19
Identity and work *
domains of child care     *
Identiteta in delovna
področja otroškega ^     ^
skrbstva
John R. Hudson
Povzetek
V Veliki Britaniji ni poklica vzgojitelja (child care) ali soci-
alnega pedagoga. F drugi polovici tega stoletja pa so se
začeli delavci na področju skrbi za otroke poimenovati za
delavce otroškega skrbstva, dokler jih niso vse uvrstili pod
naziv "socialni delavci". Kljub temu pa za večino socialnih
delavcev obstaja samo eno delovno področje - zaščita otrok,
medtem ko so tisti, ki delujejo za podporo družinam, v vzgo-
ji otrok ali v razvoju skupnosti, bolj ali manj spregledani.
Moje stališče je, da delovno področje otroškega skrbstva
zajema: zaščito otrok, razvijanje in rehabilitacijo otrok ter
podporo družinam in skupnosti. Identiteta, ki jo razvijajo
delavci na tem področju, bo v vsaki državi odražala kul-
turne in zgodovinske značilnosti te države. Vprispevku pre-
gledujem zgodovinske značilnosti in korenine razvoja te-
ga delovnega področja v Veliki Britaniji od 18. stoletja na-
prej. Zgodovinska analiza pripelje do treh spoznanj: l.da
se identiteta in delovna področja delavcev v otroškem skrb-
JohriR. Hudson,
Secretary,
Caringfor
Children,
ИСЕ-Ш
ч
20
SOCIALNA     PEDAGOGIKA
stvu s časom očitno spreminjajo; 2. da se (državna) politi-
ka in (strokovna) praksa ne spreminjata hkrati - dejansko
si včasih nasprotujeta; in 3. da se skrbniško/vzgojno delo z
otroci vedno dogaja v protislovnih kontekstih, za katere je
velikokrat značilno, da oblike dela z otroci odražajo v pre-
teklost obrnjene ideje prejšnje generacije. Delovno področ-
je otroškega skrbstva mora prispevati k temu, do bo otroci
lahko "živeli neodvisno življenje v družbi". Potrebujemo ta-
ko dejavnost, ki bo vodila k ustreznemu ravnovesju med
"neodvisnim življenjem" in življenjem "v družbi".
Ključne besede: otroško skrbstvo, zgodovina otroškega
skrbstva, politika otroškega skrbstva
Abstract Ï
There is no child care or social pedagogue profession in the
UK. A hundred years ago a group of child care workers
associated with institutions for children formed a professi-
onal association and they were encouraged to regard them-
selves as "educators". But, in 1948, a new term was intro-
duced and, for twenty years, child care workers were enco-
uraged to see themselves as 'child care officers' until they
were all brought under the title 'social workers'. My view
is that the work domains of child care are child protection,
child development including rehabilitation, family support
and community support and that the identity which child
care workers develop in a particular country is a reflection
of the cultural and historical situation ofthat country. A
historical analysis shows that, firstly, the identity and work
domains of child care workers fiuctuate over time, secondly,
policy and practice do not go hand in hand; and thirdly,
perhaps child care is always practised in contradictory en-
vironments. The work domains of child care must all con-
tribute to enabling children 'to live an independent life in
society'. We need child care that leads to a genuine balance
between 'an independent life' and living 'in society'.
Key words: child care work, child care history, child care
policy
SOCIALNA     PEDAGOGIKA
2Г
Introduction
My view is that the work domains of child care are child protection,
child development including rehabilitation, family support and commu-
nity support and that the identity which child care workers develop in a
particular country is a reflection of the cultural and historical situation of
that country. 1 have used the Enghsh term 'child care' in preference to
the European term 'social pedagogy' because it is better understood in
English speaking countries. 'Child care' is not a perfect translation of 'so-
cial pedagogy' but it is close enough for the purposes of this paper.
I also beheve that the shift from largely informal arrangements for child
protection, child care and the support of children and young people which
characterise most rural economies to the more formal arrangements wit-
hin which a child care or social pedagogic profession can be located is a
function of urbanisation. The way in which urbanisation has taken place
will affect the identity of child care workers or social pedagogues.
It therefore follows that 1 cannot tell you what identity social pedago-
gues in Slovenia - or Croatia or Austria or Italy - should adopt. All 1 can do
is share with you my understanding of how the identity of child care wor-
kers in the UK and some other countries appears to me to have developed
and to be continuing to develop.
Child protection
The first important steps towards a child care profession in England
took place in the 18th century. There had been increases in the numbers
of children born out of wedlock and of the urban poor in London. Three
initiatives - the Thomas Coram Foundation for the care of illegitimate
children, the Marine Society which diverted juvenile offenders into the
navy and the Female Orphan Asylum which rescued young girls from
prostitution, though separate initiatives, were all the work of a group of
merchants and their friends who seem to have combined their Christian
values with a merchant's concern for the financial costs to society of not
caring for children properly (Taylor 1985). Their Christian capitalism
was soon to be overtaken by the market economics of Adam Smith and by
a political shift to the right in England as a reaction to the French revolu-
tion.
Child development
Meanwhile, Pestalozzi's was developing a rather broader theory of edu-
cation as a way of helping children from poor families to escape from
22 i
s o C I Л  L N Л     P li D A  G O G I K A
poverty. I do not know the history of Pestalozzi ideas in continental Euro-
pe but they reached England in the early part of the 19th century through
German and French influences and were taken up by the conservative
estabhshment who beheved that education would prevent poor children
from being seduced into socialism. They gained widespread favour thro-
ugh the work of Mary Carpenter who argued that education in its widest
sense - now best described using the French éducation - should underlie
all aspects of child care.
Community outreach
Mary Carpenter (Heywood 1978) had been introduced to the pUght of
poor children through the 'ragged' school movement which had been in-
vented by John Pounds, a cobbler who was fed up with children roaming
the streets and disrupting his business. AVhereas Sir Robert Peel, the Con-
servative Prime Minister, had introduced education for children already
in care, John Pounds introduced community outreach to those who were
in need in the community.
Family support
At about the same time in Scotland Sheriff Watson of Aberdeen had
developed the first family support system. Up till now it had always been
assumed - and for different reasons this view was to persist in the UK for
nearly 150 years longer - that children in need could best be cared for if
they were separated from their parents. Sheriff Watson established 'fe-
eding industrial schools' which provided education and meals during the
day for children who returned home at night and over the weekend (Seed
1975). Sheriff Watson argued strongly that you did not need to remove
children from their homes if the parents were having difficulties caring
for them. By sharing the care - providing food and education - the state
could enable children to continue to live with their families.
Though his ideas spread through Scotland, they were eventually dis-
placed by Mary Carpenter's view that, without being responsible for the
whole of a child's life, you could not provide education in its widest sense
for children in need. Seeing the problem as 'poor parenting', she argued
for a system in which child care workers took over the roles of parents
completely.
Family placement
Though she linked her ideas to the provision of residential care, it was
o C I Л I. N A     PEDA  G O G I K A
23
not difficult to transfer them to family placement in the 1880s when a
world recession created difficulties in providing state services in the UK.
This shift to seeing 'good child care' as the provision of a substitute family
for a child in need also came about through two other developments at
the end of the 19th century.
Eugenics
The Eugenics Society had become a powerful influence in Enghsh so-
cial welfare and opponents of eugenics, such as Barnardo, wanted to pro-
ve that children's problems were nothing to do with their genes and everyt-
hing to do with the environment in which they were brought up. So he
began to send children in need to the colonies where they could start a
new life. He believed that, by changing the environment in which chil-
dren were brought up, he would be able to disprove the theories of euge-
nics. Of course, this practice also saved money for the welfare services in
the UK and was therefore continued until 1967.
Child protection
At about the same time as the debates about eugenics, the National
Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children was trying to change the
law to protect children from abuse. Though there was legislation to pro-
tect children from many forms of public cruelty, the NSPCC argued that
much abuse takes place within families and out of public view. However,
there was such strong political resistance to the state intervening in fa-
mily life that the NSPCC was only able to secure its position through a
compromise deal in which it investigated 'bad' (=working class) families
but did not intervene in 'good' (=middle class) famihes (Crompton 1992).
The deal made by the NSPCC was flawed both in its class bias and also in
its assumption - an assumption still widely held by child protection wor-
kers in the UK - that it is possible positively to identify 'abusing famihes'
vsdthout direct evidence from victims.
The 20th century context
The outcome of these 19th century debates and the shift to family pla-
cement for UK policy and practice was the continuation of the view that
children in need are best separated from their parents. Adoption was
introduced in 1926 and in 1948 social workers were given the power to
assume parental rights over children already in voluntary care; these
powers were gradually extended until in 1980 social workers луеге given
24
SOCIALNA     I' li D A  G 0 G I K A
almost unchallengable powers to intervene in children's lives. The out-
cry which arose when they began to use these powers in middle class as
well as working class families led to appeals to the European Court of
Human Rights and subsequent changes in UK law in the Children Act
1989 and the Children (Scotland) Act 1995. At about the same time pres-
sure from adopted children led to a complete reversal of adoption policy
and practice with open adoption and long term contact with the family of
origin becoming seen as essential parts of any adoption process.
I have summarised the first two centuries of UK child care history be-
cause they illustrate the extent to which the work domains and the iden-
tity of child care workers can be shaped by events like the emergence of
England as a naval power, the French revolution and the 1880 world re-
cession which may at first appear to have less relevance to child care than
ideas such as éducation and eugenics.
Though the eugenics movement was largely defeated in the early part
of the century and none of the scandals about the care of people with
learning difficulties in the UK have revolved round practices such as ste-
rilisation, the movement continued to have an influence in the UK until
the 1970s both in the work of the now discredited psychologist. Sir Cyril
Burt, and in the denial of education to children with an IQ of below 50.
It is alarming that the denial of education to children with an IQ of less
than 50 lasted for sixty years and the practice of sending children in care
to placements overseas lasted even longer. It is certainly a warning that,
if we get something 'wrong' now, even our great-grandchildren may feel
its effects.
The rediscovery of family support
Throughout most of this century and while the state was gradually
increasing the powers given to social workers to intervene in children's
lives, a totally different trend was emerging largely among child care wor-
kers.
In the 1920s the residential schools which Mary Carpenter had inspi-
red seventy years earlier began to report that children did best in them
when they retained contact with their families. During the 1939-45 War
many children were evacuated from cities into the countryside and among
the many who saw the importance of family support at this time was Cla-
re Winnicott. She was an advisor to some of the hostels set up to cope
with children who had been evacuated but had created problems in the
famihes with whom they had been placed.
s o C I A  L N A     P E D A  G O G I K A
25
She went on to have a significant influence on a whole generation of
child care workers and, when I entered child care in the 1960s, those I
worked with took it for granted that you involved famihes in what was
going on in children's homes and encouraged children to maintain regu-
lar links with their own families. I was quite surprised to find later that
not everyone in child care shared our positive view of involving families
in the care of their children.
Our view has largely been supported by research over the past thirty
years (Taylor & Alport 1973, Fanshel & Shinn 1978, Millham et al. 1986,
Weiner & Weiner 1990) and the Children Act 1989, the UN Convention on
the Rights of the Child and the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 all start from
the assumption that it is best to start from a position of supporting famili-
es rather than taking children from their famihes.
The democratic trend
About a hundred years ago the first steps towards democratic child
care were being taken, as far as I am aware, at first in the USA and then in
the USSR. In the USA democratic sentiments led to the establishment of
homes like Father Flanagan's Boys Town while a completely different set
of circumstances prompted Anton Makarenko (1984) to develop an ap-
proach to care based on the group. Child care workers in England were
first introduced to these ideas in the early years of the century by Homer
Lane but they were taken up and developed by A S Nelli in the 1930s
through his school, Summerhill (Nelli 1985). Many child care workers
came under the influence of the advocates of democratic approaches to
child care and these ideas were diffused throughout many aspects of child
care and youth work in the 1950s and 60s until child care training was
merged with social work training and Freudian and behaviourist ideas
which emphasised control in child care and youth work replaced these
democratic ideals.
I came across these democratic ideals in practice in the late 1960s and
early 1970s and, as with the ideas 1 had come across about family support,
incorporated them into my practice. But, unlike family support, they ha-
ve not gained widespread acceptance in the UK. The emphasis in most
UK child care remains on control by adults rather than on the encourage-
ment of self-control and self-discipline among children.
Some reflections
Firstly, the identity and work domains of child care workers fluctuate
over time; family support appears early in the history of UK child care
26
SOCIALNA     PEDAGOGIKA
and is then pushed aside for 150 years. Child protection motivated the
pioneers of child care in London but it has only become a key issue in the
20th century. Child development and hov^ to promote it were key issues
for the advocates of éducation in the 19th century and of democratic child
care in the middle of the 20th century but child development, and in par-
ticular rehabilitation from trauma, has a very low priority in the UK at
present though the new Labour government has expressed a greater in-
terest in the prevention of disturbance and delinquency among children.
Secondly, policy and practice do not go hand in hand; family support
was increasingly becoming a part of the practice of some child care wor-
kers while government policy was continuing to strengthen the powers of
social workers to separate children from their families. Democratic pro-
cesses were being used in some areas of child care in the UK from the
1930s onwards (Millham et al. 1971a, 1971b; Critchley & Fann 1971a, 1971b;
Hague 1976) but they have never gained v^despread support or the en-
dorsement of pohcy.
Thirdly, perhaps child care is always practised in contradictory envi-
ronments. Tuggener (1989) argued that the forms of residential child
care always preserve the previous generation's ideas and that is true of
the buildings of Enghsh residential child care. When, around 1800, most
urban poor were beginning to work in factories, the Philanthropic Society
created three children's homes in which children were 'apprenticed' to
the master of the house. In the middle of the 19th century, when large
scale urbanisation was taking place, many children's homes were built to
look like the vihages which were going out of fashion.
In the middle of the 20th century, many children's homes were esta-
blished in the former homes of the middle class and staff and children
often lived a life which was closer to that of the middle classes in the
1930s. In the 1980s, when divorce rates were increasing and more young
adults were choosing to remain single than in the previous generation,
family placement was the preferred method of caring for children in need
and preventive work with children declined dramatically. Yet while child
care роИсу and some its practitioners were looking backwards, others
were looking forwards and trying to make the best of buildings and poli-
cies which were out-of-date.
Work domains
As 1 reflect on the history of child care in the UK, I can see many paral-
lels with other countries. Child protection was the first area in which
SOCIALNA     P li D A  G 0 G I K A
27
child care workers operated and the issues in London 250 years ago were
no different from those in Nairobi, Calcutta or Buenos Aires today - po-
verty, the exploitation of луотеп and juvenile offending, often due to ho-
melessness. These concerns have not been eradicated in the UK and
continue to be key issues for child care workers. So I would be very sur-
prised if they did not form at least some part of the work domains of Slo-
venian child care workers.
The adoption of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (Table 1)
has brought family support to the forefront and there are clear overlaps
between child protection and family support. As Sheriff Watson argued
over 150 years ago, you can protect children from at least some of the
consequences of poverty and poor parenting by measures which directly
alleviate the family's problems vdthout taking away the family's overall
responsibihty for the care of their children.
Table 1: The UN Convention related to work domains
28
s o CIA  L N A     P E D A  G O G I K A
NB Articles 12-17, 25-27 and 41 also set out rights which are common
to all children and to which child care workers need to pay particular
attention.
You cannot protect children from all forms of abuse by offering family
support but the balance of the evidence suggests that family support which
alleviates poverty will reduce the incidence of some forms of abuse and
that family support which enables the child to talk about abuse and seek
help in dealing with it which will not lead to the breakup of the family is
more likely to be welcomed by children.
Child development is also a key work domain for child care workers;
by child development 1 mean éducation, éducation specialise and rehabili-
tation; we have, in the UK, forgotten the importance of child develop-
ment and the truth of Hilary Clinton's famous phrase 'It takes a village to
raise a child'. We have also, in the rush to protect children from abusing
families forgotten what the 18th pioneers knew, that you must give chil-
dren the space and opportunities to recover from abuse. Removing them
from an abusing situation is not enough on its own.
This leads me into community support; current political ideology on
both the right and the left in the UK has led to a stressing of parental
responsibility as set out in the UN Convention and an ignoring of the sta-
tes parties's responsibilities to support famihes in carrying out those re-
sponsibilities. Both academics and professionals in the UK have also igno-
red the impact of peer groups on child development and rehabilitation
(Hudson 1996).
Peer groups are important from the pre-school years and right thro-
ugh the school years since at least half the socialisation of children comes
not from their parents and other adults but from the schools and the com-
munities to which they belong. Peers can also, as the pioneers of demo-
cratic child care recognised, make a significant contribution to the reha-
s o C I Л L N A     P Ji DAGO G I K A
29
bilitation of children who have been abused. The current fashion in the
UK for adult-oriented forms of therapy will only ever meet some chil-
dren's needs because our well-being as individuals is dependent not only
on the adults in our lives but also on the contributions our peers make to
our well-being.
Support for those in the community who share in the task of bringing
children up has been reduced in the UK over the past 20 years. Yet if
schools, youth and community groups do not receive support then, like
families, they often find themselves unable to care for certain children
and the difficulties created by those children then rebound on others.
In the end, the work domains of child care must all contribute to ena-
bling children 4o live an independent life in society' (Preamble to the UN
Convention on the Rights of the Child). Child care which encourages indi-
vidualistic independence will destroy society; child care which elevates
society above the needs of the individual will destroy the individuals who
form that society. We need child care that leads to a genuine balance
between 'an independent life' and living 4n society'.
Identity
There is no child care or social pedagogue profession in the UK. A
hundred years ago a group of child care workers associated with institu-
tions for children formed a professional association and they were enco-
uraged to regard themselves as 'educators'. But, in 1948, a new term was
introduced and, for twenty years, child care workers were encouraged to
see themselves as 'child care officers' until they were all brought under
the title 'social workers'.
However, for most social workers, there is only one work domain -
child protection - and child care workers who are involved in family sup-
port, child development or community development are largely ignored.
They find themselves employed to work alongside and at the same time
caught between three professions - social workers who are largely con-
cerned with child protection, teachers who are largely concerned with
classroom education rather than éducation and nurses who may be invol-
ved in the upbringing of children with disabilities or those with mental
health problems.
But, it is never satisfactory to define yourself by what you are not. Our
identity comes partly from what we believe we are and partly from our
relationships with others. The challenge in the UK is to find a definition
of child care worker or social pedagogue which states positively what
30.
s o C I Л L N A     í> E I) A  G O G 1 K A
child care workers do and which enables them to establish relationships
with other professionals and with the government which are as positive
as the relationships many have been able to establish with the families of
the children with whom they work.
Looking at continental Europe, it is clear that the terms 'sozialpäda-
gog' or 'éducateur social' do not carry the same meanings in every coun-
try. In some the term means something quite close to the English 'youth
and community worker'; in others the term is more associated with insti-
tutional care for children; in others it means something closer to the
English 'child care worker'.
I am, however, reasonably certain that, whatever žsocial pedagogue
comes to mean in Slovenian, it will only represent a firm identity if it
encompasses both an inner conviction among social pedagogues about
the value of the work they do and an external recognition of that work
through their relationships with others.
Bibliography
Critchley, A. & Fann, B. (1971a), Group work with adolescent girls.
Child in Care, 11, 5, pp. 17-23.
Critchley, A. & Fann, B. (1971b), Group work with adolescent girls.
Child in Care, 11, 6, pp. 11-14.
Crompton, 1. (1992), Child Sexual Abuse: Politics, Ideology and Social
Work Practice. Surbiton, SCA (Education).
Fanshel, D. & Shinn, E. B. (1978), Children in Foster Care -A Longitu-
dinal Study. New York: Columbia UP.
Hague, G. (1976), Struggling to build a shared responsibility system.
Residential Social Work, 16, 8, pp. 207-213.
Heywood, J. (1978), Children in Care (3rd Ed.). London: Routledge &
Regan Paul.
Hudson, J. R. (1996), Peer groups; a neglected resource. Paper delive-
red at the International Conference Realities and Dreams, Glasgow, 4-6
September.
Makarenko, A. (1984), The Road to Life. Moscow/London: Progress/
Central Books.
Millham, S., Bullock, R. & Cherrett, P. (1971a), Co-education in appro-
ved schools. Child in Care, 11, 3, pp. 18-28.
Millham, S., Bullock, R. & Cherrett, P. (1971b), Co-education in appro-
ved schools. Child in Care, 11, 4, pp. 20-37.
SOCIALNA     PEDAGOGIKA
31
Millham, S., Bullock, R., Hosie, K. & Haak, M. (1986), Lost in Care.
Aldershot: Gower.
Nelli, A. S. (1985), Summerhill. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Seed, P. (1973), Should any child be placed in care? The forgotten
great debate 1841-1874. British Journal of Social Work, 3, 3, pp. 321-330.
Taylor, D. A. & Alport, S. W. (1973), Continuity and Support. New York:
Child Welfare League of America.
Taylor, J. S. (1985), Jonas Hanway London: Scolar.
Tuggener, H. (1989), Familie - Famihenpflege - Heimerziehung: Be-
merkungen zu einem zeitweise schwierigen Verhältnis in Hoettenmoser
M & Baumgarten H H (Eds) Privat geboren fuer oefentliches Leben. Zu-
erich: FICE Publications.
Weiner, A. & Weiner, E. (1990), Expanding the Options in Child Place-
ment. London: University Press of America.