Moss, Peter and Petrie, Pat. (2002). From Children's Services To Children's Spaces: Public Policy, Children and Childhood

	Moss, Peter and Petrie, Pat. (2002). From Children's Services To Children's Spaces: Public Policy, Children and Childhood. New York: RoutledgeFalmer. Pp. 200 $25.95       ISBN 0-415-24782-9 Reviewed by Jessica L. Kenty-Drane Northeastern University September 6, 2003 This book is an important piece in the integration of the "new" sociology of childhood with public policy. In their book, From Children’s Services to Children’s Spaces, Moss and Petrie argue that we must ensure our public services are inclusive of children as a social group and privilege childhood as an equally important period of life as adulthood. Their proposal is likely to be perceived by many public servants as revolutionary and controversial because it requires a reconceptualization of our understanding of both children and childhood. Though sometimes a tedious read, due in large part to lengthy quotations of secondary sources, Moss and Petrie's book is a notable contribution to the sociology of childhood literature. This book would serve as an excellent complement in graduate courses in social policy, childhood studies, and the sociology of children. The proposal in this book would engage many students into questioning their ideas and beliefs about children, childhood, and social policy. This book contributes to both sociology of children and social policy literature in several ways. Moss and Petrie contribute to the area of children and childhood by laying out their intricate theoretical framework which positions children as a unique social group, as important social actors, and childhood as an equally important period in life as adulthood. Their work represents a perspective of children and childhood that the reader will recognize as a contemporary element in the sociology of children and childhood literature, yet they come at these concepts with a less micro-oriented perspective. They focus less on the role, rights, and welfare of the individual child, emphasizing instead the significance of children as a unique social group and childhood as an important period of life. They centralize childhood as a permanent social status, despite its changing membership. Their work incorporates current sociological thinking about children as social actors while at the same time bringing into focus children as an important social group. Moss and Petrie's book is also important for social policy. Foremost, they demand the inclusion of all children in policy and politics—both as a social group with a common welfare and as social actors capable of participating in policy decisions and implementation and in determining their own social needs. Their work asserts the necessity of rethinking all policy by evaluation of its underlying values and hidden agendas. This means revealing the paradigms that are used in support of policy and opening the floor for discussion of these revelations to all constituents. They insist that a healthy democracy provides space for debate about what our public services should look like and that these conversations should include recognition of values, agendas, and theory. They argue that we must recognize children's services as a political arena that needs to be questioned. Specifically, current theoretical underpinnings of services restrict us from privileging children as a unique social group and childhood as an important time in life. Throughout the book the authors incorporate many important critiques of "children's services" and frame these in their push away from services toward the concept of "children's spaces". Several ideas are key to their vision. The authors envision the universal existence of an ombudsperson. This would be a government official with both authority and responsibility for the public. This person would ensure that children's rights are well defined and are upheld within all policy proposals and policy implementation across institutions and government agencies. Moss and Petrie propose incorporating children as credible and knowledgeable claims-makers and as reasonable actors in all policy creation, regulation and implementation. They assert that all children's policy should be "universal", recognizing them as a unique social group unto themselves and separating their eligibility from their family, neighborhood, or school. Moss and Petrie argue that services for children should be localized to ensure full participation of child political actors as well as to provide services that meet community values and needs. They emphasize integrating services for children, thus addressing the whole child. They argue for a more holistic approach to meeting children's needs. They provide the example of integrating childcare services with education. The authors want to drastically change the role of child workers by combining efforts, expanding knowledge areas for all persons working with children, and revisioning their view of children. That is, we need to change the image of the worker (with children) "from technician to reflective practitioner, researcher, co-constructor of knowledge, culture and identity" (p. 137). Part of their argument for rethinking children's services is their critique of present-day future orientation and the managerial agenda of children's services and child workers. They favor a present-oriented, reflexive agenda that eliminates the "social-engineering" approach long upheld in children's services. The author's develop the concept of "children's spaces" contrasting it with the current approach which is services. Additionally, the author's pose that children's play be valued as highly by adults as it is by children. This means incorporating places for children's play within all social policy. The authors want to ensure an open and frank discussion of theory, values and hidden agendas in all policy proposals at every stage of their development. Book Summary The book opens with the promise of a threefold analysis from the authors. First they state that their book is about "the possibility of rethinking public provisions for children" (p. 2). They highlight several ideas that are good places to deconstruct current public service ideologies. They explain, "how public provisions for children might be reconceptualized as ethical and political endeavors that require explicit choices about who we think children are, what is good childhood and the purposes of public provisions for children" (p. 2). They address "how public provisions for children are inextricably linked with how we understand childhood and our image of the child, which are taken to be contestable constructions produced in the social arena rather than essential truths revealed through science" (p. 2). They argue it would be good practice "situating public provision for children within an analysis of a changing world and the implications of that world for children within an analysis"(p. 2). They depict "how this provision, through being a site for democratic and ethical practice involving critical thinking, might contribute to the political project of influencing the direction change takes—how children and their provisions may come to shape an uncertain future rather than being shaped for a predictable and predetermined future" (p. 2). They hope for "the possibility of public provisions for children being envisioned as spaces for children and for the childhoods children are living here and now, as well as for creating relationships and solidarities between children, between adults and between adults and children" (p. 2). They challenge many of the status quo arguments made in support of current public provisions (i.e. social services) for children. They describe four key arguments: 1) "the rescue and protection of children who are needy, weak, and poor"; 2) "the protection of society from children who represent a threat to order and progress"; 3) "the child viewed as futurity, as a becoming adult, as a redemptive agent"; and 4) "the belief that powerful human technologies applied to children below a certain age (the current favourite is under three years) will cure our social and economic ills" (p. 2). The second piece of their analysis is a vow to question "why so much attention is given just now, at least in the English-language world, to interventions with children, especially young children" (p. 3). Lastly, Moss and Petrie propose that their agenda is a ""modernization" of public provision for children" (p. 3). The authors assert, "present day children's services are too often answers to the wrong questions" (p. 4). They suggest five questions that are of importance in addressing policy changes as they affect children and state that public debate is vital if we want child-centered social change. They are: 1) "what do we want for our children?" 2) "What is a good childhood?" 3) "What is the place of children and childhood in our society?" 3) "What should be the relationship between children, parents, and society?" and 5) "What is the quality of relationship we wish to promote between children and adults at home, in children's services and in society at large?" They describe the "dominant discourse about children and their relationships with parents and society" as comprising three central ideas: "that children are the private responsibility of parents; that children are passive dependents; and that parents are consumers of marketised services for children" (p. 5). They argue that this discourse has constructed "children as poor and weak" (p. 5). In contrast they propose that an alternative discourse could consider children as citizens, a social group in their own right. This conception of children would portray them as "rich in potential, strong, powerful, and competent" (p. 5). They articulate that this could transform children's services, particularly the institution of education, which they view as the ultimate child service. They conceptualize the notion of citizenship as inclusive, regardless of gender, race, class, and disability. Children's services should be a community place, a space both adults and children come together to work on "projects of social, cultural, political and economic significance" (p. 5). The approach the authors use to engage the reader is to introduce a "stutter" in the everyday thinking about children's social policy or children's services. They argue that while their idea to create a system of children's spaces is a possible solution to present antiquated perspectives, it is not necessarily the best or only solution. Rather, part of the appeal of their idea is that it challenges the status quo and forces thoughtful readers to question their fundamental principles regarding children, childhood, and social policy. Chapter Highlights In chapter two the author reviews key theoretical paradigms they use in their critique of current thought on children's services and in their proposed revisioning of these services as children's spaces. They assert that this chapter is necessary despite contemporary suspicion of all things theoretical in favor of practical problem-solving approaches. While I am inclined to agree, I must admit that I found this chapter tedious and I wonder if their dry writing and quotation of numerous lengthy passages will indeed turn off the policy makers they propose to target. Still, academics will likely find this chapter useful, particularly those of us interested in the implications of the "new" sociology of children and childhood for public policy. Their primary theoretical perspective is the social constructionist paradigm. They identify both the concepts of child and childhood as social constructions. They assert that this perspective allows them and others to critique popular perceptions of these concepts and envision alternatives. Additionally it pushes us to recognize and understand the diversity that exists among children and how it impacts their experiences within the public policy enterprises (i.e. race, class, gender, disability). Moss and Petrie introduce the importance of modernity and postmodernist thought in their dissection of public provisions for children. They argue that modernity has limited the approach of policy in its efforts to better the lives of children. It has influenced policy in its assumption of an orderly world with clearly defined universal objectives and solutions. Postmodernist thought has presented an opportunity to incorporate diversity and to recognize context and values in policy. Moss and Petrie introduce the importance of ethics and politics in their theoretical framework. They assert that a great deal of past and present policy emphasizes decisions as "primarily technical" and devoid of ethical and political considerations. They argue that this is untrue and that this modernist and managerialist rhetoric has kept hidden the values that have gone into policy decisions. In chapter three the authors address the prevailing representation of children in the English-speaking world. They assert that children are primarily depicted as "weak, poor, and need" (p. 55). Moss and Petrie highlight several constructions of children that have influenced present thinking about children and childhood. The first image is the idea of a child as "tabula rasa" or more specifically as an "incomplete adult or futurity" (p. 58). In an era of modernity this means we think of resources distributed to children as an investment and our contributions are imbued with an eye toward technology and programming. Here is where we find the emphasis on "best practices" for developing children as we focus on the input-output relationship. This child has a profound dependence on adult society to give her what it is she needs to become an adult. Another image of children is as "an innocent" (p. 59). This image of children and childhood encourages adults to feel protective of them. Family is seen as the foremost sanctuary for children and the outside world is the corruptive agent. This construction highlights the distinction between the private and public sphere, recognizing the private sphere as the most appropriate space for children and childhood. This image of "innocence" renders the child dependent on the family and isolated from the public sphere. Here again is the weak and needy child. Lastly, Moss and Petrie address the image of children as "redemptive vehicles" (p. 60). This understanding of children focuses societal attention on redemptive technologies aimed at curing social ills through children. Here is the manifestation of the "socially engineered child" (p. 60). The authors explain that these three images of children are intricately linked together as "it is the incompleteness of the child, the lack of corruption, the ability to inscribe the tabula rasa and to govern the soul that makes the child such a promising agent of redemption" (p. 61). Moss and Petrie explain that these images of children have influenced children's services. That is, our goal to control the future through our children has led to increased control of children. We use public provisions to achieve this. We focus children's services on "what works". Instrumentality defines these services. As we emphasize "what works" we are led to increasingly dissect the child and their childhood. Moss and Petrie call this the "atomisation of the child" and their services. The child is treated piecemeal and services are provided separately. Each department or agency exists unto itself, disallowing shared information or the contextualization of its services in reference to the whole child or all of childhood. This renders child workers as mere "technicians" who are trained in and evaluated by children's outcomes and only those outcomes for which their particular agency is seeking. In fact, Moss and Petrie explain that this approach may be most problematic as it prevents us from acknowledging those inputs and outcomes that are not readily explained or measured. The authors believe the current representations of children and their services are the result of socio-historical and political influences. That is, the social construction of children and children's services is influenced in part by three factors: modernity; the values and needs of neo-liberalism and free-market capitalism; and advanced liberalism. Modernity, as described by the authors, contains within it a belief in the ability to control and dominate as a way of securing progress. Children are increasingly controlled by social institutions including education, childcare. They explain that we focus a great deal of attention on early childhood investments as we conceive them to be important for predicting our future. Free market (neo-liberal) capitalism also impacts children. In particular, the role of services in neo-liberalism is in dealing with the containment of "discontent" and the reparation of "failures of the losers" in our new economy. That is, this economy demands winners and losers, our public services, particularly those geared toward children, can quell the social problems that arise from losing. Lastly, Moss and Petrie explain how advanced liberalism impacts children. The authors state, "the theory of liberalism speaks of autonomy, freedom and choice, and the limitation of government" (p. 75). They argue that the practice of liberalism, however, does control, seeking "to govern without governing society" and it does so "by working through families, and other institutions such as schools, to create individuals who do not need to be governed by others but will govern themselves" (p. 75). Thus, when families fail, the government intervenes more overtly. They describe the program Sure Start in Britain (i.e. similar to Head Start in the states) as an example of such intervention. This program aims to instill "norms and skills into a marginalized underclass, so they may be included in liberal society and at eradicating poverty" (p. 76). Advanced liberalism conceives of intervention as a vital role of the government and sees increasing hope in new technologies as successful tools for intervention. Moss and Petrie pose two important questions in response to their recognition of the emphasis on "technical and economic aspects of children's services" (p. 78). First, they ask whether these services will indeed work as they are meant to? Second, they question if indeed this emphasis has taken us far afield from conceptions of "the good life and of what is truly important and worthwhile about being human" (p. 78). They argue that we must question all aspects of children's services, recognizing there are choices to be made. Additionally, they argue that "modernity, neo-liberal capitalism and advanced liberalism share an inability to understand children as a social group within society, and childhood as an important period of life of value in its own right" (p. 80). The authors use chapter four to critique several British policy proposals by examining how children and childhood are presented. These are: "Meeting the Childcare Challenge," "Homework Guidelines," "A National Framework for Study Support," and "Curriculum Guidance for the Foundation Stage." In general they find that again the problem is the atomisation of the child as children are categorized by the services they "require". This finding leads Moss and Petrie to question why the "whole child" and "all children" are not the focus of government intervention and responsibility. Additionally, children are not only portrayed as lacking agency, but simultaneously "subjected to control by one agency—the school" (p. 97). The authors argue that schools are increasingly institutions of social control for children. The author's main argument in chapter five is the proclamation that "the child is a fellow citizen and social agent, with rights and strengths, and that her here-and-now life is at least as significant as adult agendas for her future" (p. 101). In contrast to current social constructions of children as weak, poor, and needy, Moss and Petrie develop an alternative perspective of children—that of the "rich child." This child is described as "social and inter-dependent" and their "image of the child (is) "strong, powerful, competent and, most of all, connected to adults and other children " (Malaguzzi 1993b:10)" (p. 101). Moss and Petrie argue that a future-orientation toward children fails to recognize the unpredictability of our future, not the least of which is that we must recognize that some children will not become adults. Childhood must be conceptualized as a permanent feature of society. Moss and Petrie discuss the importance of "rights" for children. Though they recognize the flaw with "rights rhetoric" they believe a discourse of "rights" is necessary despite its shortcomings. Rights situate the child in society, giving the child a place. "Rights" are important to children because they are a minority group in society and it is necessary to think of them as having rights if we hope to "behave towards them in an emancipatory way" (p. 106). Lastly, children are subjects and not objects. That is, a discourse of children's rights places the adult who defends children as an advocate of rights, rather than their saviour. Rights extend to all children and adults who support children's rights support all children, not only those of their own choosing. The authors state that their reconception of children as social agents and citizens with rights necessitates a rethinking of children's services. This is their catapult for their concept of "children's spaces". Their idea is somewhat tricky and it is difficult for me to explain without taking direct quotes from them. Foremost, they assert that they use the term "children's spaces" as a way to differentiate their thinking about children and children's public provisions from the existing conceptions of "children's services" (p. 107). What are children's spaces? Moss and Petrie state that ""children's spaces" can encompass a wide range of out-of-home settings where groups of children and young people come together, from schooling on the one hand, to lightly structured spaces for children's outdoor unsupervised play on the other" (p. 106). Children's spaces are physical environments as well as: spaces for children's own agendas, although not precluding adult agendas, where children are understood as fellow citizens with rights, participating members of the social groups in which they find themselves, agents of their own lives but also interdependent with others, co-constructors of knowledge, identity and culture, children who co-exist with others in society on the basis of who they are, rather than who they will become. Children's spaces are for all children, on a democratic footing across different social groups. They make space for the whole child, not the sectional child of many children's services (p. 106). The author's "see children's spaces as environments provided through the agency of public policy for collectivities of children, sometimes with adult workers present (the nursery) sometimes without (the playground on a housing estate); settings where young people meet each other as individuals and where they form a social group" (pp. 107-108). In chapter six the authors engage in a lengthy discussion of children's culture as an important possibility for children's spaces. They argue that culture is an excellent example of how children's spaces can be for children and for childhood in the present. The authors use Corsaro's (1999) definition of children's culture, "'a stable set of activities, routines, artifacts, values and concerns that children produce and share in interaction with their peers" and relates it to children making "persistent attempts to gain control of their lives and to share control with each other'..." (p. 124). With words of caution about idealizing children's culture, exoticizing their activities, or localizing its worth to children alone, Moss and Petrie explain that children have a culture of their own because they are indeed "other." They explain that children "...are distinct from ourselves as adults and are in some significant ways less powerful; physically, economically and politically speaking, children are a minority, legal minors and without full civic rights" (p. 125). Indeed in many ways children's otherness is a result of our system's services for children. Evidence of this can be found in the many ways we simultaneously direct and limit children's "use of time and space" (p. 125). The authors explain that we have increasingly segregated children within our society. The segregation of children has historical roots and its increase is due in large part to the increased institutionalization of children (i.e. compulsory education, daycare, etc.). Again, this segregation heightens children's "otherness" and certainly provides opportunity for the development of children's culture. Moss and Petrie argue that children's culture is undervalued in our society and that the power differential between children and adults remains unacknowledged. They see children's spaces as an opportunity to promote the social inclusion for them as a social minority" while at the same time allowing the "development of their own social and cultural lives" (p. 127). The authors provide an example of one such space, that is the free-time centers (fritids) in Sweden. These centers serve the economic need for childcare while parents work, but they do not seek to control the children's free time with scholastic or domestic duties. One interesting feature of these centers is that they do not function with a strong value for "child protection", rather the child workers in these settings believe that "children should not be overprotected from risk" (p. 129). That is there is an acceptable amount of risk. This value privileges the importance of children's play over protection. The authors state that this is vital if we want to value children's culture, which is valuable precisely because it is here where "children can serve their own agendas, alongside that of adult society" (p. 131). In chapter seven the authors address the need to change the image of workers (with children). These workers need to be compatible with this vision of "children's spaces". This means that they need a broad understanding of children at all ages and varying settings. They need a perspective of children that allows them to relate to the whole child. They need to feel comfortable with both children's culture and various fields that deal with children and childhood. In particular they need to be capable of wearing many caps, including "reflective practitioner, researcher, and co-constructor" (p. 137). As I read this I must admit that I am wondering if perhaps this is a tall order. But, the authors commit to this idea and use the terminologies of pedagogue and pedagogy as a way of making their vision more concrete. While acknowledging that these terms are foreign-sounding, the authors explain their meaning. The term pedagogy has been accepted across European countries as applicable "to work with children and young people across many settings" (p. 138). This concept covers four interconnected areas: "the development of theory, daily practice with children, the formulation of policy, and the training and education of workers" (p. 138). They assert that the term pedagogy "can be used to refer to the whole domain of social responsibility for children, for their well-being, learning and competence" (p. 138). Additionally, they see it as encompassing many different services geared toward children and childhood including, "childcare, youth work, family support, youth justice services, residential care, play work and study support" (p. 138). The utility of the term, as Moss and Petrie see it, is that it pulls together many provisions for children that have historically been seen as disparate. Moss and Petrie explain that the term pedagogy is meant at two distinct yet interconnected levels: theory and praxis. Using the concept of pedagogy provides a way for social policy, training, and work to achieve a sense of cohesiveness as their exists a shared understanding of children and childhood. The term also provides a way for members of society to discuss, debate, and rethink their values about children and childhood. Moss and Petrie hope that this discussion centers around these questions: "What do we want for our children?" and "What is good childhood?" (p. 141). The work of pedagogy indicates a profession of pedagogues. That is persons who engage in this child work. The authors view this work as holistic, requiring a reflective practitioner who is capable of understanding the theory and informing their work in a meaningful and reflexive way with these ideas. Interestingly, this work implies a localized evaluation of the work of practitioners and the welfare of children. Their work with children requires a relationship that goes beyond treating children as objects and instead understanding them as people. Moss and Petrie explain that the work demands a relationship between adult and child that is both professional and personal. They indicate that this concept of child work differs markedly from the system which currently exists in Britain and I would argue the U.S. as well. Work with children is extremely fragmented with practitioners focusing on one area of development. Additionally training, when it is required, is specific to the area of expertise in which the worker specializes. There is no sense of the whole child for most of this work. The work is often not considered to be in areas where special training is necessary. In fact, a good deal of work in the "care" domain is very low paid and is performed by low-skilled and mainly female workers. This indicates that the work is deemed to be "women's work" which is historically considered to be of the lowest value and least meaningful enterprises in society. In chapter eight the authors provide an example of a country that shares a similar perspective to theirs—Sweden. The authors explain that this example is to be a provocation rather than a model or ideal. It is simply a case that allows readers to envision how this paradigm might function in the world as well as a reminder that the praxis of this idea is indeed contextual. Moss and Petrie describe three conditions in Sweden that make it hospitable to children's spaces: first, there are "relatively high levels of social inclusion and equality" with relatively equitable conditions for children; second, Sweden's government engages in strict adherence to the UN Convention on Rights of the Child; and lastly, Sweden's economy is very strong due to its position as the number one information economy in the world (pp. 151-152). Moss and Petrie offer several insights into why Sweden is a country with a focus on children as a social group and childhood as an important period of life. Foremost, Sweden ensures an admirable quantity of provisions for children. These are both universal and holistic in nature. In their final chapter, Moss and Petrie work to explain their idea as well as to interject cautionary thoughts. They explain that throughout their work and in writing this book they identify the importance of the "connection between understandings of childhood and of public provision for children" (p. 164). They restate their argument that "there are many possible understandings of childhood, and therefore of public provision" (p. 164). And they restate their distinction between two possible ways of thinking of these provisions: "children's services" and "children's spaces" (p. 164). They warn that these provisions should not be reduced to "a technical subject whose main concern is efficient delivery of a commodity" (p. 165). They also warn that in this era of increasing globalization that children's provisions need not be universalistic, but may instead reflect the local context in which they are provided. The authors conclude their book with a last reminder about their concern for the future-oriented perspective of children, childhood, and their provisions. They state: "We wonder if too much responsibility is being loaded on to children's services to cure social problems, the origins of which are complex and not fully understood; and if too many hopes are pinned on children's services to deliver children to a future which is uncertain and contestable" (p. 184). I find this point fascinating as it indeed speaks to the current agenda in the U.S. towards children. About the Reviewer Jessica L. Kenty-Drane Department of Sociology & Anthropology 500 Holmes Hall Northeastern University Boston, MA 02115. The reviewer is a full-time lecturer and doctoral candidate in the Department of Sociology & Anthropology at Northeastern University. Her research interests include the sociology of education, in particular the social reproduction of inequality within the institution of education.