Children
in Scotland web page review.
The web page I have chosen to
critically evaluate is the Children in Scotland web page. It is a network of
more than 450 voluntary, statutory and professional organisations and
individuals working with children, young people and their families in Scotland.
Children in Scotland is a
national agency that works with and on behalf of its members, acting as an
intermediary to facilitate engagement, partnership, learning and communication
with and between policy makers, practitioners and children and families,
underpinned by the principles of Getting It Right For Every Child (GIRFEC).
Children in Scotland are
involved in numerous projects, for example: work with Supporting the United
Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child; a Life Skills project that
involves educating young people to support their transition into work. A lot of
projects are summarised only briefly. However, a contact e-mail is given if someone
would like to receive further information on any of the projects. Children in
Scotland also publishes a monthly subscription magazine, providing news and
analysis on legislation, policies, research and highlighting practice with
children.
Controversially, there is a
fee for becoming a member of Children in Scotland group and to subscribe to the
magazine. The fee for membership is paid on an annual basis and the price
varies depending on salary and position. The membership entitles affiliates to discounts
on training, events and publications, invitations to events and access to
briefings and reports. I appreciate that funds may be required but the fees are
expensive and may make the membership a rather exclusive environment and
alienate those who cannot afford to join. It is surprising that this agency
that advocates networking and collaborative partnerships with parents, families
and concerned professionals would introduce such a barrier. How can this then
include “Every Child” as GIRFEC proposes?
I find the site is very
informative and professional, but again have concerns about the terminology and
formatting of the website. I would not perceive it to be accessible to all,
particularly children who it is supposed to be representing. For example
“strategic priorities” is used instead of “aims” and a lot of this terminology
is used throughout the site. Punch warns
against using the patronising term “child-friendly” and suggests terms like
“research-friendly” or “person-friendly” are more appropriate and adults and
parents might benefit from this approach also as it is more inclusive (2002,
p337). This approach would make the site accessible
for all.
Furthermore, new sociological
approaches to childhood suggest that rather than viewing children as future
adults in the making we should focus upon children's lives, perceptions and
activities. This entails a shift away from the idea of a child as 'becoming' an
adult to the 'being child', conceptualised as an active social agent (Harden,
Scott et al. 2000, p1-18). I feel the involvement and the voice of
children and the child as “an active social agent” on this website needs to be
emphasised. It declares itself as “the Uniting voice in the children’s sector”
but not one child’s opinion or thoughts are acknowledged on the site. I’m sure
there is plenty of evidence of this in the research but it is not evident from
the website.
The website is very
informative, clear in its aims and objectives but requires more input and
presence from children’s varied perspectives. If it was to become more
“person-friendly” it would be more available to others and a review of their
subscriptions also needs to be considered to allow the involvement of a more
diverse and holistic community and societal voice.
References:
HARDEN, J., SCOTT, S., BACKETT-MILBURN, K. and JACKSON, S., 2000. Can't talk, won't talk? Methodological Issues in Researching Children.
PUNCH, S., 2002. Research with Children: The same or different from research with adults? Childhood, 9(3), pp. 321-341.
