NN39, October 2007
Best Practice in Education and Training: Hype or Hope?
Child-Friendly Schools As ?Best Practice?
By Sheldon Shaeffer, UNESCO, Bangkok
Keywords?Child-friendly schools?, Best practice
Summary
This article describes child-friendly schools ? a school model easily adapted to different contexts, that is, first of all, inclusive of all children.
----
In the mid-1990s a number of agencies located in Bangkok, including the UNICEF Regional Bureau for Education and the Save the Children Alliance, started working on what a school based on the (until then) rather abstract notions of the Convention on the Rights of the Child would look like. Knowing that a programme focused on ?rights-based schools? might make some countries of the region a bit allergic, the name of ?child-friendly schools? (CFS) came into being. Eventually, through many discussions, workshops, iterations, and pilot projects, the concept of the CFS became clearer and now, in one form or another, is being implemented in (at last count) over 40 countries around the world - in Asia, among other countries, in Cambodia, Thailand, Mongolia, China, Indonesia, and the Philippines.
A child-friendly school is, as one might expect, a child-centred school. But it is also child-seeking, actively looking for children not in school - girls, the poor, those with disabilities or who speak a different language - instead of being satisfied with those who knock on the school door and trying to develop a programme that will keep each of them in school. The basic definition of a CFS, adapted easily to different contexts, is a school that is, first of all, inclusive of all children. It therefore does not exclude, discriminate against, or stereotype on the basis of difference; provides education that is free and compulsory, affordable and accessible, especially to families and children at risk; respects and welcomes diversity and ensures equality of opportunity for all children and responds to diversity as an opportunity and a resource (not as a problem or a mere factor of inequality) and meets the differing needs of children. It is also academically effective with children (usually where definitions of ?quality? education stop), healthy and protective of children (both physically and psycho-socially), gender-sensitive, and encouraging of the participation of children, their parents, and the larger community.
I think this is a ?best?, or at least a ?good? practice in educational development, and largely unpublished evaluations have demonstrated this status. It is a comprehensive yet operational programme, tackling school improvement from a broad range of variables, of the learner, the school, and the larger community. It is adaptable to different contexts, can start from different entry points, and can be added on to - and help to enrich - existing programmes; it can begin, for example, from a school health programme, a programme promoting community participation in the school, or a gender equality project. By focusing on school- and community-based diagnoses of the current state of ?friendliness? and subsequent planning for greater school improvement, it fits well with the general trend toward decentralisation and school-based management in the region. It has also led to the development of various indicators and criteria for each of the components and to tools such as readiness assessments and checklists for monitoring progress towards child-friendliness, which have proven useful in other school improvement projects. And it has been made part of national/EFA education plans in many countries of the world.
Several challenges remain, of course. How to make sure that reaching child-friendliness is considered a process rather than a product - in other words, a never completed process rather than just a label? As with other major innovations, how to ensure that a CFS innovation moves from a project basis, funded by UNICEF or UNESCO, to a programme firmly embedded in national plans and budgets? And despite its apparent simplicity, it is basically about fundamental change in how schools and education systems operate and how people behave. How to ensure, therefore, that continual learning and change, both institutional and individual, take place and that the necessary consolidation and institutionalisation of the innovation (e.g., in pre-service teacher training) occur.
References
"Child Friendly Schools in East Asia and the Pacific: How friendly can they
be?" Joint UNICEF EAPRO & UNESCO Bangkok publication, May 2004
"Assessing Child Friendly Schools: A Guide for Programme Managers in East
Asia and the Pacific." UNICEF EAPRO publication, 2006.
Back to full contents of NORRAG NEWS 39.
Download the full issue of NORRAG NEWS 39 in pdf.