Assessment frameworks (Department of health 2000) follow an ecological model in order to access the child’s needs and welfare holistically, taking into consideration the ecological context where they live. Bradshaw (2008) as cited in O’Dell and Leverett (2011) described a multidimensional understanding of wellbeing using eight headings, this approach was used by UNICEF who reported in their findings that the UK ranked as one having the lowest level of wellbeing in children ( UNICEF, 2007).
Poverty is another of the lenses through which the wellbeing of children can be viewed and services shaped (Axford, 2008) .Poverty is viewed to have a negative impact on a child’s wellbeing and development in the key aspects of their lives. Research by Feinstein (K218, Learning Guide 3, Section 3.2) demonstrates how difference in family backgrounds affects educational attainment. The research of Feinstein (2003a) analysed how high or low economic status affects children’s educational progress across time. The research shows that if you are from a higher income family, even if you start with a lower level of educational ability you are likely to catch up and do well. However if you are from a lower income family and start out well, you will not do as well as someone from a higher income family. As Baker (2009) pointed out ‘The children from affluent families who started out in the bottom ability group overtake those from the poorest backgrounds who started out in the top ability group. They overtake them around about the age of 6 or 7.’ This shows how poverty and inequality puts lower income families at a disadvantage within education.
Although Feinstein’s work has been influential and beneficial in early intervention programs targeting communities with a large proportion of low economic status, families who live in affluent communities may miss out. The Higher Standards, Better Schools for All white paper highlighted that ‘a child’s educational achievements are still too strongly linked to their parents’ social and economic background – a key barrier to social mobility’ (Department for Education and Skills, 2005, ).
Lesley Finnegan talks about a community called chickenley where families face financial challenges of low wages and poverty. Lesley’s account is a positive one. Her perspective is that child development and wellbeing are linked to parental involvement and not solely to a family’s financial challenges and poverty. We hear Lesley say “There are families who live on the estate that make fantastic provision for their children and really want their children to succeed” (K218, Learning Guide 3, Audio 3.1). Lesley explained that a trust built up between the school and the parent, therefore enabling the parents to feel able to express their concerns and struggles they may be facing at home. This then allowed strategies to be put into place to support parents with their children.
The impacts poverty has on children are on an individual level, a family level, society level and community level. Fensteins research demonstrated the educational impact poverty has on children’s development. Social exclusion can also be a result of poverty and have negative effects on a child’s wellbeing, “Social exclusion is a complex ad multi-dimensional process. It involves the lack or denial of resources, rights, goods and services” ( Levitas et al.,2007, p 25) Social exclusion often links to bullying and fitting in, we heard the views of children “ If you don’t wear the right stuff you’re like different and that of the crowd,(Carrie, 15) (Ridge 2002, p.67). The impact of the influences of commercialization of childhood are clearly shown by the child that is quoted above, this evidence tells us that identity and wellbeing are being compromised “Consumption of clothes and other commodities are key to self-image ,gender identity and negotiating, social positions and friendships ( Russell and Tyler, 2002; Croghan et al.,2006; Pole et al.,2006).
Therefore, recognition of the link a child’s wellbeing has to poverty, social exclusion and educational attainment is important in the improvement of the ecological practice used by multi agency practitioners to improve wellbeing. Community issues such as disadvantage can be discussed with families engaging them in co-ordination with tackling the problems. The FAST programme in a deprived area of Liverpool (K218, Learning Guide 2, Section 2.3), demonstrated how effective working with parents using empathy and interpersonal skill can be. Lynn Macdonald explains how the programme relies on the parents feeling comfortable in the school environment, it would be unlikely for the programme to be as effective if there were barriers between the parents and multi agency practitioners involved stemming from stereotypical and judgmental views. Lynn macdonald states the importance of voluntary parental involvement in promoting wellbeing. She places importance on getting the parents to turn up at the first meeting she states the person approaching the parents “should look like you, and should be from your background” ( K218, Learning Guide 2, Video.1) .
Research on school bullying suggests the negative effects it has on a child’s wellbeing, poor educational attainment addressed by Feinsteins research, antisocial behavior, truancy, low self esteem and depression are just but a few. The behavioral ecological model (Dresler Hawke and Whitehead 2009) can be used as a framework to promote wellbeing by reducing and preventing bullying.
To conclude, the social ecological model looks at the web of relationships surrounding a child, providing practitioners with a framework with which to understand the micro and macro influences of their lives. Therefore giving practitioners the knowledge and insight to assess need. The knowledge enhances a practitioners understanding of the challenges facing the child at its center. In addition, the realities of the implications of practice and to know when to intervene and when services or policies may be of help in promoting wellbeing. The social ecological perspective demonstrates that Issues relating to poverty impact on a child’s development and wellbeing. However, it is possible to offset negative impacts by wider social ecology such as consistent relationships, social capital and networks of support, these limitations need consideration and critical understanding in order to use the social ecological perspective to its full advantage during practice. Changing society and diversity challenge the social ecological model and its strengths and weaknesses and so a broad view of the socio-economic circumstances affecting a child’s wellbeing relating to poverty needs critical analysis to promote wellbeing.
Word Count : 1487
References.
Axford (2008) Working with Children, Young People and Families: Co-constructing Practice, Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan/Milton Keynes, The Open University.
Bradshaw (2008) Wellbeing and the ecology of children's lives. In: O'Dell, L. and Leverett, S. Working With Children And Young People Co-constructing Practice. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan. P 14.
Department for Education and Skills (2005) Higher Standards, Better Schools for All: More choice for Parents and Pupils, Cm. 6677, London, The Stationery Office.
Department of Health, Department for Education and Employment, and Home Office (2000) Framework for the Assessment of Children in Need and their Families, London, The Stationery Office.
Dresler-Hawke, E., & Whitehead, D (2009) The behavioral ecological model as a framework for school based anti-bullying health promotion interventions, K218 Readings, Milton Keynes, The Open University.
Levitas et al, 2007. Wellbeing and the ecology of children's lives. In: O'Dell, L. and Leverett, S. Working With Children And Young People Co-constructing Practice. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan. P 15
O’Dell, L and Leverett, S. (eds) (2011) Working with Children, Young People and Families: Co-constructing Practice, Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan/Milton Keynes, The Open University.
Ridge 2002. Wellbeing and the ecology of children's lives. In: O'Dell, L. and Leverett, S. Working With Children And Young People Co-constructing Practice. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan. P 17
Russell. Tyler 2002. Wellbeing and the ecology of children's lives. In: O'Dell, L. and Leverett, S. Working With Children And Young People Co-constructing Practice. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan. P 19
The Open University (2012) Working with children, young people and families, Learning Guide 2, ‘A view from practice’ Audio 3.1, The Open University, http://learn.open.ac.uk /mod/oucontent / view.php?id=50729&direct =1 ( accessed 26 October 2012)
The Open University (2012) K218 Working with Children, Young People and Families, Learning Guide 3 ‘A Web of Relationships’, , The Open University, [Accessed 19 October 2012] in text is (K218, Learning guide 3, section 3.2)
The Open University (2012) K218 Working with Children, Young People and Families, Learning Guide 2 ‘Themes in practice’, , The Open University, [Accessed 19 October 2012] in text is (K218, Learning guide 2, section 2.3)
The Open University (2012) K218 Working with Children, Young People and Families, Learning Guide ‘Themes in practice’ Video 2.1, , The Open University, [Accessed 19 October 2012] in text is (K218, Learning guide 2, section 2.3)
UNICEF (2007) Child Poverty in Perspective: An Overview of Child Well-being in Rich Countries, Innocenti Report Card 7, Florence, UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre, . [Accessed 18 Oct 2012].
by
harrithomaslivecouk (student)
