Best Practice in Education and Training:

Hype or Hope?

Child-Friendly Schools As "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largely unpublished evaluations have demonstrated this status.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.