Childhood, labor, and education - unesdoc - Unesco

CHILDHOOD, LABOR, AND EDUCATION Five countries, five programs

1

Project New Roles of Education for Reducing Child Labor Coordination Alfredo Astorga Systematization María del Pilar Unda Participating non-governmental organizations CAFNIMA, Guatemala CASA ESPERANZA, Panama DYA, Ecuador CESIP, Peru GLOBAL INFANCIA, Paraguay Collaborators Anavela Cifuentes Roxana Méndez Maró Guerrero Ana Vásquez Tina Alvarenga

This text may be reproduced wholly or in part as long as the source is duly cited. The selection and presentation of the material contained in this publication, as well as the opinions expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the authors and not necessarily those of UNESCO, nor do they commit the organization in any way. The place names used in this publication do not imply on the part of UNESCO any opinion in regard to the legal status of the countries, cities, territories, or areas cited, nor of their authorities, international boundaries, or limits. Published by the UNESCO Regional Bureau of Education for Latin America and the Caribbean OREALC / UNESCO Santiago Lay-out: Juan Carlos Berthelon English translation: William Gallagher ISBN: 956 - 8302 - 52 - 2 Printed in Chile by Gráfica Funny Santiago, Chile, May 2006

2


CONTENTS Introduction .........................................................................................................................................

5

Chapter I. The organizations and their programs ...................................................................................

8

Chapter II. The state of child labor in each country ................................................................................

12

Chapter III. Program processes and outcomes ........................................................................................

15

Chapter IV. Lessons, problems, and questions ........................................................................................

29

Chapter V. Contributions of education to the child labor issue ...............................................................

36

Reference documents ........................................................................................................................

46

Appendix. Table 1 ..................................................................................................................................... 47

Project summary .................................................................................................................................

3

49


INTRODUCTION

Efforts to reduce poverty and inequality have been significant in some areas and insufficient in others. In any case, the results appear far-off, principally for the poorer countries and for the poor in general. Child labor is an expression of exclusion, the seriousness of which increases depending on its scope, worker age, and the dangers involved. Its negative impact is apparent on health, safety, family relations, and on access to, permanence in, and outcomes of education. Most painful of all is watching this phenomenon become increasingly accepted and commonplace until it is «natural’ to see children working on the streets, in markets, on buses, at public events, and in domestic service, while the resulting violence to their present and to their compromised futures goes practically unnoticed. It is important, however, to recognize the efforts being made, including those in education, to find creative solutions to eliminating child labor. For this office, dealing with issues involving inequality is an essential part of our mandate as summarized in the frameworks of Education for All and the Regional Education Project for Latin America and the Caribbean (PRELAC). This document presents - from the perspective of education - new contributions to and new roles for reducing child labor. Of course, schools alone cannot solve such a complex problem. But we believe that they can make valuable contributions through the efforts of socially aware education actors. This one-year project chose to sum its efforts to activities already in progress, while contributing with new inputs such as an education perspective, synergies with NGOs, and peer learning. The lessons learned, problems, and perspectives are presented in this text. Far from concluding the subject, this work opens it to new perspectives and possibilities. The reader will here learn about the practices of contributing NGOs: CAFNIMA of Guatemala, CASA ESPERANZA of Panama, DYA of Ecuador, CESIP of Peru, and GLOBAL INFANCIA of Paraguay. As so often is the case in our Latin America, their experiences, strategies, management, and achievements are common and at the same time different. This compilation is enhanced by cross-cutting views of the whole as well as by individual reflections. An exercise of reconstruction and development of knowledge based on practice, it has been made possible thanks to the support of the participating NGOs cited above. The project has created new alliances that today join together in the difficult but gratifying task of reducing child labor;

Ana Luiza Machado Director Regional Bureau of Education for Latin America and the Caribbean OREALC/UNESCO Santiago 5

FIVE COUNTRIES, FIVE PROGRAMS. SHARED LESSONS AND QUESTIONS Systematization: María del Pilar Unda Bernal*

In order to gain a perspective on the contribution of education to reducing child labor and to exercise of the right to education, in 2005 the UNESCO Regional Bureau of Education for Latin America and the Caribbean, with headquarters in Santiago, Chile, sponsored the project entitled New Roles of Education in Reducing Child Labor. This initiative falls within the framework of the Regional Education Project for Latin America and the Caribbean (PRELAC), a major program of OREALC/UNESCO. The purpose of PRELAC is to foster fulfillment of the objectives of Education for All while taking into consideration the particular characteristics of the region. It is based on an agreement signed by the ministers of education of the region in 2002, and includes among its main concerns focuses on vulnerable populations, the problem of inequality, and the challenge of making effective the right of all people to quality education. With this firmly in mind, and with the intention of strengthening existing programs and capacities, based on a series of criteria and consultations with like-minded organizations OREALC/UNESCO, identified five child labor prevention programs considered to be “relevant or emblematic”, and made possible the systematization of their experiences from a comparative and regional perspective, emphasizing the question of the role that schools play and can play in this field. The project also sought to discover new phases of growth and consolidation of programs in participating countries and in others that have shown special interest1. Once selection of NGO programs in five Latin American countries - Ecuador, Guatemala, Panama, Paraguay, and Peru - had been made, each of them developed a plan to systematize their experiences, with each emphasizing an area of special relevance. All five participated in joint meetings, exchanges, and short courses. The first meeting was held in August, 2005 in Asunción, Paraguay, during which the organizations gave progress reports of their systematizations and engaged in a fruitful exchange of experiences. This work seeks to describe the systematization efforts carried out by the five programs. It offers a joint perspective that simultaneously emphasizes the particularities and contributions of each. Due to the complexity and wealth of the experiences, to their similarities and differences, this effort presents an excellent opportunity to move ahead in the production of knowledge that we hope will encourage other initiatives and processes and stimulate discussion on the - fortunately - very diverse ways of approaching the subject. Our objective is to place before the reader the practices and efforts carried out as well as questions, difficulties, and proposals revolving around the “contributions of education toward reducing and eradicating child labor” and toward awareness of the child labor problem in different countries and contexts in Latin America.

*

María del Pilar Unda Bernal, UNESCO consultant responsible for the final presentation of this project, is professor and researcher at the Universidad Pedagógica Nacional de Colombia. 1. UNESCO. Official Project Documents. Alfredo Astorga, 2005. See the appendix.

6


Basic source material includes documents produced by each program in systematizing their experiences, references to which may be found in the text2. We have also taken into account presentations and conversations arising from the second meeting held in Antigua Guatemala in February 2006, with the participation of two representatives of each organization and two delegates from the educational levels most directly linked to each program. This made possible closer cooperation and indepth discussion of the themes presented. Table 1 (in the Appendix) introduces a classification scheme that was produced after a reading of the materials presented by each program, revealing the subjects to which the organizations refer when documenting their practices. With corresponding information extracted from the texts one can identify what is said and not said by the organizations both individually and as a group, thus making it possible to identify where they coincide. As such, this classification scheme is a essential and integral part of this work. We present below the programs, their processes, and results followed by a discussion of lessons learned, difficulties encountered, uncertainties faced, as well as possible “snags” and tensions, some of which have been discussed at different meetings.

2. Each of them provides the corresponding information and dates which appear between quotations marks.

7

I. THE ORGANIZATIONS AND THEIR PROGRAMS Without exception, the five organizations linked to the project work with groups that live not just in poverty, but in extreme poverty. These are programs carried out by non-governmental organizations (NGO’s), all of which have definite positions regarding the child labor problem, their own ways of thinking about education, about how to relate to teachers and to schools, and how to conduct themselves regarding public policy. This is precisely one of the assets of this project, for it has made possible the exchange of multiple perspectives, proposals, and activities. Most, but not all of these organizations have links with international cooperation agencies that specialize in the issue3. Each of the programs involves multiple actors, environments, and practices. These may be viewed from various perspectives. In what follows we offer an approach that attempts to reflect their complexity and richness. In Ecuador, the Center of Development and Self-management (DYA) seeks to eradicate child labor in those places in which it carries out its program through seeking the following objectives: improving the quality of coverage of health and education services, influencing the formulation of public policies, awareness-building regarding child labor, and the substitution of contributions to family income derived from child labor through complementary income for adults. For the purposes of this project, the center documented its work in one urban and one rural sector with very different populations. The rural region encompasses the Bella Rica gold mine4, in the coastal area of Azuay Province where nearly three thousand people from different parts of the country are active in small-scale rudimentary mining. Some 20% of these individuals live below the line of extreme poverty. The other region is Escombrera, located within an urban land-fill in La Bota5, north of the city of Quito, with the 41 families living in make-shift dwellings constructed from discarded materials, 61% of which have women as heads of household. For this project, the emphasis on education lies in guaranteeing access to and continuation in school. Therefore, it seeks to create conditions that facilitate integration into school: management of available pupil space, study grants, and offering incentives to parents to keep their children in school. At the same time, efforts are made to make schools more attractive by improving physical conditions (infrastructure and materials), improving teaching conditions (modality and relations), and strengthening relations between schools, mothers and fathers6, and the population. For those above 14 years of age, the program offers 3. 4. 5. 6.

Primarily with ILO, el IPEC, and UNESCO. Such links are specified in the introduction of each program. This program has been supported by the ILO since 2001. With the support of UNICEF during 2003/2004. The predominant role played in these contexts by women within the family, is well-known in relations with school, and in programs such as those described herein. Therefore, we shall use “mothers and fathers” rather than the more generic “parents”.

8


technical training and encourages productive initiatives that, besides assuring intermediate education, become opportunities for entry into the labor market in non-dangerous, worthy activities. The program also includes working directly with C&YP7, a program for making up lost years in school and containing other components that are political, organizational, value and income-based. One should also mention the contribution toward creating day care centers in La Bota and in Bella Rica as “prevention against child labor and aids to working mothers in order to “begin early to prevent child labor”. In Guatemala, the Family Care and Abused Children Center (CAFNIMA) carries out the Alternative Extra-school Program for Working Children and Young People for extremely poor in order to provide them with comprehensive education, balanced nutrition, and preventive and clinical health care, fostering the human rights of at-risk working children. This program is distinguished by the fact that it receives students, opens the doors of education to them anytime during the year, and places them in the immediately higher grade in two years through an intensive plan approved by the National Ministry of Education. The education program links pedagogical activities to the lives of young people working in the landfill utilizing their knowledge and experiences in an way that allows them to discover and value themselves and recognize their individual potential8, fostering leadership through activities such as school councils and tutoring that the students themselves carry out with their colleagues in lower grades. An integral part of this effort is the Street Education Program that offers C&YP and parents in the community alternative educational processes such as accelerated primary school, literacy training, and activities that foster economic improvement to families and to women through income building projects and technical training. It also fosters opportunities for collective discussion and reflection for parents on the importance of and right to education for their children. CASA ESPERANZA, in Panama, contains four aspects: personal attention for health care, nutrition, education, recreation, guidance, and training to C&YP laborers; prevention programs in neighborhoods for families, among rural laborers, business

7. C&YP refers to children and adolescents/young people, both male and female in order to show the diversity of gender and age of the term “child labor” involved in the programs. The meanings of the terms “adolescents” or “young people” varies depending on the programs, and there is no agreement of nomenclature for referring to the 13-14 to 18 year-old population. 8. “When in the landfill they are invited to come and study, they are not attracted because they think that this is like a formal school where the teacher is the one with the answers and who transmits knowledge. This is a different idea, based on the lives and interests of the children similar to the popular education project of Paulo Freire ... they know their reality and come here to learn, to go back, and change that reality” (Interview in January, 2006 with teacher Carlos Paz who is responsible for making contact with the children and inviting them to participate in the Casita Amarilla programs).

9

people, and government in order to foster a commitment to education as a way out of poverty; the defense of rights, particularly regarding education; and prevention of child labor. The personal attention component has two phases: (1) contact with C&YP where they work, whether in the informal urban sector or in rural areas; (2) services in centers aimed at removing children under 14 years of age from the labor market, and improvement of working conditions in the cases of those over 14 utilizing as a priority strategy entry and continuation in school. To this end, the program seek places in schools, supports enrollment, and aids students in homework, academic recuperation, and follow-up. The comprehensive service centers seek to “provide an environment where (children) ... can fully develop their capacities, exercise their rights, learn to relate with others and improve their self-esteem”. Entry is voluntary and does not replace the family environment. This program is complemented by family counseling in which mothers strengthen their capacities to meet the needs of their children and receive guidance and aid in attending employment training programs or to begin small economic projects that contribute to improving their precarious financial situation. In Paraguay, GLOBAL INFANCIA carries out a Comprehensive Care Program for Children Working as Domestic Servants in Greater Asunción as part of the Program for Prevention and Elimination of Child Domestic Labor in homes of third parties9. Direct assistance for C&YP includes education and counseling for minors of EMAE10 vocational training and work for those of age, seeking inclusion in existing programs and offering non-formal or extra-school educational activities such as emotional support and comprehensive development with a pedagogical perspective “focused on active intervention in their realities and the development of subjects and identities committed to change”. The program also targets its activities toward gaining public support and building a framework that makes possible the coordination of diverse actors, institutions, and social organizations in support of “changing the cultural practice of “servanthood” and serving the population carrying out child domestic service11, recognizing that this is a social problem that begins from an early age and that demands a gender perspective, given that it affects principally girls and young women. 9.

Support has been received from international agencies such as Save The Children, the Canadian International Cooperation Agency, the U.S.Department of Labor, and ILO/IPEC. 10. “Minimum Employment Age”. 11. The program focuses on two common modalities of domestic child labor (domestic child labor): in “servanthood”, C&YP are incorporated into a family not their own under the “assistance” modality in exchange for housing, food, clothes, and education without receiving any financial compensation.

10


The program has two guiding principles: recognition of children and young people as possessing rights (within their own families, employing or “responsible” families, school, and community); breaking isolation through comprehensive care networks; recuperation of family ties as a factor for the construction of identity; improvement in the quality of education, taking into account the perspective of C&YP; accountability of the State as guarantor of comprehensive protection in local and national institutions; and influence on public policies. In all of this, the mass media play a key role. In Peru, the main focus of the Social Studies and Publications Center (CESIP) is to create conditions for friendly, welcoming, and non-expelling schools within the framework of its institutional goal to contribute to construction of “citizenship with equity”. To this end, CESIP carries out two projects: PRONIÑO12, in 16 schools in eight cities, fosters schooling understood as access to and successful performance in school and removal from the workplace of working children and adolescents13. A key instrument of this strategy is the provision of a “school kit” consisting of materials, uniforms, and enrollment subsidies for the most vulnerable students and of material stimulus for schools that receive working children and adolescents. The project ESCUELAS AMIGAS for children and adolescents14 is carried out in four schools in Lima15. It seeks to foster promotion and protection of human rights by public schools, especially those of working children and adolescents, while discouraging childhood labor and preventing maltreatment and sexual abuse of children through teacher training and guidance, awareness building of the education community, and by fostering the participation and leadership of children and adolescents in schools16. It provides venues and creates conditions that make possible meetings between children and adolescents in each school or locality in order that they may exchange ideas and experiences and discuss solutions for their situation. One hopes in this way that they may acquire skills, instruments, and strategies for citizen awareness and control over the exercise of their rights. The program also includes strengthening academic skills, bringing participants up to grade level, and fostering families initiatives.

12. A program sponsored by Telefónica Móviles and Fundación Telefónica, carried out by CESIP in Peru, that includes support for providing children and adolescents with access to and continuation in the education system. 13. CESIP prefers the term “adolescent” to “young person”. Therefore, in this document we maintain it in references that make allusion to this specific program. 14. Supported by the Dutch organization Kinderen in de Knel. 15. Two of these are carried out simultaneously with PRONIÑO. 16. In this way, schools move forward in a process toward becoming certified as “friendly schools”.

11

II. THE STATE OF CHILD LABOR IN EACH COUNTRY Although present throughout history, it has only been in recent years that child labor has been viewed as a problem and received great visibility. Given the magnitude of the phenomenon and the way that it places in question the ability of states and societies to guarantee equity and meet the most minimal needs of their populations, the child labor issue has created broad international mobilization and a number of efforts at documentation, analysis, and formulation/execution of various proposals. It is estimated that 250 million C&YP work in the world under at-risk conditions, submitted to exploitation and that most of them are in Asia (61%) with the rest in Africa (32%) and Latin America (7%). This means that the figure for the Latin American region is approximately 18 million. Within the vast documentation existing in IPEC and the ILO are specific studies on the theme. We present below data that make reference to programs involved in this project17, in order to view the problem specifically in these countries. In spite of difficulties and underestimates, recognized in statistical efforts in this field and due to the invisibility of certain kinds of labor and to the minimum age criterion used to calculate the child labor population, the figures make possible an approximation of the characteristics and magnitude of the problem.

17. This information is included in the systematization documents of each organization, cited above. 18. Cit. Instituto Nacional de Estadísticas e Informática (INEI), National Household Survey,IV quarter, 2001. 19. 2001 census data. Child labor calculation carried out by DYA for the Comité Nacional de Erradicación Progresiva del Trabajo Infantil (CONEPTI).

12


In referring to the results of the National Population Census, Peru emphasizes the fact that this “only records those seven years of age and above; however, in various municipalities and departments one can see minors working”. On the other hand, Guatemala notes: “147,000 work in a family environment (collecting firewood, caring for siblings) and as such their work is not seen as an economic activity”. The documents of each country provide analyses that are worth noting: - Of the total economically active population, 50,48% engages in child labor in Guatemala. And “one in three individuals under 18 years of age works” in Peru. Of these, 61% are between 6 and13 years of age; that is, they are below the minimum legal age for employment. Some 39% are between 14 and 17 years of age. - A large number of children, adolescents and young people engage in dangerous activities, either due to the nature of the work or the “condition under which they are carried out. Included in these are street sellers, domestic servants, carriers in markets, collectors of urban waste for recycling, street cleaning, the manufacture of adobe bricks and tiles, manual gold mining, fishing in the open seas, agricultural labor that involves toxic substances, rock quarries, and others” en Peru. In Ecuador, “ 37% of child labor involves dangerous activities such as mining, landfills, construction, domestic service, and sexual traffic”20. In Guatemala, “child labor is concentrated in agriculture and in high-risk activities such as construction, electricity, gas, water, and mining”. - In Panama, 68,8% of child labor is in rural areas and 31,2% in urban settings. Most definitely, the right to education in the countries of Latin America is still a pending issue. In spite of all of the efforts aimed at defining policies, plans, and programs to assure coverage of the education system, the figures speak for themselves: - In Peru, 1,253,000 C&YP between 6 and 16 years of age do not attend school. Of these, 400,000 work. Some 20% of working children do not go to school. – In Panama, 27,839 (58%) of working C&YP do not attend school and 5,5% no have no schooling whatever, a situation that is most critical in rural and indigenous areas of the country. - And, in the particular case of CDW21 in Paraguay, 30% of this population does not attend school. 20. Cit. Comité Nacional de Erradicación del Trabajo Infantil. 21. Child domestic workers.

13

Moreover, access to and permanence in school of working children decreases progressively with age. When they do attend school, as happens in Paraguay for most of CDL22, “gaps are evident in terms of absenteeism, poor performance, over-age in grade, and attendance by 12% in night schools”. When they do attend school, many are obliged to drop out due to migration, linked to planting and harvesting seasons in rural areas. This situation is aggravated by the phenomenon of being “behind in school” which particularly affects WORKING C&YP: - In Panama, young people and adolescents who work and attend school show a 30% greater rate of being behind in grade, in contrast to their peers to do not work. - In Paraguay, 50% of CDW are behind in grade. Among these, 70% are adolescents. - In Peru, 56% of adolescents between 15 and 17 years of age who work have not concluded lower secondary education, thus showing a 13% gap in regard to the 43% on those who have not concluded this level among those who do not work23. Paradoxically, employment often becomes a necessity in order to continue studies. In Paraguay, for example, 39% work in order to study24.

22. Childhood Domestic Labor 23. OIT-IPEC. New Challenges in Combating Child Labor Through Schooling in Central and South America 2006. 24. Study of Rapid Assessment of CDW in Homes of Third Parties in Paraguay, 2002.

14


III. PROGRAM PROCESSES AND OUTCOMES a) Where do they work? The working C&YP at whom these programs are directed live in conditions below the poverty line and engage in the following activities: - In the Bella Rica gold mine (Ecuador) they are daily contracted laborers, generally laboring in the tunnels of the mining companies or in processing plants. Some work in gleaning; that is, seeking gold ore remains in the waste material of the mining companies as a way of contributing to family income. Others work alone, and others along with their mothers, more than five days a week and between 6 and 18 hours per day. Children working as gleaners also usually accompany their parents and carry out tasks during the processing of materials accumulated by the plants. Working in the tunnels, children suffer from bone and muscular damage due to the posture they must adopt during many hours. In the mines, some work with dynamite or are in slide areas. Moreover, child mine laborers inhale powder from the rock that later in adult life often results in the mining disease called silicosis. In the quarries they are exposed to accidents from the breaking of rocks and frequent landslides. As with the children who work in the tunnels, they also transport excessively heavy loads. Those who work in the processing plants are in contact with toxic substances such as mercury, cyanide and acids that affect their health. - In the La Bota landfill in Quito, also in Ecuador, C&YP work in waste recycling and are in permanent contact with toxic substances and contaminants that are risks to their health. Gleaning material in landfills is a family activity, with and for their parents during more than eight hours, five days a week and during vacation periods nine or ten hours a day. The landfill becomes an area for socialization for children who are taken there by their parents and eventually are incorporated into the activity from an early age. - In the landfill of zone 3 of the capital in Guatemala, children and adolescents engage in the collection of waste and other activities related to the recycling and sale of this material. Those who classify and recycle material such as aluminum, paper, cardboard, or plastic are called “guajeros”25. - In public areas such as the streets and markets of Panama they panhandle or offer informal services such as cleaning windows, carrying bundles, or selling articles for more than 10 hours a day. This program also includes the indigenous population contacted in coffee growing areas in the rural district of Chiriqui, Boquete. Peasant children also engage in sugar cane harvesting and other rural activities in El Roble, in the district of Aguadulce. 25. Currently, there are approximately 800 families working in the landfill, 500 of whom are under 18 years of age who live in the locale or are there accompanying their families.

15

- Domestic labor in the homes of third parties, both in “servanthood” or receiving a salary in Paraguay. - In marginal urban areas in Peru, in landfills (Zapallal and its surroundings, Las Lomas de Carabaillo, El Milagro and surroundings en Trujillo), in the hand manufacture of tiles (zone of Huachipa, Lurigancho Chosica) or other urban, street, market, and other public area activities in Lima and Chiclayo. As can be seen, the five organizations carry out programs in urban contexts. Only in Ecuador is there also a program for child mine laborers in the rural coastal zone. In Panama, besides establishing initial contacts both in the streets and markets of Panama City, there are also projects in the rural agricultural sector, incorporating into its program the indigenous population of the coffee growing area and the peasant population dedicated to growing sugar cane. b) Proposed objectives Due to the importance of this subject, in Table 2 we present the objectives proposed by the group of organizations, a result of formulations expressed textually by each. This illustrates the variety of their goals and programs. Moreover, if it is of interest for a specific project on the theme, one can identify the particular objectives of each program, contrast similarities and differences among them, and study, for example, relations between objectives, actions, processes, and outcomes. TABLE 2. Formulation of objectives Diminish child labor: removal from work or decreased work days. Exchange dangerous work for non-dangerous activities. Foster working C&YP care and protection alternatives in families and schools. Build awareness about child labor (among families, teachers, C&YP, and authorities. Include the issue of school dropout in formal education and prevention programs (right to education) Guarantee permanence and “success” in schools. Improve the quality and coverage of education. Foster and protect the rights of working C&YP, especially the right to education. Develop pedagogical proposals that increase the visibility and establishment of rights for social transformation with a gender perspective. Stimulate the participation and leadership of C&YP in school life.

16


TABLE 2. continuation Convert extracurricular programs in community intervention models and foster rights of at-risk C&YP. Place children in day-care programs. Place adolescents and young people in technical training programs. Improve the quality and coverage of health programs. Complement adult incomes in order to replace child contributions to family income. Strengthen the role of local organizations in eradicating child labor. Foster the formulation of municipal and business policies regarding child labor. Influence public policies. It is interesting to note that in the initial elaboration of this table, in examining countries and identifying the objectives expressed by each their documents one found little overlapping, making it appear that the proposals had little to do with one another, even when all were aimed at meeting the problem of child labor. However, this is not the case. Evidently, there are significant differences in focus and stated proposals. But it is also the case that, even when particular objectives are not formulated a program presentation, some of them are treated and are evident, whether in actions, processes, or presentation of outcomes. In fact, in the exchanges carried out in preparing this document, with some exceptions the programs identified as their own most of the objectives included in the table, even when previously not formulated as such or when they presented different categorizations and activities. Undoubtedly, this explanatory exercise contributed to greater follow-up and opens possibilities for other work and studies. c) Program impact Taking as a referent the exercise presented in Table 1, we present below the major aspects addressed in the documents on population served, processes, and program outcomes. This work seeks to speak from the perspective faced when presenting proposals from different countries that seek to decrease and eradicate child labor in each specific instance, in particular conditions, and in working with working children, adolescents, and young people, with families, communities, schools, and both governmental and non-governmental organizations. This is a situation much different form defining policies on the macro level, even when programs interact with, have an impact on, and are affected by such policies.

17

It is important to note that this is not an analytic study seeking to determine specific effects of particular components or actions of programs. Rather, it begins by considering the programs in all of their complexity, with numerous components, variables, and interactions at work, some being visible and explicit and others going almost unnoticed. As can be seen, there are many facets that offer the possibility of multiple readings, depending on what one chooses to emphasize. One should not expect this to be an evaluative study. What we present here is a joint and inter-project reading, based on information, analysis, and lessons learned as presented by each of the programs regarding those aspects that they see as most important, without imposing a previously agreed-upon format to this effect. Even when it would be desirable, not in all cases may the data or information be contrasted between projects. One does not always possess consolidated information for the set of organizations as a whole on each of the subjects treated. The time periods considered in the systematization effort, the populations included, the emphases placed on each work, the subjects treated, and the information supplied all vary. But this situation is not a hindrance. One may work with the information available and thus formulate in a transitory manner hypotheses that can stimulate other kinds of studies. It should be made clear that most of these organizations also carry out other projects, involving populations and activities not contemplated in this exercise of documenting their programs. These other activities are part of accumulated knowledge and contribute to understanding what they do in practices that are not treated in this work. Such is the case for the Centro DYA of Ecuador which carries out programs with children at three more landfills (380 children), with working children at the Manta market (150), those working at banana plantations (500), and with indigenous children (4,500), thus serving 5,530 additional working children, as well as carrying out child labor prevention with another 7,000 children. Another example is the work specifically with indigenous and peasant populations in Panama, and work in Guatemala in afternoon and night programs for 60 young people who receive technical training and aid in seeking employment. It is within this context, and from this perspective that the subjects here are approached and which are, as may be seen, very enriching in terms of generating conjectures, hypotheses, and questions for treating the themes providing services to working children, adolescents, and young people, their families, and their communities as well as the processes that these organizations carry out to decrease and eradicate child labor. • Population served Before considering the “outcomes” or “effects” of the programs, one needs to give due importance to the roles of these and other institutions that work in serving vulnerable populations. Due to these processes and to the presence and activities of such organizations thousands of children, adolescents, and young people under 18 years of age, their families, and their 18


communities, existing in the worst conditions of poverty and abandon are being served in their nutritional, affective, educational, cultural, and life needs. Many have had the opportunity to discover themselves, to know other forms of living, and finding previously unthinkable alternatives for their lives and their communities.

With these five programs, in the time frames considered in their systematization work (in all cases not more than five years), 6,470 C/A&YP were served, as shown in Table 3. If one compares the population served with the total child labor population in these five countries (4,856,198), the figure is only 0.13%, making evident the need for additional and more sustained efforts in this field to create and put into practice various other options. But it is worth repeating: consider how significant it is that 6,470 working C&YP are being served by different organizations in our countries. • Decrease of work or removal from child labor Information regarding the elimination of “dangerous” work or that carried out under difficult conditions is surprising. Once again, this is not merely a subject of figures and percentages, but it contributes to shining light on various issues in this field. In the DYA Program in Ecuador, 234 of the 279 C/A&YP working in mining and 66 of 74 working in landfills abandoned such

*. In this case we do not have precise data on how many work. Some of those included here are classified as children “at-risk” of working.

19

work during the five years 2001/2005). The magnitude of this fact is not easily seen in these figures. But if one considers that they represent 84% to 89% of the population served by these programs, respectively, one may state that here we see undeniable keys for achieving the desired result of decreasing child labor. Panama reports the elimination from work of 1,843 C&YP of the 3,300 served during the same five-year period. This represents 56%. In the last year alone 736 C&YP have been removed from labor, which is equivalent to 77% of the population served in 2005. In a slightly shorter time period (2001/2004) and under different conditions CESIP of Peru was able to remove from labor 482 of the 1,426 under 14 years of age (33,8%) while 315 (22,1%) decreased their working day or began to work in less physically demanding activities or in family assistance. Thus, in three years (2002/2004), 293 of 711 (41%) of working children served by Global Infancia left their “servanthood” or paid domestic work in Paraguay. The program in Guatemala has much to contribute. Utilizing a strategy much different from the others (direct intervention through an extra-school program), in the year 2005 alone the program incorporated 30 of 175 individuals served into regular schools, in spite of the serious difficulties of school access faced by this population.

* As noted above, part of this population is not working.. ** Decreased the working day or assumed lighter activities or work in homes.

20


Without exception, the results show what these programs can do in regard to the objective, in the difficult conditions and extreme poverty within which they work. In total, 2,968 C&YP left work during the time periods included in the systematizations of the programs26. If one includes the 30 that reduced their working hours in the landfill in Ecuador27, the 315 (22,1%) that in Peru decreased their working hours or turned to lighter activities or to working at home, and the 60 in Guatemala, the rate is much greater. These outcomes are clearly surprising, above all when one considers that, while it is not the only factor, poverty plays a determining role in the incidence of child labor, a fact widely recognized by the organizations that carry out these projects. This aspect has only been partially treated by the programs through systems of subsidies and support for generating income for parents. This is, without doubt, another subject that merits documentation and more detailed study. It is important that not only successes be noted. Viewing difficulties, exploring the obstacles faced and asking about the reasons for their occurrences, and risking formulating preliminary hypotheses are important sources for constructing and mobilizing thinking in a specific field of social action. An example of this is the contribution made by Peru in regard to the hoped for outcome of decreasing and eradicating child labor: “One of the major difficulties encountered is that a significant percentage (46%) of families are not able to remove their children from the work sites nor decrease the number of hours that they work. This is due principally to the extreme poverty of these families, generally aggravated by situations of family crisis such as being abandoned by the mother or father, illness of one of the parents causing them to temporarily stop working, growth of the family, etc. It is also due to the imposition of cultural norms, above all among the immigrant populations in rural areas. On the other hand, many adolescents enter the labor market due to lack of economic resources in their homes and because many of them come from single parent families with many children, with adolescents obliged to occupy the roles of father or mother to sustain the family”28. • Child labor prevention The five programs invest much of their efforts in awareness building among the populations involved regarding the damaging effects of child labor and the defense of rights, particular of the right to education. It is probable that this activity has an important impact not only in decreasing child labor, but also in its prevention. In any case, some projects seem to agree that it has been possible to go “from a mentality that encouraged child labor to one that disapproves of it”. 26. If one considers the information over ten years, between 1994 and 2004 Panama records 2,256 C&YP ceasing to work in the urban sector and 500 in the rural sector between 2001 and 2004. 27. At the close of this study, it was reported that at the time all had ceased to work and were in school or in training programs. 28. CESIP, Peru. Statements in response to the matrix categories, in reference to its program, February 14, 2006.

21

On the other hand, of particular interest is the initiative of construction and equipping of day care centers for the youngest children as a way of preventing child labor by eliminating early entry. This is an important part of the prevention programs of the DYA center of Ecuador that are aimed at the “at-risk” population (380 and 60 small children in each of the programs respectively), seeking to offer day care and to support working mothers. It is known that the land fill becomes a place for socialization of the smallest children who eventually begin working at the location. The two day care centers were managed and are sponsored through resources from the Minister of Social Welfare which covers the costs of day care laborers and meals for the children. With support from the program and parents it has been possible to equip and train the day care laborers. These centers function at maximum capacity: 25 children at the mine (another 30 await a place to become available) and 23 at the landfill. • Access to and permanence in school Access to and “successful” permanence in school is another key question about which the programs most agree. The purpose is clear: to contribute to guaranteeing the right to education. Even when they use quite different strategies and actions, all seek entry and reintegration into school, permanence therein, best use of what schools offer, and positive outcomes. Due to the importance of this question, we present below the most-documented related activities. - Awareness-building of the importance of education and the harmful effects of child labor through different mechanisms directed at working C&YP, mothers and fathers, communities, organizations, and authorities, as well a school principals and teachers. - Search, acquisition, and management of places in school. - Contributions to the improvement of the physical conditions of schools (construction and equipment). - Influence over teaching modalities and over relations with mothers and fathers and students, seeking their greater participation in school life. - Programs for out of school help and bringing children up to grade. - Incentives to families as financial compensation for the loss of income involved in removing a child from the workplace, and support for generating alternative employment for mothers and fathers. 22


- Creation of conditions for the exercise of leadership of C&YP. Here again, the outcomes of the projects are surprising: 100% of C&YP working in the mine and 97,2% in the landfill in Ecuador, 100% of the 402 who did not study in the case of CESIP in Peru, entered school. In addition, 96,3% finish the school year and 90,8% proceed to the next grade in Peru and 92% do so in Panama. The information reported by Panama is particularly interesting: during the last three years, more than 200 C&YP have been in the final three years of secondary school and 7 of the 15 young people that finished secondary school are currently in universities. The following fact stands out: in Ecuador, merely with improvements in school physical conditions and resources, the mothers and fathers who previously demonstrated distrust and skepticism, and thought that their children learned more by working than in school seem to have “discovered” that things can change. There has thus developed an entire process of approximation, initiatives, and participatory activities. Contrasts and tensions in the results of the programs are also of great interest. In some cases, it has been possible to “position schooling as a factor of development and change” and parents begin to value schooling. In other cases, and this is also of particular interest and should be examined in depth, “educational support has not always been welcome, due to the fact that the value of studies competes with daily income. It is not easy to renounce income when one lives in poverty” according to the report from Peru. These outcomes place before us one of the most important questions faced by the programs: that of the tension between poverty, child labor, and schooling. Many important questions remained to be answered and that will continue to be present in many experiences: What happens to families and their conditions for survival when their children cease to work? Is the labor burden re-distributed to other family members? If so, how is this done? What role is played in these programs by incentives and subsidies, whether economic or other, and by supporting MOTHERS AND FATHERS in managing income alternatives? • Changes of in-school practices and the question of the subject Although not all programs address it, some dedicate a good part of their activities and their analyses to this matter. The experience of CESIP in Peru in creating mechanisms for student participation, elected by their peers, as “representatives”, through which they acquire participatory, organizational, and leadership skills, demonstrates that it is possible to convert talk into action in terms of thinking of C/A&YP as subjects and acting as such. 23

Analysis suggests that in this way they “acquire significant levels of autonomy, employing their capacities to analyze problems and encounter solutions that involve their collective action”. And all of this, clearly, takes place within difficult conditions, making it even more valuable, for at times this requires facing supposed losses of authority on the part of school administrators and teachers. In schools in which CESIP has worked, “the proposals of the school mayors (children and adolescents) were incorporated into institutional development plans: through school municipalities the children and adolescents have developed and presented proposals and initiatives for improving their surroundings and the quality of life of the schools”. This, is regard to the theme of the subject, is similar to the components of other programs, as is the focus of the entire DYA technical training proposal for youth 14 years of age and over in Ecuador and which will be described in the following section, and the line of the pedagogical proposal of the CAFNIMA extracurricular program in Guatemala in which working C&YP are viewed as subjects who do not arrive at school unprepared; for they possess knowledge and experience that they can use in thinking, learning, and social interaction. They state: “people learn by doing and are protagonists in their own learning, collectively constructing their learning, making it pertinent and varied.” This specific aspect of a proposal that is merely stated in passing in their systematization deserves studying through practice. In Paraguay, Global Infancia’s work with young people and their rights generated on the part of the latter the need and demand for opportunities for meeting that would allow them to “integrate themselves and share experiences and the manifest interest to initiate organizational processes based on their reality in order to generate activities for improving their living conditions.” This requires no further comment since it speaks for itself. On the other hand, and without doubt, approaching schools and teachers requires greater effort. At times, school is viewed as an “object” of intervention or as a mere instrument to be used for different purposes and not as a place where there are subjects who know, who desire, and who act socially and politically. In some references, schools appear as homogeneous and identified as a place of “reproduction of abuse”, as a “authoritarian model” with a formal and inflexible organizational scheme and unconnected to other organizations and social levels. Although recognizing the difficulties, some state that as a result of programs, the characteristics initially associated with schools have been changed and that they now offer “additional capacities for dealing with children and stimulating their development”, having fashioned coordination mechanisms and changed their relations with others, fostering the participation of MOTHERS AND FATHERS and children. 24


Schools are sometime viewed as distant, from outside, without recognizing that they embody multiplicity and complexity. It would be worthwhile to try other approaches; to make possible the identification and linkage of individual and institutional inclinations, particularly those of teachers, in the quality of subjects with the ability to imagine and to construct proposals coming from that which it is in essence; from the school as a venue of culture, knowledge, aspirations, and practices. There remain a number of points that require more attention in the discussion about the social function of schools and the demands that are made on them for meeting all of those issues that society as a whole has not wished, or has not known how, to resolve. • Training programs and alternative labor This is an interesting possibility for adolescents/ young people who ages vary between 13-15, depending to the program and the definition of “minimum employment age in each country, and 17 or 18 years of age. In general, the projects treat this age group in a different way, moving away, in a sense, from the clear proposal of schooling for young people, and focusing in some cases on technical training or on considering alternative labor proposals. The experience of DYA in Ecuador has been documented in some depth, and the knowledge so derived is of particular interest for the purposes of this study. The program includes four areas of training: jewelsmithing, metalworking, computer science, and leadership for working young people and mothers of the community. The initiative involves the creation of a Metalworking Technical Training Center that “on the one hand, interested the mining executives who would have qualified personnel and could administer the removal of young people from other labors. On the other hand, it interested the young people and parents who saw in the Center an opportunity to acquire a trade, to conclude intermediate-level education, and to aspire to better pay”. In the area of jewelsmithing, 18-month technical training courses were offered for young people working in the mine. Upon finishing the course they did apprenticeships in the major cities of the country. But something surprising happened to the program itself: during their apprenticeships, most received job offers in other places - which speaks to the quality of the courses. But “most of the students decided to return to Bella Rica in order to be part of the Jewelsmith Association from which they can sell their jewelry. Only two young people accepted the offers”. These results illustrate very important aspects of the strategies utilized. First, as Ecuador emphasizes, “these technical training proposals arose from community initiatives, from local dreams and aspirations. They are examined technically by the 25

program in order to assure their social, technical, and financial viability. Moreover attention is paid to whether they will make a contribution to the community so that the it can grow in particular aspects, including economically, and to whether the proposal opens up different options for the future for the entire population, including children”. A second notable aspect is that the experience should involve an “alternative” labor focus that opens horizons, not being limited to the question of employment, and in which the young people assume an active role, put forward proposals, manage, and invent. Another specific aspect that deserves greater study is that of listening to the voices of adolescents, young people, and mothers and fathers of the populations involved. Third, in spite of receiving job offers in other places, the mothers and young people who participated preferred to return and support their communities. With their decisions to return and dedicate themselves to the craft of jewelsmithing, they not only do not leave them unprotected; they also widen the perspectives of the work carried out by their parents and by the population in general. These children are part of an organized youth movement with its own agenda for improving the living conditions of children and young people. Moreover, they administer a Computing Center created by the municipality and which is a venue for community recreation, learning, and service. In Guatemala, for those who have gone through the program CAFNIMA offers opportunities to work in the center itself and, based on their experience, to dedicate themselves to working with other working children. As can be seen, these are approaches that break with others in working with young people. Rather than associating young people with immaturity, inexperience, or risk, they create conditions for individuals to unlock all of their potential, vitality, and imagination29. They are based on confidence and trust. The participating young people work with these programs from a perspective that, while recognizing the place they occupy (poverty, and related limitations in their lives) this does not entrap or reduce them. Although not expressing it sufficiently CESIP in Peru also provides work training programs to 256 individuals over 14 years of age (the official working age) and programs in computing, computer maintenance and assembly, cosmetology, machine operation, textiles, electronics, automobile mechanics, and others). 29. This is precisely why authors dedicated to community and pedagogical work directed at this age segment differentiate between the concepts “young person” and “adolescent” - in order to avoid the association that the word “adolescent” has with difficulties or deficiencies, and to see these individuals as living beings and not as those who “suffer from” or “lack” something in order to become ... adults! (T.N.: The author makes this point because in Spanish, adolescente is derived form the verb adolecer, which means to suffer from a deficit, shortfall, scarcity, paucity, absence, or deprivation of a particular quality).

26


• Inter-institutional relations and organizational proposals A good part of the activities of the programs is dedicated to this subject, one that in the literature appears as to which special attention and greater effort should be paid. We will consider some of the initiatives and contributions aimed at linking other social actors and organizations, both government and non-government in each location. It is perhaps the program in Paraguay that approaches this subject in the most depth and with the most care, constituting as it does the core of its proposal. In no other way can one approach the purpose of “redirecting the practice of servanthood”, a deep-rooted and institutionalized cultural practice in Paraguay requiring for its change decided action that involves various social actors and institutions. Many of the efforts of Global Infancia are directed at strengthening of local programs related to domestic child labor and to creating a network of aware institutions regarding this issue. The results report on all organizations that have incorporated the domestic child labor question into their action plans, including the Ministry of Justice and Labor. From the beginning, in order to carry out the program teams were organized which the technical team of Global Infancia and CODEN30 advisors participate. In total, 377 employees and 28 teacher volunteers were trained and are currently working in this area. Given that this focus assumes the dedication of much time as well as specific coordination and negotiation efforts, some prefer to begin the work directly, in their anxiety to achieve their goals and obtain short-term outcomes. But this is not the correct approach because it delays the broad mobilization needed and limits possibilities to make a greater impact on a deeply held cultural value. On the other hand, for DYA in Ecuador, the creation of community organizations becomes the focus of a proposal that makes it possible to identify problems and link them to the existing supply of services. One of the two projects included in the systematization, is a network of institutions dedicated childhood services in different areas such as education, health, recreation, and credit. Six institutions have incorporated working children and young people and their families into their services in order to reestablish the rights affected by their working and through programs of study grants, strengthening of academic skills, day-care

30. Consejerías para los Derechos de la Niñez. (Childrens‘ Rights Councils).

27

and teacher training. The participation of the mine school in a local network with another nine schools has made it possible to share their pedagogical model which, when linked to curricular reform, make possible access to resources of the Ministry of Education and Culture for training, infrastructure, materials and equipment, among other things. As stated in Guatemala, “All of this assumes entering into other logics. It requires time. Often, one cannot see the results directly. It is a matter of constructing a social and organizational fabric, more than results” And, as said in Paraguay: “Coordination between organizations and networks requires time and pace, which is in conflict with producing short-term results”. In any case, it is important to note that in the presentations on the organization of efforts with other institutions there is a strong emphasis on those initiatives that take as a point of reference the proposals of each one of the organizations. These become a binding force from which one can come together and around which revolve all activities. It would be worth the effort to document the attempts at bringing together efforts with other actors and local or national organizations in each country involved with the issue. This is the case of the movements made up of young people focusing on their own problem of child labor that beginning years ago have organized and make their voices heard at national and international events. What is their impact? How are these other voices and perspectives recognized? Certainly, this question deserves greater discussion and analysis. Of course, not everything that these programs do and the way that they impact the lives of C&YP, mothers and fathers, and communities can be expressed in terms of outcomes. But they are not for this reason any less significant: opportunities for participation in recreational activities and play, seminars or events on specific subjects, different ways of enhancing self-esteem and self confidence, experimentation with the possibilities of collective action, and the construction of a social fabric around this particular subject of child labor.

28


IV. LESSONS, PROBLEMS, AND QUESTIONS If one considers the full range of experiences carried out in the five countries, each with its own history and experiences, it is important in a study such a this one to identify questions, dilemmas, or unresolved issues that can be used to formulate conjectures or hypotheses in order to contribute to the on-going debate in the field regarding alternatives for the prevention of child labor. a) Diverse meanings of Child Labor In spite of having been little considered when defining and carrying out macro policy, differentiation of C&YP by age group, gender, and life stages is important for the programs we are contemplating here. The experiences as a whole show that in order to define and carry out activities with working children and young people specific consideration is made of the different populations that embrace the concept of child labor. Consideration of ethnic and cultural differences have not yet been approached, but they are glimpsed as a focus of attention in programs such as that in Paraguay. The programs distinguish at least two age groups that are taken as references in defining strategies, methodologies, and specific actions. Moreover, the organizations define proposals for those 13 years of age and over that include training and the carrying out of specific kinds of labor; different from what the individuals have done in the past, it is true, but all the same, initiatives that generate income in other ways and under other conditions. From the beginning, in the formulation of the proposal it was evident that some of these programs approach the populations with whom they work differently, according to age and gender. In Peru, in the presentation of the working group, differentiates the “younger” population (78.8%) from that of 14-18 years (21.2%) taking as a referent the minimum legal age for employment. They are also differentiated in regard to the strategies and actions adopted. Ecuador distinguishes three age groups, with an emphasis on preventing child labor: children under 5 years of age, those between 5 and eleven, and those between 12 and 18. GI of Paraguay puts forth strategies and actions focused on education programs and guidance for the “younger” group, while for “older”31 individuals the emphasis is on vocational training. One of the most interesting facets of the work of the Centro DYA in Ecuador, mentioned, provides differentiated services for older laborers 14 to 18 years of age to whom, among other things, it is necessary to provide more recognition and visibility. In comparison with the services directed at younger individuals that focus on schooling, the emphasis in the former case is on technical

31. In all cases “younger” or “older” have no connotation different from the definition of “legal employment age”.

29

training and “alternative labor”, with surprising results in regard to the initiatives taken by young people regarding their work, the contributions of mothers and fathers and communities, and their participation in broader social movements of working C/A&YP. Thus, in presenting the results of its intervention, Global Infancia en Paraguay distinguishes according to age, noting that “older” subjects seem to acquire more confidence in themselves, which allows them to face situations and make decisions related to their situation and life prospects while “it is much more difficult to re-establish links with the families of those under the minimum working age than with adolescents ... (the former) require closer guidance and constant monitoring. They are more in danger of being influenced or manipulated by the responsible families. Adolescents are more likely to demand and exercise their rights”. In regard to the gender perspective, this is evident in the use of language by the five participating organizations, and can be seen in reports of practices in various programs. This is especially the case of Paraguay which also notes the importance of cultural differences such as those mentioned in regard to the indigenous population and to language. This subject deserves more efforts and study based on what can be derived from these experiences. The above demonstrates the diversity of the “child labor” concept and shows the need to approach the services provided to “working children” by age groups with the resulting design of differentiated strategies, methodologies, and activities. • The relations between child labor, poverty, and education Formulation of a hypothesis/question regarding recognition of these differences that could also have an impact, albeit provisional, on the definition of program objectives in relation to school and work has stimulated a particularly interesting exchange, and introduces one of the tensions that appears with great force among those who approach this subject from various perspectives. This is the case even though such a hypothesis is not clearly expressed in the systematizations of each program participating in this project, as we will see below. For some authors, there are clearly identifiable trends in regard to child labor in Latin America and the world: One view states that “childhood should be reserved for study and play ... child labor interferes with normal childhood development, and therefore should be eliminated. Thus, the goal is the progressive eradication of child labor”. This is the position of the International Labor Organization (ILO) through its IPEC Program. A second position sees child labor, appropriately protected and supervised, as a vehicle for socialization, training, and selfesteem. Although supporting the prohibition of dangerous work, it states that “those who must work should have the right and recognition to do so”. 30


A third perspective is that, “as long as the social and economic conditions that produce child labor do not change, one must understand it as a reality that should be protected in order to diminish the risks that such labor involves”32. These views are reflected in the statements of some of the participants of this project: • “It seems to me that there is a consensus among the organizations: the goal is the eradication of child labor for those under 14 or 15 years of age. However, we recognize that this is a gradual process, in view of the magnitude of the problem in each country. Therefore, at a very general level, in order to achieve eradication we must seek an annual decrease of the participation rate of those under 14 or 15 years of age (in accordance with the minimum legal working age). This process should be more accelerated in the case of activities that present greater risks and place in danger the lives of children (work at landfills, mines, servanthood, sugar cane harvesting, etc.) ... ... For those over 15 years (the legal age) the NGOs are encouraging removal from dangerous or exploiting activities and the offer of training alternatives for proper work or substitution of certain activities by those that are safer, but always giving priority to education and removal until adulthood as the best option for this group of adolescents”33. • “The focus under which most organizations work is that of international agreements of the ILO that refer to the ‘progressive’ eradication of child labor. As Roxana says, all of the organizations seek the removal of children from dangerous employment and we feel that this is a gradual process that, above all in the case of adolescents is more complex because they earn significant income are considered to be adults, and moreover have generally dropped out of school. In these cases, one speaks of timely substitution for non-dangerous activities as an alternative to eradication. At the same time, schooling efforts are made with strategies different from those directed at younger children. ... In summary, removal from dangerous activities is the common goal. But for adolescents, due to circumstances described above, the strategies are more gradual. Dangerous work is prohibited, and for this reason should be eradicated. In the case of younger children, eradicated for DYA means completely eliminated, and for adolescents, eradicated may mean timely substitution for non-dangerous activities. Certainly, it seems to me that the concept is the same; the strategies are different”34. • “... it is important to note that in Latin America, child labor (‘dangerous’ or not) violates the comprehensive development of children, their right to education and to recreation ... the data on violation of the rights of working children are

32. Venegas, Fernando. Los conceptos, estrategias y metodologías en relación con el Trabajo Infantil. Instituto Nacional de la Niñez y la Familia, 2003, p. 8. 33. Méndez, Roxana, Casa Esperanza, Panama. Comentarios al texto inicial, February 17, 2006. 34. Guerrero, Maró, DYA, Ecuador. Comentarios al texto inicial, March 02, 2006.

31

convincing. CESIP works to achieve a future without child labor. Evidently, the strategies for facing this situation are complex and should be gradual as well as comprehensive, since the problem will not be solved ‘overnight’. Certainly, there are situations that cannot be tolerated for a minute, and where action should be taken immediately. CESIP neither retreats from nor redefines the general objective of ‘decreasing and eradicating child labor’; but it does define and develop specific strategies taking into account different situations”35. • “Child labor is a survival strategy of families living in poverty”, and for this reason “we do not work for eradication, but rather to accompany young people who work”36 (seeking alternatives that make possible the existence and full enjoyment of childhood). • “What is needed is a redefinition and increased recognition of the value of work as something that dignifies human effort, making it possible to differentiate it from child exploitation. We foster the participation of child laborers in work. The problem is that of children and adolescents who increasingly enter the workplace too early and under improper conditions”37. Our position is a clear NO in regard to any type of child labor. Others do not say YES, but neither do they say NO. Rather, they are involved with a different view of the conditions associated with child labor, others views of the labor linked to survival, other understandings of the complexity and participation of subjects in alternatives regarding their own solutions, other meanings of intervention programs dealing with the problem. It also appears that the difference lies on the side not of principles, but rather on political realities, strategies, timing, and either wishing to cut the problem off at its roots, or look at it in context, work on multiple fronts, and encourage the subjects themselves to construct alternatives for survival ... The following positions coming from the literature on the subject and from the programs - express different understandings and approaches that inevitably lead to being labeled as unresolved “tensions” which, although not precisely the object of the present study, deserve being discussed and examined. It is important to remember that they are not always presented in such a marked manner. Nor are they the extremes to be seen dichotomously in terms of “black or white”, or “good or bad”. Rather, among them appear mixtures and combinations that illustrate the tensions and complexities of the issue and the proposals or alternatives for action. - The recognition of the role of child labor in family survival as a right to life, and the consideration that eradicating such labor is urgent, given that “children who work will become adults with disadvantages in the labor market” with the result that child labor reproduces poverty.

35. Vásquez, Ana, CESIP, Peru. Comentarios al texto inicial, February 24, 2006. 36. Presentation at the meeting in Antigua Guatemala, 2006. 37. Ibíd.

32


- “Persist in the struggle against poverty and not only against its symptoms”38 and attempt to resolve the problem for &YP who can be served rapidly. - The right to education seen as schooling and education as factors that can developed in open venues and considering their decisions and actions as social subjects. - Child labor seen as a social fact that denies the existence and universality of the “modern concept of childhood”39 which views this phase of life as a time reserved for study and play. - C&YP as beneficiaries of actions and programs and as subjects, citizens, and political actors. -Eradication of child labor along with attention to the situation that produces it , without seeking “immediate solutions” or avoiding considering the roots of the problem. b) Policies: legislation, agreements, and practices Work in five countries confirms, in general terms that laws regarding decrease, eradication, and protection have been sensitive to the complex reality of child labor, as expressed in reforms of child protection and labor legislation, protection conventions and legislation, the increase of labor control regulation and inspection, ratification of ILO conventions on the worse forms of child labor, and minimum age standards for admission to employment. This is the case of national constitutions which in some countries include specific considerations as in Paraguay, where “those under 14 years of age may not be occupied in any kind of labor ...”. There are also child and adolescent laws (E), family codes and labor codes (Panama) that provide legal instruments to regulate labor, guarantee rights, and assure protection of working C&YP. Guatemala has a Law for the Comprehensive Protection of Children and Adolescents. Nevertheless, the presence of large numbers of working children, adolescents, and young people, and the conditions under which they work are not only proof of weaknesses in the formulation of education policies. They also are evidence of feebleness in applying laws and agreements and, as the ILO points out, this involves questions of number and proportion, 38. Cussianovich, in: Trabajo Infantil en Debate. Interview with Cecilia Álvarez, Radio de APRODEH journalist, s.f, p.4. In: http://www.aprodeh.org.pe. 39. Ibíd.

33

parameters for measuring the seriousness of the problem, as well as the type of work, the conditions under which it is carried out, and the risks of those who are exposed to these conditions. One must add, and this is important, that this is not enough. Even though there is a very serious absence of considerations regarding economic and political processes, and particularly in view of the lack of decision and will to eradicate poverty and social inequalities, these issues cannot be disassociated in the analyses of policies that contribute to reducing the numbers of C&YP who are obliged to work. On the other hand, there are also inconsistencies in existing policies. This is the case of Paraguay, where the Labor Law “explicitly discriminates in the case of domestic labor ... for it is the only instance in which there is a 12 hour working day and paying 40% of the current minimum salary”. And there is the case of PA, where “the profusion of policy documents and agreements can generate fragmentation and chaos”, hindering its operation: “Dispersion complicates its application due to a lack of clarity in the responsibilities of control agencies and where 7.6% of child labor is located, in spite of the numerous reforms that control and place age limits on labor”. Or one can cite the obsolescence of such measures, as in the case of Guatemala. It is true that the programs carried out by the participating NGOs are not always supported by policy definitions. For Ecuador, one of the major problems, to which it attributes a specific weight in describing the child labor problem, is the “lack of public policies for prevention, control, and protection”. In Paraguay, “there has not been a political framework, nor specific social policy, nor institutional initiatives regarding child labor”, even while recognizing that “the promulgation of the Child and Adolescent Law that protects or regulates the working conditions for domestic service legitimated the activity of Global Infancia”. In agreements signed by with international organizations such as the ILO, governments pledge to make the greatest efforts to eliminate child labor and see to it that children do not work in conditions that place their lives and their dignity in danger. Indeed, all of these countries have ratified ILO conventions 182 and 138 regarding “the worst forms of child labor” and “minimum age for employment” that set the framework for carrying out education and child labor activities by the State. But these agreements are not obeyed, and one has seen how national entities tend to place all the responsibility and delegate the initiative to international organizations. In contrast to what Tuchman says about the Marcos countries40, here one does not always achieve harmonization of legal norms, specification of action mechanisms requires, nor are the commitments established in the agreements obeyed. One thing is certain, and in this there was agreement in the meeting held in Antigua Guatemala, it has not been possible to convert current law into political will and an agenda for action: “Establishment of legal frameworks, and even the ratification 40. Tokman, Víctor E. Assistant Director-General of ILO. Trabajo Infantil en los países del Mercosur, 2002.

34


of international conventions does not assure that they will be applied”. At times, it seems that in this, as Guatemala states, “not even governments or States are sensitive to the theme; the step is not taken from lyrical discourse to public policy”. There is a clear need to move ahead in formulating plans and programs for action that guarantees allocation of resources and that make possible the joining of both local and national efforts. But this is also needed on the regional level, committing different actors, both public and private in a task that most clearly is not that of a private organization.

• Other understandings of policy All of the work summarized herein illustrates how policy is not limited to the definition of norms and laws on the macro level. In each place, with the results described, these NGOs show their force and determination to intervene in definitions that, if not always resulting in law, mobilize energies almost always on the local level in order to make decisions that have impacts on the removal of children from labor, on their attending school, on serving and protecting child laborers ... These decisions are made in some cases by the mothers and fathers, by the children and young people themselves, by the communities or institutions, and sometimes by local governments. Risk-taking is preferred to delegating . There are also activities to train for and work in less dangerous tasks or less time per day, to jointly create new ways of viewing income, to support the lives of their families and communities. These are individual and collective decisions about their own lives ... ... and collectively, as happens with the groups, organizations, and institutions that, in creating networks, decide to work together, agree upon programs and activities, in order to obtain hoped-for results in the communities with which they work. In this way, the NGOs weave a social fabric with the child labor issue as a central focus. Some of them base all of their activities on constructing a network of governmental and non-governmental institutions. This is the case for Global Infancia in Paraguay. And in PA, business people and the public policy sector are actively committed to the proposal. In Ecuador, networks of communities and institutions, governmental and non-governmental organizations interested in the problem have been organized and are offering their services or programs to meet the needs of working children and young people. In practice, all of them become committed policy actors as subjects that decide and act, in this case focusing on working with the question of child labor and the placement of children and young people in school. In many cases it is through all of this local social mobilization that they have been able to influence government policy and to build awareness nationally in ministries of labor and of welfare, to make the issue known and included in various working agendas. Thus, as a result of decided effort on the local level, there is an attempt to define policies by influencing national institutions. 35

V. CONTRIBUTIONS OF EDUCATION TO THE CHILD LABOR ISSUE This document is the result of committed and systematic effort of NGOs that, in various Latin American countries, carry out programs seeking to reduce or eradicate child labor and to protect working children. This has required the efforts of each of the programs to convert practices into reports of experiences and in this way to place the issue on the public agenda. As we have seen, it is very useful to step away for a moment from the demands of practice in order to consider the production of knowledge about themselves and thus enter into a relation with other ways of thinking about and approaching the issue. We present below a summary of the major lessons learned from experience but which go beyond it, specifically in regard to the contributions of education to the problem. For better understanding is it necessary to remember that in this approach one understands that the activities of the NGOs involved are also educational, that education cannot be reduced to schooling processes alone, and that there is no single road to schooling, not historically and not in the present. Recognizing that it is the aspect of greatest importance, we emphasize the question of equity. The reduction of poverty and of inequalities have not been priorities for societies or for governments. But it is a priority for those who seek alternatives to the issue of child labor which, although it enjoys relative autonomy, as shown in the work described, it cannot be seen apart from the social and economic conditions of people in general. With rare exceptions, for more than thirty years the efforts of education policy in Latin America have been focused on broadening coverage, improving the “quality” of education, and the “efficiency” of education systems. The theme of equity, although appearing in the titles of some formulations, has not been treated, in spite of the overwhelming need to do so. This is not only due to the profound segmentation of education systems in the region, but rather due to their slight capacity to meet the specific issues of ethnic, cultural, and economic diversity of their populations. Currently, there is serious questioning of whether a system with excellent results, high coverage, and great efficiency can be considered to be of high quality when at the same time it is reproducing or aggravating inequalities, discrimination, and exclusion. Some studies have just begun to emphasize the issue of the association of quality with equity. Others see the qualityequity issues as inseparable. Nevertheless, equity continues to appear in many proposals as an additional, marginal factor rather than as a structural dimension of quality. In any case, the very high rates of those under 18 who, besides having work to survive do not enter school, and the difficulties that that those who are enrolled face in order to remain in school and succeed are proof of the serious limitations of coverage policies, plans, and programs as well as of the high degree to which education systems discriminate and exclude.

36


These facts place into question the results of education coverage policies that, even when able to reach a large proportion of the population in the region (there are even studies that show rates of above 100%41, a result of enrollment of those who are above what is defined as “school age”) conceals what is happening to historically excluded populations such as school age laborers. With the exception of the question of gender, other dimensions of discrimination continue to be unrecorded. For this reason, one of the first things to be done in order to guarantee complete inclusion as soon as possible is to carry out a “mapping” of the profile of education exclusion. Such a study would show the extent of discrimination, and include participation of the populations involved. Hopefully, it would aid in developing policies and practices for the elimination of exclusion and public control for achieving such policies, as proposed by Katrina Tomasevski42. Fortunately, voices are increasingly being raised and efforts are being carried out to see education, and specifically education of the poor, as one of the paths that has to be taken in order to eliminate exclusion and discrimination and to improve the quality of life. This is the case of the five NGOs that participated in this study. The programs that they carry out, working with the populations described that live in the direst poverty, all contribute to the inclusion and permanence, of working children and young people in school. But more than this, these programs seek to eliminate one of the most difficult obstacles faced by education attempting to eliminate child labor. As Tomasevski notes, this comes from policy definition itself; for the statement that education is a right of all is a generalization that is not equitable because “it defines no preferences”, nor does it take into account the fact that “the programs are not flexible and do not adjust to populations with specific characteristics” as in the case of working children43. It is here, in regard to this key question of equity that lies one of the most important contributions of these programs. For they demonstrate how to construct education proposals that are guided by the conditions and characteristics of each population: - Development of an education proposal that incorporates the lives, experiences, and knowledge of children and young

41. Muñoz Izquierdo, Carlos. Indicadores del desarrollo educativo en América Latina y de su impacto en los niveles de vida de la población. In Álvarez Gutiérrez, J. (2003). En busca de la equidad educativa en América Latina [Reseña del libro: Distintas escuelas, diferentes oportunidades. Los retos para la igualdad de oportunidades en Latinoamérica]. Revista Electrónica de Investigación Educativa, 5 (1). Consulted February 17, 2006 in: http://redie.uabc.mx/vol5no1/contenido-alvarez.html 42. Tomasevsky, Catarina. El derecho a la educación en Colombia. Informe relatora especial de las Naciones Unidas, sobre el derecho a la educación. Plataforma Colombiana de Derechos Humanos, Democracia y Desarrollo, 2004, p. 23. 43. Op. cit., p. 24.

37

people who live in a landfill44, in order to train individuals able to understand and transform their own life conditions, as exemplified by CAFNIMA in Guatemala. - The creation of conditions that make possible a “friendly and non-expelling school”, specifically in terms of participation and leadership of children and young people, as carried out by CESIP in Peru. Although not presented in the respective systematization document, it is worth examining the statements and proposals made by children and young people in the exchanges and meetings in schools and localities in regard to their situation and progress of the program. - Ways of fostering and protecting the right to education, in schools, as with the work of CESIP, and the processes followed in order to “discourage” child labor. - Processes for “improving the quality of education”, that take into account their perspectives of working C&YP, showing how they think, what these perspectives are, and the overall experience of GLOBAL INFANCIA in Paraguay. - Contributions to improving the physical and pedagogical conditions of schools and their relations with mothers and fathers on the part of the Centro DYA in Ecuador. This shows how even the most elemental changes can overcome hopelessness and awaken interest, trust, and commitment of populations to the education of their children45. The work described in previous sections systematized a set of practices with an emphasis on education. Within this framework, and thanks to this systematization, it is possible to identify specific points from which lessons can be derived from each experience and be taken into account and incorporated into the definition of policy in order to fine tune education proposals to the specific conditions of particular populations. Without doubt, each of these contributions can become a working referent to be taken into account and incorporated into policies, plans, programs, and practices of education systems and schools. Another contribution consists of the numerous activities, processes, and results according to aspects such as age, gender, and culture meant to serve the diversity contained within the concept of “child labor” and avoiding once again generalizations that perpetuate discrimination and exclusion. 44. “Cuando se le invita en el basurero para que vengan a estudiar, no les atrae porque piensan que esto se parece a la escuela formal, donde el maestro es el que sabe y el que transmite los conocimientos. Pero esta es una propuesta diferente, que parte de la vida y los intereses de los niños, como en la educación popular de Paulo Freire... ellos conocen su realidad y vienen acá para aprender, regresar y transformar su realidad”, dice el maestro Carlos Paz durante la visita realizada en enero de 2006 a la Casita Amarilla de CAFNIMA, Guatemala. 45. In addition, for the Centro DYA in Ecuador, “the most evident changes occured in the conditions of schools that by itself improve school climate”.

38


Experience shows the importance of making more places available in schools, of school construction, and repair, but that these are not sufficient for putting the right to education into practice. Experience also points toward concrete directions and proposals that unfortunately are not yet being taken into account by governments in order to guarantee this right and to use their influence to reduce and eradicate child labor. Much of the efforts carried out by these programs has been dedicated to seeking places in schools, study grants, and parent incentives in order to move forward in bringing students up to grade level. These are very important not only due to the outcomes obtained but also due to the value of the processes themselves with their successes and difficulties. One also finds contributions to “stopping from beginning the entry of children into employment” through programs such as daycare centers. These also are a way of serving working mothers and reducing child labor, as exemplified by the experience in Ecuador. It is important to note that these outcomes can only be viewed in relation to the set of activities carried out by each of these programs: awareness-building of groups, institutions, and political sectors in each locale, efforts to guarantee entry, permanence, and well-being in school, nutrition and recreation programs and activities related to interests, depending on age and gender, purposely aimed at improving levels of trust, self-esteem, and the ability to defend their own rights. One feature that deserves special consideration, because it undoubtedly plays a decisive role in regard to positive outcomes of the programs, has to do with different family support mechanisms for guaranteeing access to and permanence of their children in school. These mechanisms include study grants, economic and material incentives, academic skills tutoring programs, among others. This is particularly important when one considers that although it is not the only associated factor, poverty plays a decisive role in the generation of the child labor problem, an issue that, far from decreasing, is growing along with the widening gaps between rich and poor countries and between the wealthy and poor citizens within each of our countries. Income distribution in Latin America and the Caribbean continues to be extremely unequal. Some 60% of the families in the region receive 30% of the total income, while the other 40% receives 70%. This has an impact on the social distribution of opportunities for education. Beginning in secondary education, and especially in higher education, opportunities tend to be concentrated among the 40% of families that possess the highest incomes46.

46. Muñoz Izquierdo, Op. cit.

39

The guarantee to the right to education needs to be viewed within the framework of strengthening the protection of economic and social rights. The needs of these NGOs to financially subsidize families in order to assume the costs of the “school shopping cart” demonstrates the problem of high costs they go beyond tuition and that continue to be the responsibility of parents if they wish their children to have access to school. This puts into question declarations of “free and compulsory schooling” in the region. Almost all of the emphasis of education policy in the region has concentrated on timely entry into the first grade of primary school and, in some cases, on guaranteeing conditions for completing this grade in order to continue in school. But much needs to be done to assure that those who enter the same level of schooling have the same social and economic opportunities that allow them to broaden their life perspectives. This is where most of the poor encounter barriers. Moreover, as Reimers47states, this level does not exist in Latin America: “The expansion of education has made possible an increase in schooling by the poor and improvements in their living conditions, while the lack of schooling itself is a condition of exclusion”48. But there is no proof that education systems contribute to social mobility, not to speak of reducing social inequality. For the case of research in the United States, “nothing suggest that education can really solve profound inequalities without changes in other sectors of society”49. From this perspective, we present below analyses carried out in regard to education systems, schools, and teachers that indicate their limitations and possible contributions to the question of child labor, and particularly taking into account a reading of the statements made during the Second Meeting held in Antigua Guatemala.

• Regarding education systems The macro level is characterized in a number of areas by rhetoric and abandon. On the one hand, ministries and governments in general sign grandiose declarations declaring the right to education and its compulsory nature, human rights, and the “quality” and “efficiency” of systems. On the other, they incorporate practically nothing of this in their real policies in regard to the subject, define no actions, assign no responsibilities, and no budgets. Of course, there are exceptions and trends toward change in some countries. Generally, they do not even treat the most basic aspects such as making the school calendar more flexible in terms of hours for entry and exit, entry requirements and acceptance of over-age children, fostering targeted modalities, identification and 47. Reimers, Fernando. Educación, Pobreza y Desigualdad. Interview carried out by Cordero, Guatemala. Revista Electrónica de Investigación Educativa, 1999. 48. Ibíd. 49. Orfield, Gary. “Política y equidad: lecciones de un tercio de siglo de reformas educacionales en los Estados Unidos”. In: Reimers, Fernando (Coord.) (2002). Distintas escuelas, diferentes oportunidades. Los retos para la igualdad de oportunidades en Latinoamérica. Madrid: La Muralla, p. 609, 2002. Revista Electrónica de Investigación Educativa, 5 (1). March 9, 2006 in: http://redie.uabc.mx/vol5no1/contenido-alvarez.html

40


follow-up of situations that violate the dignity of children and young people. Not to speak of making curricula and school projects more flexible in order to take into account the specific problems and conditions of particular groups. They do not think in terms of schools that prepare students for life, for work, for culture, and that break with the homogeneous and inflexible model that has as its only goal preparation for university and continuation of study. They do not show evidence of sufficient knowledge of the problem, and very infrequently treat factors that are truly important such as over-age students, drop-out, and grade failure. When they do treat these subjects, they end up blaming child labor for generating these kinds of problems and are not able to relate it with problems associated with current economic and social models. In various cases, the problem is also centered in ministries of labor of or welfare, probably due to the direct connection and influence of organizations such as the ILO, IPEC, and UNICEF, which have moved more in this direction in the definition of aspects related to the prohibition of child labor, minimum employment ages, and programs for protecting child laborers. It would seem that education systems have not played a dominant role in this area. In any event, it is important to recognize that some countries have organized schemes for bringing together all government ministries, including that of education, around the child and juvenile question and are encouraging a similar organization on the local level. It is much more on the local and municipal levels and, depending on the degree of public participation, on awareness or pressures exerted, that one can find a greater level of commitment and definition of actions, including allocation of resources. However, due to factors such as the lack of autonomy, decision-making capacity, and resources at these levels that NGOs tend to opt for a framework of general agreement - a kind of stamp of approval of public authorities - so that, even if they don’t give direct support, at least they don’t become an obstacle, and may gradually adhere to the activities of the NGOs. In various countries there are proposals to incorporate the theme into curricula, to train teachers, to build awareness of the education community, to develop modules, to create targeted modalities and bring them to the local level through ministries of education. The problem that can arise in these cases is that one is “delegating” from above decisions that should be in the hands of communities with the support of government. Through this door enters discussion of the role of the State and the importance of the theme in relation to the rhetoric on free schooling, and access and permanence in school. In general, what one observes is the low level of resources allocated to education and the sorry state of many schools. For these reasons, some of the activities of NGOs are aimed at directly solving problems of infrastructure, materials, and resources. 41

• Regarding schools The different positions of NGOs regarding schools are critical and paradoxical. It is said that schools do not welcome and do not take into account the specific problems of working children50; it is said that schools are the best venue for identifying and accompanying the working child population and for carrying out activities directed at communities and the children themselves (at times, clearly, because “there is no other option”); schools are cited as the best place for dissemination and fostering of human rights. On the other hand, programs have in some cases been able to have schools associate with the processes in more local venues. They have incorporated and received C&YP who work at a different pace in these venues, have made school more attractive, relating to the expectations and interests of the children, incorporating the theme into school projects, carried out activities to assure that child laborers recognize their rights, and have encouraged more open and alternative education modalities, accelerated forms, and flexible hours. In these cases, the leadership of principals play a key role. This has not been the result of national policies. There are no explicit local or school policies nor collective school plans. A favorable condition seems to be related to the “distance” of the school, with a lesser degree of dependency on orders coming from above and a more direct influence of the population and its demands. In some cases, these aware principals and teachers have joined together with municipal authorities and local government. They construct networks of schools, links between schools and community organizations, between schools and universities that contribute to thinking and acting in other ways and with greater force in face of the issue. Also, in these cases many NGOs have begun to change their postures, from openly blaming schools to a strategy of persuasion, or gradual “courting” that in various cases produces closer understanding and respect for the teachers and principals, with the school being an ally with great receptivity commitment and a desire to innovate and establish a better connection with the population, its conditions, and expectations.

50 . Schools are reject rather than welcome due to enrollment requirements that hinder the entry of working C&YP, to selectivity and stigmatization, costs, curricular standards, when they are teacher-centered, and have rigid assessment standards. “The schools are selective and are not familiar with, or do not want to deal with working young people who are in the street and acquire a street culture and are rejected. They are abused young people who shout in order to be heard, and replicate the violence to which they have been subjected. Schools reject them. There needs to be special pedagogy. And in classrooms that have more than 50 students the presence of confrontational young people creates difficulties”. Christian Aponte, Antigua Guatemala meeting, Janurary, 2006.

42


• Regarding teachers It is the same for the case of teachers. The perception is that they are not acquainted with the issue of child labor and request “training”51, that they need to analyze and use statistics on child labor and schools, that the work should be carried out directly by programs specializing in the issue, to prevent and denounce child labor. They also mention that teachers are reluctant to assume certain commitments, saying that their roles consists of fulfilling academic programs and that they lack adequate pedagogical methods ... and that there is a gap between teacher rhetoric and their practices. This is a stereotypical view that does not recognize differences and is based on seeing only limitations and deficiencies. There is no recognition of the condition of teachers as subjects; no questioning about their interests, quests, and commitments. When in some cases there is a reference to teachers’ precarious social and working conditions, these issues are not pursued in depth. But here too the NGOs recognize that, when they are disposed and act through “conviction”, teachers can become involved and committed to the programs, seeking opportunities to work with the question of child labor and children’s’ rights, strengthen their skills and are willing to experiment with other methods. This is a particularly critical point because many NGOs see teachers neither as subjects or social actors, nor as intellectuals. Often, their approaches to teachers have been no more than instrumental. For this reason, this is a subject that requires special treatment in the discussions on this theme. Fortunately, in Latin America there is a movement of teachers that meets periodically to share practices and knowledge, discuss the problems of schools, course content, their social function and relation with culture. They are pedagogy professionals, who take risks in breaking with homogeneous curricula and study plans that do not attend to their voices nor those of the populations with whom they work, and dare to invent and experiment with other forms of schooling. They are pedagogical intellectuals and cultural workers. They do not think of themselves merely drawing a salary, and are aware of the profoundly political dimension of pedagogy52.

51. The training model has been put into question for the very reason that it does not recognize teachers as subjects; because it considers teachers to be “uncapable”; because it does not take advantage of their knowledge, their purposes, and their desires. Moreover, it s now widely recognized that this model, at least in Latin America, has not contributed to enriching school life. 52. See references to different networks, such as the Red de Transformación de la Educación Básica desde la Escuela (TEBES) of Mexico, the Red IRES of Spain, the Red DHIE of CTERA Argentina, the Rede RIE of Brazil, the Red CEE of Colombia, all of which are part of the Red Iberoamericana de Colectivos Escolares y Redes de Maestros that carry out school-based innovation and research.

43

Certainly, areas of interest to NGOs, such as curricula and learning and teaching materials demand that teachers be understood as subjects53. Demands made upon schools and teachers from both inside and outside the education system are multiple and diverse. Once again one must ask how far one can go through this venue54. Some things can be expected of education, and particularly of schools; but they alone cannot resolve problems that require the efforts of society as a whole and as well as commitment at the local and national levels and even touching upon formulation of foreign policy. The seminar entitled Education Policy and Equity, held in Santiago, Chile in November of 2004 provided some contributions in this regard: “It is increasingly clear that schools by themselves cannot solve the problem of inequality in education systems, and much less inequality within society. It is vital that schools be seen as part of the social system and relate with other sectors” 55. As Patrick Bouveau states: “Schools can’t do everything by themselves, but they can do more than one imagines” 56. On the other hand, some studies have shown the limitations of the strategy of incorporating the child labor issue into existing plans and programs for the execution of activities foreseen by policy: “... in each sector, the issue is added as one more component, and the plan is diluted within sectoral programming. Thus, there is progress in terms of placing the theme into regular programs; but one loses specificity of actions that working children and young people require. In the end what one sees are a number of isolated efforts that demonstrate the achievement of multisectorality, but that limits inter-sectorality and thus the achievement of objectives because sectoral or institutional actions are not enough to “compensate” for the situations of inequality of working children and young people”57.

53. The subject of teachers as subjects of knowledge, of needs, and of policy has been widely considered by the Grupo de la Práctica Pedagógica and by networks. Currently it is a theme behind the Expedición Pedagógica Nacional taking place in Colombia. 54. This discussion is particularly important when one considers that according to some analyses, “schools should solve the problem of poverty, since they are responsible for it”. (Participant at the Antigua Guatemala Meeting, January, 2006.55. García Huidobro, Juan Eduardo. “Síntesis del Seminario”. In: Políticas Educativas y Equidad. Reflexiones del Seminario Internacional, Universidad Alberto Hurtado, OREALC/UNESCO, Ford Foundation and UNICEF, 2004, p. 296. 55. García Huidobro, Juan Eduardo. “Síntesis del Seminario”. In: Políticas Educativas y Equidad. Reflexiones del Seminario Internacional, Universidad Alberto Hurtado, OREALC/UNESCO, Ford Foundation and UNICEF, 2004, p. 296. 56. Bouveau, Patrick. “La discriminación positiva en el mundo”, ¿una utopía pedagógica? In: Políticas Educativas y Equidad. Reflexiones del Seminario. Op. Cit., 2004, p. 52. 57. Observatorio sobre Infancia. Análisis de la política nacional frente al trabajo infantil en Colombia, 1995-2002, Universidad Nacional, 2003.

44


More effort should be made in this area of alliances, social movements, and intersectorality able to unite forces and to define agendas and working plans, to translate announced principles regarding the broader issue into actions. As we have seen, the problem cannot be solved by isolated activities in order eradicate, even gradually, the problem of child labor. It is well to emphasize that for education, an immediate commitment is mobilization around the exercise of the right to education, including guaranteeing that it is free, subsidizing the cost of to families, flexibilization and adjustment of proposals for all working school-age children. This also includes thinking about and proposing other forms of schooling able to recognize and to include in its practice the specific life conditions and problems faced by children and young people, as well as an approach to the different kinds of “childhood” that exist in the Latin American region. The struggle against child labor is also a struggle against poverty from which child labor prevention policies cannot be separated and cannot be left unconsidered. In the words of one of the participants, at the conclusion of the meeting: “With families remaining in poverty, many children and young people must return to working. There are not sufficient opportunities, and in this regard we have done very little. Thus, the need to create awareness among local authorities and thus influence State and government policy”58. As we have seen, the present study treats three aspects. First, it demonstrates what five dedicated and committed NGOs can do to aid children who, due to extreme poverty, are obliged to work. The results, in terms of what each of them has proposed and the processes through which so many children, young people, families, and communities have been able to construct new ways of viewing themselves and new modes of individual and collective life, have become referents for thinking about and constructing proposals around this issue. Second, this work illustrates some of the questions and problems arising from different postures within in an area that, without doubt, demands new and broader venues for meeting, exchanging, seeking, and creating. Finally, the systematization considers specific contributions and responsibilities of education, in the understanding that this is a task that requires intersectoral effort and decisions that commit society as a whole. Thus, the importance of broadening initiatives such as working networks between institutions and organizations that strengthen decision-making and action on the local to the national level and that open the prospect for building a fabric, such as that begun with this project sponsored by UNESCO, between the countries of Latin America.

58. Antigua Guatemala Meeting, January, 2006.

45

REFERENCE DOCUMENTS

CAFNIMA. Sistematización del Programa de Educación Extraescolar Alternativa para Niñas, Niños y Jóvenes Trabajadores. Casita Amarilla, Guatemala, 2005. CENTRO DYA. Sistematización de los Modelos de Erradicación del Trabajo Infantil en las minas de oro de Bella Rica y en el botadero de basura de Quito. Ecuador, 2005. CASA ESPERANZA. Sistematización-Evaluación Programa de Atención Integral. Panama, 2005. GLOBAL INFANCIA. Criadas y trabajadoras domésticas infantiles en Paraguay: de la invisibilidad al reconocimiento de derechos. Reflexiones sobre la práctica educativa. Paraguay, 2005. CESIP. Sistematización de la Experiencia de Actuación institucional del CESIP en la promoción del Derecho a la Educación de Niños, Niñas y Adolescentes que Trabajan. Peru, 2005.

46


ANEXO 1 MATRIX OF INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE SYSTEMATIZATION OF EXPERIENCES OF FIVE COUNTRIES ECUADOR

GUATEMALA

PANAMA

PARAGUAY

PERU

INSTITUTIONS Name/Programs Institutional proposal DATA ON CHILD AND JUVINILE LABOR IN EACH COUNTRY Child and juvenile laborers (CJL) Schooling CJL Factors that generate child labor in the opinion of the institutions POLICIES AND ACTIONS FRAMEWORK Policies CJL eradication/reduction programs PROGRAMS Population served Working conditions of population served Intervention factors for reducing/eradicating child labor59 Specific objectives General methodology Direct activities with CJL Activities with schools Activities with families/communities Organizational activities

59. Please specify in each case if the references correspond to general knowledge of the factors that influence the reduction/eradication of CJL or if they are aspects to be approached by a specific program.

47

ECUADOR

GUATEMALA OUTCOMES

Withdrawal and prevention of child labor School entry Labor training and alternative employment for young people Nutrition and health Self-perceptions and of their rights/perception of child labor Attitudes toward schooling and future expectations Links and communication with original families School infrastructure and equipment Teacher training School practices Organizational Parents Program activities Production of materials DIFFICULTIES LESSONS LEARNED SUSTAINABILITY

48

PANAMA

PARAGUAY

PERU


ANEXO 2 PROJECT SUMMARY Title

New roles for schools in reducing child labor (ECL: education and child labor)

General framework

Guidelines of EFA-PRELAC: combating poverty, fostering equity, support for vulnerable groups, primary education, management alternatives, culture and new meanings. Rights. - Project for strengthening existing initiatives - Future extension to other countries or areas. - Coordination with other OREALC networks and programs.

General purpose

Strengthen and disseminate best practices on reducing child labor, considering the contributions and limitations of education (systems, schools, management, and teachers): adaptation of curricula, follow-up, retention in school, and outcomes, school management and culture, relations with families and communities.

Goal

Contribute -through schools - to reducing child labor and fostering the right to education.

Objective

Develop new educational strategies that complement child labor programs.

Expected results

1. Recognition of the value of programs and approaches. 2. New education strategies and instruments applied to selected programs. 3. Experience systematized and presented to various authorities and civil society.

NGOs and participating

- DYA, Ecuador

countries

- CAFNIMA, Guatemala. - CASA ESPERANZA, Panama. - GLOBAL INFANCIA, Paraguay. - CESIP, Peru.

Major keys

- Sum of efforts and processes under development. - Coordination of entities involved. - Recognition of the value of peer learning. - Recognition of value of common and particular aspects. - Lines of participatory systematization.

Child labor issues

Various. Among them: work in landfills, streets, various businesses, domestic service, mines, etc.

Beneficiaries

- Children and education communities. - Areas involved in programs that foster alternatives to child labor.

49

Counterparts

- Alternative child labor programs. NGOs, social movements, churches, national and local governments. - Education communities involved. - Local representatives of ministries of education

Links

- UNESCO national offices. - Relations with con international programs: ILO, UNICEF, etc.

Duration

One year.

Source

Extra-budgetary projects. Capacity building for EFA.

50

The project "New roles of education for reducing child labor" is systematized in this document and provides, from the perspective of education, new contributions and roles in regard to the theme. We know that schools cannot by themselves solve such a complex question. But we believe that they can make an important contribution through education actors who are sensitive to national social issues. This systematization presents the practices and thinking of NGOs that have joined in this effort: CAFNIMA of Guatemala, CASA ESPERANZA of Panama, DYA of Ecuador, CESIP of Peru, and GLOBAL INFANCIA of Paraguay, presenting their experience, strategies, management, and achievements. As so often is the case in our Latin America, their experiences, strategies, management, and achievements are common and at the same time different.

Cover Photo: © UNESCO. E. Barrios, G. Tealdi, R. Lepage

Efforts to reduce poverty and inequality have been significant in some areas and insufficient in others. In any case, the results still appear far-off, principally for the poorer countries and for the poor in general. Child labor is an expression of exclusion, the seriousness of which increases depending on its scope, worker age, and the dangers involved. Its negative impact is apparent on health, safety, family relations, and on access to, permanence in, and outcomes of education.