and reach thousands of daily visitors
25 OCTOBER 2010
NO 1645
A common profession?
In earlier columns, we described the fragmentation among primary developmental / care subfields. We also pointed out the commonalities of function and content that actually exist across settings, age groups and diagnostic categories (e.g., Child Life, Early Childhood Education, Child and Youth Care Work, Youth Development, Street Work and the like). In other words, people in specific settings, working with specific ages and types of children, are using the same knowledge and skills to do the same thing, often unbeknownst to others outside that particular narrow band of focus.
We promised to address this situation further in a future column. This is it. We will consider what we mean by fragmentation, the price we pay for letting it go on and what we might do about it.
What do we mean by fragmentation? We mean new fields that plan a professionalization and development effort without checking in with people who have long been doing similar work, so that the wheel is reinvented. We mean lack of communication among various professional organizations that could result in productive joint structures and activities. We mean concepts and activities in one subfield that have similar analogues in others but are not connected or integrated.
What is the price we pay for allowing this fragmentation to continue? First of all, ongoing fragmentation will ensure that the broader field of developmental care / child and youth work -- considering the common function and nature of the work -- will not become a profession, any more than the narrowly focused individual subfields will. There is no true profession in human services or others that is tied into a particular age group, setting or diagnostic category. To continue to create new "professions" this way is futile. Secondly, it wastes precious time and energy. Why should well-meaning, capable and dedicated people do the same thing over and over when, if joined with others who have similar interests and concems, they could make new advances that build on previous accomplishments? Thirdly, it prevents us from developing an advocacy group strong enough to make a real dent on the legislation and funding patterns that drive the nature and quality of services. Fourthly, it makes it difficult to form a prevailing sense of purpose or vision, widely held and known, that could energize an overarching, engaging joint mission everyone could join in to attain.
What can we do? Consider the following proposals. Presumptuous? Of course. But somebody has to make them.
The emergent youth development movement, concerned primarily with adolescents in community settings and providing training for youth development workers, needs to connect with the older Child and Youth Care movement which has broadened its scope over the years and has already made tremendous strides in developing training and education activities reflecting the generic scope of the field. There is tremendous overlap here and it empowers neither entity to continue separately.
Similarly, the field of child life, work with children in health care settings, should be connected to the broader area of Child and Youth Care work.
United together, these groups should form an alliance with early childhood care and education. Although such a relationship would be most beneficial, forming it will be challenging, for of all the subfields of the larger field, early childhood and care is the largest and the most widely organized, through (among others) such organizations as the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) and the Canadian Child Day Care Federation. Thus, there may not be perceived need for more external contacts. But, with the advent of more special needs children into its classrooms and care programs, early childhood care and education is going to need to address the issue of where its boundaries end. Is an exceptional nine-year-old included in a primary classroom outside early childhood and care’s purview?
We should look widely for concepts and approaches that are compelling and encourage their wider application. For example, the NAEYC’s concept of ”developmentally appropriate practice" has implications for work with children and youth of all ages and in all settings, not to speak of people throughout the life span. If this concept were adopted across the board, consider the acknowledgement of common mission that this would reflect, not to speak of the improvement in quality of care that could ensue. NAEYC’s National Institute for Early Childhood Professional Development is following an agenda that could advance professional development for its closely related subfields as well as itself. Similarly, the International Leadership Coalition has a comprehensive structure that if adopted across the board, could be of value to other subfields.
With the new family focus occurring in all subfields, it is important that the "developmental/ care" approach to family-based work be articulated across them, and then related to activities that provide training in and implementation of family preservation work. Of course, we contend that our emergent developmental care profession is needed by persons throughout the life span. But that can wait. Let's get some connections and unification into our fragmented subfields providing care for children, youth of different ages, category groups, and their families and in different settings.
Consolidate fragmentation within our subfields. For example, in Child and Youth Care work, in North America, we now have the Child Care Education Consortium, the NOCCWA (National Organization of Child Care Workers Associations) Education and Training Committee, the Intemational Leadership Coalition, the Academy, and NOCCWA itself. Since these have some overlapping functions, and some common membership, perhaps they could be streamlined into fewer organizations: one, perhaps, dealing with all issues of training and education; personnel issues and professionalization; the other, with overall organization and advancement of the field, including forging of specific alliances with other fields as described.
A structure to spearhead consolidation and integration among subfields needs to be developed, and, with suitable funding, implemented. Perhaps a summit conference with leaders from all relevant professional organizations might be conducted to acknowledge commonalities of purpose and nature of service, to modify and integrate similar structures and delivery mechanisms, to formulate a communication network, and to set a common agenda for overall professionalization.
We should point out that if we address reduction of fragmentation through collaborations, alliances and networks, that the identity of any subfield would not be compromised. There would still be early childhood care and education, Child and Youth Care work, Child Life and the like. These would be subspecialties of the total profession. But there would be an overarching concept that unites them and thus enables all collectively to experience the power of connection and relatedness.
If these child and youth subfields wish to be a profession, and to work most effectively to provide quality service to their clients, the fragmentation must stop.
Let's work to change this. Together. Now. It’s that simple.
KAREN VANDERVEN
Vanderven, K. (1993). Views from the field: It's that simple. Journal of Child and Youth Care, 8, 3. pp. 97-99.
