Children's Participation Rights: Effects on Early Childhood Education - Report Example

Running Head: Children's Rights Children's Participation Rights: Effects on Early Childhood Education and Strategies for Implementation First Name Last Name University Professor Subject/Course Abstract Children's participation rights are not imaginary. These rights are necessary and should become part and parcel of adult-child interactive dynamics. It has received support from international advocates and non-governmental organizations, yet remains difficult to implement in homes and schools. Perhaps it is the ingrained social norms that insist on adult superiority over children that has made the transition difficult. Nevertheless, respecting children's participation rights is necessary because of its positive effects on early childhood education. It is thus imperative that better strategies for implementing and upholding children's participation rights be put into place. Children's Participation Rights: Effects on Early Childhood Education and Strategies for Implementation “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” (UNICEF 2007). So declares Chapter 12 of the Convention on the Rights of Children by the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF). A child, no matter how small, should be given the right to be heard and understood, particularly in matters that affect his or her own well-being and future. Their opinions should matter and and should, in fact, be taken into consideration. Despite this declaration from the UNICEF, however, many parents and adults who work with children on a daily basis seem to forget or ignore this exhortation, choosing to live by the social aberration that deems children as better seen than heard. How often is it that children are shooed away from adult conversations? Children who find some way to interrupt or join two or more adults in conversation are judged impertinent. Children, after all, are viewed as less intellectually capable than adults. They lack the life experiences, education and training that have shaped most adult opinions and decisions. Social norms dictate that children, due to their immature and underdeveloped state, are required to accept their parents' decisions unquestioningly. Adults, after all, are supposed to know better. Parents and other adults who care for children only have the best interests of the young ones at heart. Under such circumstances, there does seem to be no need to hear from children, whose helplessness renders their opinions practically moot. And yet as Berenice Nyland (1999) points out, “children can be seen as protagonists in their own development, participating in and taking a reciprocal role in the acquisition of language and culture” (p.9). Though lacking in life experiences, children do have feelings and personal ideas regarding their path of development. These ideas may not necessarily be perfect, valid or feasible, yet they need to be heard and taken into account. The goal of the Convention on the Rights of Children is not to hand leadership to the young ones; it merely solidifies the necessity of allowing children to participate in the development of their own futures. This paper posits that children's participation rights significantly effect early childhood education in a positive manner and should thus seek strategies for successful implementation. This study argues that allowing children to participate in decision-making for issues related to their development is necessary mainly because of its potential impact on the success or failure of early childhood education. This being so it is thus necessary to implement strategies and plans that will allow children to contribute to the process of building their own futures. They are not to be leaders in the discussion – they are to be active participants whose opinions count as much as the opinions of their parents, particularly in issues relating to their education. To prove so, this paper shall be divided into three significant aspects. First of all, the study shall begin with a brief discussion of what children's participation rights are, primarily in the light of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Children. This is due to the fact that the organisation provides one of the most significant guidelines for determining children's participation rights. Second, the study shall look into the effects of children's participation rights on early childhood education. Lastly, the study shall discuss the best strategies and practices for implementing the guidelines discussed and ratified by the United Nations on children's participation rights. Children's Participation Rights – A Brief Background The debate on whether or not children should be handed participation rights has been raging since the early 1970s. It is, however, important to begin this discussion with a definition of what exactly is considered children's participation rights. Basically, the guidelines for determining children's participation rights comes from the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Children. Prior to discussing the results of the convention, though, a brief definition would be helpful in encapsulating the central idea that fuels the entire issue. Berthelsen and Brownlee (2005) wrote, “participation rights for children are enacted when there are trustful communications between adults and children which are characterised by openness and opportunities to express opinions freely; when there is involvement in joint activities that give a sense of meaning through interdependence and reciprocity; and when autonomy is afforded to children to make decisions that provide them with acknowledgement of their competence” (p.3). There are two significant parts to this definition: first, there is trustful communication and the opportunity to speak freely; second, the child's involvement does not end with free speech – children are given enough space to achieve their own decisions depending on their level of competence. Children's participation rights, therefore, are not limited to the nominal representation of a child in the room while a discussion between adults go on. Rather, it necessitates that the child be provided the opportunity not only to speak, but also to be heard and considered fairly as a valuable input in the decision-making process. The definition also provides for the respect that children deserve. In the definition, the child is to be viewed as a person equally capable of formulating viable and reasonable judgement. The concept of participation, therefore, is not limited to speech. It includes invariably the willingness of adults to accept the input of children as equally rational and worthy of consideration. Such is the central concept of participation rights for children. The issue of children's participation relies mainly on the contention that age should not be primary consideration in determining whether or not a particular person should be granted rights or not. Age is not an appropriate or reliable indicator of mental capacity, and as Kulynych (2001) points out, the capacity of adults to formulate correct and proper decisions may be overrated (p.231). In the same way, a child's capacity for judgement may be underrated and underestimated by adults who assume that age is a proper indicator of capability. Supporters of children's participation rights often formulate platforms for this advocacy on this concept of overrated adult mental ability. There have, however, been considerable criticisms against the advocacy for children's participation rights. The main arguments against children's participation rights are largely tied to the concept that children lack the fundamental ability to plan in the long-term and avoid harm (Kulynych 2001 p.231). The issue, mainly, is that those who disapprove of children's participation rights believe children incapable of formulating the correct decisions with the common sense that adults already possessed. As discussed earlier, however, age is not necessarily an accurate factor for defining whether or not a human being will be able to formulate an appropriate decision. Moreover, children do possess the necessary skills to plan and evade harm through common sense (Kulynych 2001 p.231). Based on the UN Convention on the Rights of Children, Berthelsen and Brownlee (2005) quote Shier's hierarchical model to explain the primary areas of change and adult-child interaction guidelines. The model explicitly notes that, “children are listened to; children are supported to express their views; children’s views are taken into account; children are involved in decision-making processes; children share power,” (p.3). Again, it reiterates the definition of children's participation rights that gives children not only the right to be heard, but the right to be taken seriously. It is not enough that the model end at a child's ability to speak up and be heard; it necessitates that the opinion of the child be counted and taken into consideration without derision or underestimation. A primary hindrance to this model, however, is the penchant of adults to fall into the stereotype trap. As Berthelsen and Brownlee (2005) note, western models have influenced the manner by which adults view children, particularly with regards to their abilities based on their age (p.4). Such concept, however, only worsens the adult disbelief and lack of trust in a child's capacity for decision-making or, at the very least, opinion-making. As such, gradual erosion of the stereotypes is necessary if the actual implementation of Shier's hierarchical model of children's participation rights is to take place. Moreover, there are fears that the ratification of laws for children's participation rights will pave the way for the erosion of adult “authority” over children. It assumes that handing children more rights is tantamount to handing them power and control equal to or over their parents and other adults (Smith 2007 p.1). This mentality, however, is entirely different from the intentions of the Convention. Rather, the introduction of children's participation rights intends to give the same amount of respect for both parents and children, extending human rights protection to all human beings regardless of age. Giving children more say in their personal and developmental affairs, therefore, does not erode the parents' authority; rather, it provides them with better platform for dialogue and communication. Effects of Children's Participation Rights on Early Childhood Education Recently, New Zealand implemented a very positive model of ingraining children's participation rights as a crucial area of the curriculum. The model, introduced by Te Whariki, children are viewed as individuals who are capable of determining their own means of education and learning. Rather than focus on the acquisition of skills and knowledge as the core curriculum of education, Whariki suggested that the children be allowed to explore and at the same time take more initiative and responsibility in learning (Smith 2007 p.1). The model shows how children interact, plan, challenge and learn from the environment they are in. The child's emotions are central to Whariki's concept. Moreover, giving the child more power over his learning empowers him or her. Giving them more opportunities to speak up and participate in the direction of their learning makes them more powerful and competent students. Also, “such an approach orients children to learning goals which involve mastery, persistence and striving towards increasing competence, rather than to performance goals oriented towards gaining favourable judgements and avoiding failure” (Smith 2007 p.1). This gives children the ability to sufficiently strike a path of their own that allows them to learn without becoming rote and bored in studies. Education in this format allows children to learn on their own, utilizing the innate curiosity and harnessing it towards a more natural and positive form of learning. The question now, of course, is what role a teacher would play in such a format? The teacher still retains a significant role, because there is no denying that children require guidance. The current model, however, lets the teacher play the role of imposer, with all the authority and power in a classroom. It is the teacher that decides on the direction of the class, based on a pre-approved curriculum. With Whariki's model, however, the teacher responds rather than imposes. The child will make mistakes – it is part of learning – and the teacher will serve as the guiding voice that may or may not be the source of the child's enlightenment. Teachers are guides – not masters – and provide the necessary feedback whenever the children need guidance and supervision (Smith 2007 p.1). Moreover, children also learn in a manner more subtle than most would notice. Child care workers noticed that children could easily identify the values and boundaries in each setting, thereby assessing on their own the limits and guidelines that govern their actions depending on the environment. They are also able to easily ascertain the behaviour they must exhibit, again, based on the situation or environment they find themselves in. This inevitably allows them self-control and governance without any external pressure through rewards or punishment (Berthelsen and Brownlee 2005 p.8). In short, the child's natural sense of play and curiosity become the platform for learning. As seen in this model, the concept of children's participation rights does not mean that the child gains authority over the adult. Rather, the adult remains a significant character in development, only this time the child is also given enough leeway to develop on his own, without so much imposition from the adult that could only result in unnecessary disenchantment with learning and the educational system. As such, it empowers the child to demonstrate more of his own desires and abilities without undermining the authority of the adult as an effective guide and teacher. Implementation of Children's Participation Rights Having discussed the significance of children's participation rights as a part of the curriculum for early childhood education, how then would be the best means to implement children's rights? The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Children requires that signatories enact changes in their internal laws that are in any way related to children. Australia has accepted the agreement, and would now, of course, have to find means to enact the contents of the Convention. Interpretation, however, has made this concept quite a difficulty to implement in a manner acceptable to all. The question of how the UN Convention's contents can best be transformed into reality remains a debatable area that requires further study. In some cases, the question of what constitutes “best interest” is the most complicated of all. In Australia, for example, the concept of “best interest” is the single most powerful concept used to force aborigines to give up their children to welfare. Under the mentality of the government, assuming responsibility for this children through separating them from their families is in their best interest. For the aborigines, of course, separating children from parents is not quite as good as the government makes it out to be. What Nyland (1999) suggests is that if children are given more participatory rights to decide on what they view is in their best interest, it would be possible to formulate a solution more equal and acceptable to all parties (p.9). Given the confusion that application of the Convention's contents has caused, various parties in Australia are now considering the best way to give children a chance to speak up and be heard. The website of Early Childhood Australia (2007) provides several crucial strategies that can be utilized in enacting the concepts included in the UN Convention of the Rights of Children. First of all, require an assessment of the practitioner or teacher who will be interacting with the children. This means that the person to be conducting the classes and facilitating the children's learning process will also have to undergo scrutiny, in order to ensure that his or her abilities, communication skills and temperament match those of the children to be taught. Only then can the rapport between teacher and student be achieved successfully. Also, the Early Childhood Australia suggests that a guardian specializing on children be present whenever the parents or family members cannot attend. This guardian is to be an advocate in support of the child and well-versed with the child's temperament, abilities and needs. Apart from this, the family culture must also be taken into consideration when dealing with the child. Always consider the child's background prior to any assessment, as the family culture and environment would inevitably influence the child's personality and actions. Taking the family into consideration would undoubtedly provide greater insight into the child's actions and behaviour. The manner of speaking to the child also plays a very significant role. The teacher or educator must keep in mind that each child has a different manner of processing and recalling information. As such, questions and the general tone of speech must be taken into consideration and planned well ahead depending on the characteristics of the child. Patience is required, as children recall events and matters in a manner different from adults. As such, the teacher must be a person able to handle the unique ways of each child without losing patience. The environment is also to be taken into consideration, in order to encourage the child to speak up and voice out his or her own opinions (Early Childhood Australia 2007). Conclusion In short, it will be more troublesome and much planning will be required, but it is the best way to deal with children and empower them as participants of the learning process. Though it may take much time, in truth, the results in the long run will be much more positive for all involved. The concept of children's participation rights does not focus on giving children authority over their parents or other adults. This study does not deny the importance of adults in shaping the minds and attitudes of children. However, such a mentality is a misconception and grossly misunderstands the concept of children's participation rights. The application of the Convention does not require that the adults bow before the children; it merely asks for equal respect for children and their opinions. Children are often underestimated because of Western stereotypes that make them the weak and frail. They are commonly viewed as incapable of fending for themselves or learning on their own. But as Whariki's model showed, education is natural for children. They are naturally curious, and playing up this aspect makes learning enjoyable and much more useful for them. Rather than focus on prescribed curriculum, it is better to have children decide their own paths and learn new things through their experiments, experiences and mistakes. Bibliography Alderson,P (2000). “Children's and babies rights and the UN Convention on the rights of the child 1989”. In Young Children's Rights: Exploring Beliefs, Principles and Practice. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers Benporath, S.R. (2003). “Autonomy and vulnerability: On just relations between adults and children”. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 37, no.1, 127-145 Berthelsen, D & Brownlee, J (2005). “Respecting Children's Agency for Learning and Rights to Participation in Child Care Programs”, [Electronic Version]. International Journal of Early Childhood. Retrieved 16 May 2007 from: http://eprints.qut.edu.au/archive/00001247/01/1247.pdf Early Childhood Australia, Inc. (2007). “Guidelines for Consulting With Young Children”. Early Childhood Australia website. Retrieved 31 March 2007 from: http://www.earlychildhoodaustralia.org.au/position_statements/guidelines_for_consult ing_with_young_children.html Hart, S.N. and Pavlovic, Z (1991). “Children's Rights in Education: An Historical Perspective”. School Psychology Review, 20, no.3 Jans, M (2004). “Children as Citizens: Towards a Contemporary Notion of Child Participation”. Childhood, 11, no. 1, 27-44 Kulynych, J (2001). “No Playing in the Public Sphere: Democratic Theory and the Exclusion of Children”. Social Theory and Practice, 27, no.2, 231 Nyland, B (1999). “The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child: Using a Concept of Right as a Basis of Practice”. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 24, no.1, 9 Smith, A (2007). “Children's Rights and Early Childhood Education: Links to Theory and Advocacy”. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 32, no.3, 1 United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF). “The Convention on the Rights of a Child: Participation Rights – Having an Active Voice”. United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF)Web Site. Retrieved 31 March 2007 from http://www.unicef.org/crc/files/Participation.pdf Read More