Does every rural child REALLY matter?
If you had a choice where would you prefer to bring up your children, in the countryside or in a city? Does your answer change as children get older and need different things? What can be done to support young people in rural areas and champion their needs? Jessica Sellick investigates.
The Good Childhood Report 2012, prepared by The Children’s Society, signalled differences in the views of young people in urban and rural areas: children in rural areas were found to be less satisfied with local facilities but more likely to feel safe and have freedom in their local area. Yet other studies have shown that young people living in rural areas have been left struggling to find opportunities since the economic downturn –facing a number of rural barriers including access to transport, careers advice, training support and youth services. So what is it like as a young person living in rural England today? I offer three points.
Firstly, growing up in the countryside. While some people claim much of the countryside’s charms and the rural idyll have been eroded – when did you last see milk churn idling down a country lane? – for others, the rural sights, sounds and communities is preferable to living in a city any day; leaving many parents with a dilemma about where to bring up children. Their quandary resonates in the latest Family Friendly Hotspots Report which analysed 2,400 postcode districts in England and Wales to find the 20 best places to bring up children.
The ranking is based upon the Key Stage 2 scores of local schools, low crime rates, green spaces and favourable house price to earnings ratios. The national results identified ‘family friendly hotspots’ in the M4 corridor, Devon, Yorkshire, Powys, Northamptonshire and Leicestershire: with Chulmleigh/Devon (ranked 3 out of 20), Shebbear/Devon (ranked 5 out of 20) and Oakham/Rutland (ranked 6 out of 20). As not every family can (or will want) to live in a rural area such as Devon, the Report also lists the top 10 cities, with Bristol ranked first for families.
According to figures released by the Organisation for Economic Development and Co-operation (OECD), Britain was ranked 30th out of 57 countries in terms of results achieved by urban-based pupils but was10th in the world based on scores in rural areas. Although pupils in inner-city schools usually came from ‘more advantaged socio-economic backgrounds’, they were outperformed by pupils at village schools where student numbers were more settled and teachers catered to children’s abilities, interests and aspirations.
Yet Professor Mark Shucksmith (Newcastle Institute for Social Renewal) argues that schools in many rural areas could simply disappear in the next few years. The government’s new national funding formula aims to increase competition among schools by rewarding schools that can attract more pupils. In practice, this means each school will receive a lump-sum and an amount related to its number of pupils rather than its budget relating to size, (rural) location or age of pupils. This may lead local authorities to reduce the funding for small rural schools, thus threatening their viability.
What emerges here is a disjuncture between children, parents and communities fighting to keep rural schools open alongside other bodies seeking to provide teaching resources, activities and visits for urban children, introducing them to rural career opportunities and the world of work (e.g. FACE) and all amid the dropping of Land Based BTECs from league tables.
Secondly, how can you ‘get on’ living in the countryside? One of the most pressing concerns around the future sustainability of rural communities is the exodus of young people. According to figures from the Commission for Rural Communities (CRC), since the onset of the recession in 2008, the number of young people Not in Education, Employment and Training (NEET) has increased from 84,000 to 123,000 in 2012 (or 12.9% of all young people living in rural areas). Young people who are NEET are not a homogeneous group and there can be considerable churn as they move in and out of courses and temporary jobs. However, accessing transport (private car or bus service), having a higher proportion of small businesses, lack of affordable housing and competing for a job in a low wage (seasonal) economy presents rural challenges for young people, which can lead them to migrate.
Although it can be in the interests of young people to move away (for education or better employment prospects) they may prefer to draw upon the dependability and support from local people and organisations or may not have the option to move to another labour market (e.g. unable to move out of parental home). To what extent are some of the initiatives overseen by national Government able to tackle some of these challenges? For example, will some of the barriers to economic growth in the countryside be overcome by the activities of Local Enterprise Partnerships, Skills and Knowledge Transfer Programme or Rural Growth Network Pilots? Will these initiatives open up rural careers and the world of work?
Thirdly, how can we recognise the experiences and aspirations of children and young people in our rural areas? To date, there has been an oscillation between what young people want (often supported by youth workers) leading to youth centric views; and what policy makers want which can result in standardised and hard measures around education, employment and training. On the one hand, young people may be inexperienced in understanding public policy or disinterested in shaping policy; on the other hand, policy and decision makers are distanced from young people when designing their interventions. One way of thinking about rural youth from the perspective of children and young people is on a continuum: from them having free will (at one end) to having no life choices (at the other end).
And the secret is to unlock the barriers which prevent young people from realising their potential. For example, you could map where young people are on this continuum using the five indicators in Every Child Matters (introduced in 2003 as a key new move to help promote the well-being of children and young people but not carried on by the current Government). Namely, can young people: (i) be healthy, (ii) stay safe, (iii) enjoy and achieve, (iv) make a positive contribution and (v) achieve economic well-being? i and ii apply in a rural context (reinforced by the findings of the Good Childhood Report), so perhaps iii, iv and v should be a priority for policy and decision makers and rural communities and young people?
With the ‘town versus country: where’s best to bring up children’ debate ongoing, the RSN is holding an event on children and young people on 11 June 2013 at the University of Plymouth. The event will include presentations from Naomi Tyrrell (Plymouth University) on the challenges facing young people living in the countryside; Mike Leyshon (University of Exeter) who will be revisiting ‘A Place to Hang Out: 12 years of Survey Data on Rural Youth Lifestyles’; Naomi Griffith (Director CIC & independent consultant) highlighting the inspirational work of the Minehead EYE project; and Chris Ranford (Fisheries Community Animateur, Cornwall Rural Community Council) on how to support young people wishing to pursue a career in fishing. For more information and to book your place at this free event please contact Richard Inman by email richard.inman@sparse.gov.uk or telephone 01822 813693.
Jessica is a rural practitioner at Rose Regeneration which has particular empathy and enthusiasm for rural and coastal issues. She recently led a project for Oxfam on farm poverty, research for the Royal Agricultural Society of England (RASE), The Farmer Network, Cumbria Fells & Dales and Solway Border & Eden Local Action Groups (LAGs) and The Princes Countryside Fund to understand how farmer networks operate; and a commission for Defra on alternative models of service delivery. Jessica can be contacted by email jessica.sellick@roseregeneration.co.uk or telephone 01522 521211. Website: www.roseregeneration.co.uk
