Self-Reflection: Norms and Policies for Children’s Well-Being

In China，the children of Yi , the ethnic minorities in Daliangshan, have helped the family with farm work since they were young, and the girls also need to do embroider for their dowry. There is a widespread belief among locals that sending children to school is pointless. In particular, there are social customs of getting engaged early to collect dowry, a kind buying and selling marriages in disguise.Girls are considered to belong to other people's property in the future, and they are even more reluctant to send girls to school.

After many years of work by the government and NGO, the custom of sending children to school is now deeply rooted in the hearts of the people. If you want a good future, you should go to school.

However, the custom of getting girls engaged to receive a dowry has not changed. Educated girls can charge a higher dowry. College students can receive a dowry of more than 300,000 yuan. Therefore, after some girls get engaged, their rich husband's family is willing to sponsor their studies, which is regarded as an investment.

Sending child to education is good for child‘s development and well-being,but the unequal between boy and girl as well as girls being treating as property to be bought and sold in their marriage, are harmful to the well-being of child.

The government's 9-year compulsory education is conducive to the well-being of children, but this policy has not changed the social norms of early engagement to cllect dowry of Yi girls. This social norms do not violate government policies.

 What norms exist around caring for children in your context? Which of these are supportive of children’s wellbeing and which are harmful to children?

What policies exist to promote children’s well-being? Do the social norms you mentioned align with government policies? 

Self-Reflection: Obstacles to and Enablers of Constructive Engagement

 Question: What are the obstacles to and enablers of constructive engagement by communities to protect children during humanitarian crises? 

The community, including the school, is the important social environment in which children grow up and develop all kinds relationships with people such as friends, neighbors and teachers and so on.

I recognize that even in humanitarian crises, communities themselves still have  resources that help support and protect children. There are various ways and means to engage with communities and empower communities to enable their own agency decision-making and resilience. 

There are two main approaches to constructively engaging with the community: a top-down approach and a bottom-up approach, depending on the current state of the community and the severity and length of the crisis.

When my organization carried out projects for children of migrant workers in the community, we cooperated with schools, gained the trust of parents, and successfully started the work. Subsequently, we designed extracurricular activities based on the needs of parents and the school schedule, making these activities popular with parents.Later, through the summer hosting activities, we coordinated parents to help each other solve meal problems. Parents start to get involved in event management. Finally, we launched the Parent Management Committee and realized the Parent Management Project.

Event space issues limit institutional growth. The government-led community is unwilling to provide the necessary space for activities. In other words, our activities are bottom-up, and the community has not received instructions from the superiors, nor is it willing to intervene to support our community activities. This is our biggest barrier to entering the community.

The government tightly controls social activity and is reluctant to see spontaneous, self-managed institutional activity. Instead, it tries to place these activities within its management system. This to some extent destroyed the efforts in the community

Self-Reflection: Obstacles to and Enablers of Constructive Engagement