them may often be unwilling to assist in the classroom, to share in school activities, or even to secure their school choice under the provisions of the NCLB. Moreover, migrants with low educational background may not also be equipped to assist their children in completing their homework (Capps, et.al., 2004). These findings indicate challenges being faced by elementary and high schools with high LEP student populations. These schools have to overcome the students’ and parents’ LEPs, and also have to educate and involve the parents who have limited formal education background. Regardless of gaps in the implementation of the NCLB, the law has had a measure of success in terms of racial and ethnic minority students (Reese, 2011). The NCLB has been able to provide policy in order to ideally narrow the racial educational gap in the US. In order to secure such goal, the focus of the NCLB has been on targeting the underprivileged students, or those belonging to major racial and ethnic subgroups (Reese, 2011). To some extent, a rise in literacy among the low income minority groups has become apparent. However, the gaps between the low and the high income groups in terms of educational needs of children are still considered significant (Bekis, 2008). NCLB and UNCRC In relating the provisions of the NCLB and the UNCRC, the provisions of the UNCRC cover a wider range of child rights and needs, whereas, the NCLB only covers the educational and academic needs of the children (Florian, 2006). In effect, the importance of the US ratification of the UNCRC has become even more imperative. The UNCRC acknowledges the presence of various rights and needs for children and has therefore recognized the importance of building trust and roots for children (Florian, 2006). In the years since the UNCRC has been ratified by various states, the UNCRC has sought and to some extent, has been able to establish a safe environment where children are able to build trust and are able to think as well as act independently (Florian, 2006). Where children feel a sense of belongingness and of love, these children can also attempt behaviours which emulate people they admire or they can also try out new behaviours which they feel safe to manifest. The establishment of rules in one’s family, in school, and in community groups helps ensure that the opinions of children would eventually be heard (Garratt, 2009). The rules would also indicate that where everybody follows these rules, they are able to safely work within their environment (Garratt, 2009). Moreover, they can also develop deep and healthy roots when they find themselves in such a safe environment. In effect, the point of protecting children’s rights is based on the need to secure a safety and healthy zone for the physiological as well as psychological development and growth of children (Garratt, 2009). For as long as such zones are secured, the responsibilities of children are also expected to grow and to develop within the realm of a bigger environment or community. Suggested recommendations to improve responsiveness to children’s needs The importance of children participating in service planning has been recognized by educators. However, while this is an engaging concept, it is still very much a product of adult goals, not children’s goals (Baum, 2010). Limited research has been initiated on the child’s view of their own world, including what is important to them as well as what makes them happy and secure. The Mosaic approach suggests a multimethod framework in order to ensure that young learners would gain information about the aspects of their lives and then share these with adults (Baum, 2010). Children are seen as strong social participants who can determine the direction of their lives (Ruck and Horn, 2008). This concept of competency is very much in line with the concept of childhood which views children to be independent beings, also supporting the fact that these children have their own goals, activities, time, as well as space (George, 2009). The goal of highlighting the opinions and feelings of children is not to dismiss the role of parents and adults in children’s lives; however the goal is to acknowledge that in order to ensure favourable answers about children’s experiences, the main source of data should be the children (George, 2009). What is important to children may not be the same as what adults consider important for children. Issues like poverty in a certain community may be related by children to environmental issues and child labour; for adults however, they may perceive poverty in terms of health issues, including water and sanitation (Moss, 2007). The Mosaic approach seeks to provide a voice to those who have limited power to express themselves. Various institutions understand that the child is a rich child who is strong and active and is also able to express himself in their own ways and in their own language (Moss, 2007). Under these conditions, learning is viewed as a collaborative process where adults and children seek answers as a team. Such conceptualization of childhood is very much contrasting with the perception of the poor child who needs protection and care (Arnold, 2006). This is also understood in more or less the same light as the ‘child in need’ under the Children Act of 1989. The Mosaic approach was also influenced by the rich methods established based on an international development theme in order to ensure that illiterate adults would be able to communicate their knowledge and skills in specific areas of expertise (Clark and Statham, 2005). Such participatory method also includes a starting point based on the belief that the locals are more competent and equipped in aspects which refer to their lives. There are different points from which children perspectives can be secured. First is by using tools which work with adults and older children and second, is by finding elements which highlight the strengths of children, not their weaknesses (Clark and Statham, 2005). Securing such elements can help ensure improved student outcomes, especially those outcomes which consider the needs and feelings of children. Conclusion Children’s rights and feelings are often not given sufficient consideration by concerned authorities in relation to their welfare. International agencies have secured various laws in order to ensure that the child’s welfare and rights are prioritized by the different concerned agencies. These international agencies have set for the UNCRC in order to protect the feelings and rights of the child. In the United States, the NCLB policy has also set forth various legal provisions in order to protect the welfare of the child, especially to ensure equal educational opportunities for all children regardless of race, ethnicity, or other demographic qualities. Concern for the feelings and rights of children have secured the installation of adjustments within the educational system, especially the policies which would ensure that the children are equipped with the right tools which they can use in order to secure a successful future. There is a need for educators to make the necessary considerations for the feelings and rights of children, especially in terms of the important foundations which they can use in order to develop their skills and talents. The future of the children is based on what the society protects and attributes for them. References Abernathy, S., 2007. No Child Left Behind and the public schools. Michigan: University of Michigan Press. Ahearn, D., Holzer, B. and Andrews, L., 2007. Children's rights law: a career guide. Harvard Law School. Archard, D. and Macleod, C., 2002. The moral and political status of children. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Arnold, C., 2006. Positioning early childhood development in the 21st century. In U.N. Committee on the Rights of the Child, U.N. Children’s Fund, & Bernard van Leer Foundation (Eds.), A guide to General Comment 7: Implementing child rights in early childhood (pp. 154-158). The Hague, Netherlands: Bernard van Leer Foundation. Arts, K. and Popvoski, V. 2006. International criminal accountability and the rights of children. "From Peace to Justice Series". London: Cambridge University Press Baum, J., 2010. In the child's best interest?: the consequences of losing a lawful immigrant parent to deportation. New York: DIANE Publishing. Bekis, W., 2008. The impact of the No Child Left Behind act on new mexico public schools on the navajo reservation. New York: ProQuest. Berkhart, P., 2008. No Child Left Behind: issues and developments. London: Nova Publishers. Brennan, S. and Noggle, R., 1997. The moral status of children: children's rights, parent's rights, and family justice. Social Theory and Practice, p. 23. Brownlie, J. and Anderson, S., 2006. Beyond Anti-Smacking': Rethinking parent–child relations. Childhood, 13(4), pp. 479-498. Capps, R., Fix, M., Passel, J., Ost, J., et.al., 2003. A profile of the low-wage immigrant workforce. Immigrant families and workers: facts and perspectives. Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute. Capps, R., Fix, M., and Ku, L., 2002. How are immigrants faring after welfare reform? Preliminary evidence from Los Angeles and New York City. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Capps, R., Fix, M., Murray, J., Ost, J., et.al., 2004. Promise or peril: Immigrants, LEP students and the No Child Left Behind Act. Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute. Children and Families in Canada, 2008. Respecting children's rights at home [online]. http://www.bcfcca.ca/pdfs/participant_resources_6/Respecting%20Children%27s%20Rights%20at%20Home.pdf [Accessed 28 December 2012]. Clark, A., and Statham, J., 2005. Listening to young children experts in their own lives. Adoption and Fostering, 29(1), pp. 45-56. Florian, L., 2006. The SAGE handbook of special education. California: SAGE. Fortin, J., 2003. Children's rights and the developing law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Garratt, D., 2009. Exploring key issues in education. New York: Continuum International Publishing Group. Glendon, M., 2002. A world made new: Eleanor Roosevelt and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. London: Random House. Hayes, W., 2008. No Child Left Behind: past, present, and future. London: R&L Education. Hess, F. and Petrilli, M., 2006. No Child Left Behind: Primer. New York: Peter Lang. Franklin, B., 2001. The new handbook of children's rights: comparative policy and practice. London: Routledge. Freeman, M., 2011. Children’s rights: progress and perspectives: essays from the International Journal of Children's Rights. London: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. George, S., 2009. Too young for respect? Realising respect for young children in their everyday environments: A cross-cultural analysis (Working Paper in Early Childhood No. 54). The Hague, The Netherlands: Bernard van Leer Foundation. Johnson, D., 2005. No Child Left Behind: what you can do to help your child succeed on state tests. New York: Kaplan Publishing. Kaslow, F., 1996. Handbook of relational diagnosis and dysfunctional family patterns. London: John Wiley & Sons. Lansdown, G., 2005. Children's welfare and children's rights," in Hendrick, H., Child Welfare And Social Policy: An Essential Reader. London: The Policy Press. Melton, G., 1999. Parents and children: Legal reform to facilitate children’s participation. American Psychologist, 54, pp. 941-951. Melton, G., 2002. Democratization and children’s lives. In N. H. Kaufman & I. Rizzini (Eds.), Globalization and children: Exploring potentials for enhancing opportunities in the lives of children and youth (pp. 47-67). New York, NY: Kluwer Academic/Plenum. Moss, P., 2007. Bringing politics into the nursery: Early childhood education as a democratic practice. Working Papers in Early Childhood Development No. 43. The Hague, The Netherlands: Bernard van Leer Foundation. Patel, Z., 2012. Hearing them out [online]. Available at: http://archives.dawn.com/archives/67146 [Accessed 28 December 2012]. Peterson, P. and West, M., 2003. No Child Left Behind?: The politics and practice of school accountability. New York: Brookings Institution Press. Reese, W., 2011. America's Public Schools: from the common school to "No Child Left Behind”. Maryland: JHU Press. Rodham, H., 1973. Children under the law. Harvard Educational Review, 43, pp. 487–514. Ruck, M. and Horn, S., 2008. Young people’s perspectives on the rights of the child: Implications for theory, research, and practice. Journal of Social Issues, 64, pp. 685-943. Stecher, B. and Vernez, G., 2010. Reauthorizing no child left behind: facts and recommendations. New York: Rand Corporation. Woodhead, M. and Brooker, L., 2008. A sense of belonging. Early Childhood Matters, 111, pp. 3-17. The Hague, The Netherlands: Bernard van Leer Foundation Yell, M. and Drasgow, E., 2009. No Child Left Behind: a guide for professionals. New York: Prentice Hall. Young, J., 2008. Human rights are children's rights: A guide to ensuring children and young people's rights. London: NCB. Read More