I spent a significant part of yesterday afternoon attempting, with somewhat limited success, to engage a group of undergraduate students in a debate about the capabilities of children. I say with limited success, though of course it is always difficult to know what individuals are thinking and I should not presume that a reluctance to actively participate on the part of some students meant that they were not contemplating the issues at hand. Nonetheless, I suspect that some of the concepts related to notions of capability were seen as quite challenging to a few of my young audience. This is not really surprising as it may be seen as a form of abstraction that has challenged academics and policy makers over many years.
The source of the intended debate was Article 12 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. This important document, which first saw the light of day in 1989, has provided the foundation of much of the work conducted by activists and researchers, who have been concerned to work for improvements in the educational and social conditions of children in the years since its publication. In yesterday’s session with undergraduates I was particularly concerned to examine the ways in which the conditions of children from vulnerable groups have changed in recent years, and how their own potential roles as advocates for children could make a positive contribution in this area. I was also keen to stress the important role that children can play as self-advocates, particularly when supported by the kind of empathetic professionals that I hope this group of undergraduates might become.
Article 12 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child states that:
Parties shall assure to the child who is capable if forming his or her own views the right to express those views freely in all matters affecting the child, the views of the child being given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child.
As with every article from the convention this clause is designed to afford protection to children and to ensure that due consideration is given to their opinions and desires. In that sense, it is hard to fault the intentions of the statement. However, it is the expression “who is capable” buried within the article that I wanted to discuss in more detail with yesterday’s group of students.
Whilst Article 12 undoubtedly has noble intentions, and it is quite right that the age and maturity of a child should be taken into consideration when involving children in decision making, I have concerns that in some instances the lack of a clear definition of “capability” could be the source of some difficulty. The questions that I raised in yesterday’s session, and indeed have discussed on many occasions with colleagues working in the area of inclusive education, were those such as; who assesses the capabilities of a child, and are there dangers that a child who has been given a label such as autistic spectrum disorder, may never be regarded as capable? Is there a possibility that the notion of capability could be used as a method of control, with assumptions that certain members of the population, who happen to have been given a specific diagnosis, could not possibly be capable of making their own choices or decisions?
Blanket misguided assessments have been made about groups of people throughout history, simply on the basis of their shared characteristics. At one time women were denied opportunities to vote because it was assumed that they were not able to understand the highbrow issues of politics, they were similarly denied opportunities to train as doctors or hold positions of high office in certain professions. These discriminatory views have, quite rightly been challenged and laws changed to ensure greater equality of opportunity. In the past, terms like “ineducable” were applied to many children who had learning difficulties and in some circumstances they were locked away from society, supposedly for their own good. In these examples it is apparent that those in positions of authority failed to recognise the competence of individuals and their capabilities in respect of making decisions affecting their lives.
It is certainly true that all of us are likely to have limited capabilities in respect of some aspects of our lives, and in such situations we may well be dependent upon the expertise of others when it comes to making decisions. But most of the time we are treated with respect, encouraged to assert our independence and to express our opinions in relation to matters that affect us. When we are not afforded this level of respect, we quite rightly feel affronted or patronised and may well rebel against those who we see as denying our rights.
It must therefore be of concern that in an effort to discuss the capabilities of children, as was the situation yesterday, we often find that in describing individuals it is easier to talk about what they can’t do rather than to emphasise what they can. Asked to consider how children might be encouraged to engage in making decisions about their education or care, the responses from yesterday’s participants often began with a description of the child’s difficulties or perceived deficits. It appears to be easier to see obstacles than to consider the ways in which these may be overcome.
I am a great supporter of UNICEF and in particular the campaigns that they have initiated to ensure that the rights of children are recognised and upheld. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child has been in place now for twenty six years and has had a significant impact upon the development of both international initiatives and national policies. However, a failure to fully debate the nature of capability continues to provide a plausible exclusion clause for those who for a variety of reasons would prefer not to consult children about their needs and wishes. So long as this remains the case I appear destined to try to deconstruct notions of capability – even with the occasional group of recalcitrant students!