Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
On any given day, more than one billion of the world’s children go to school. Whether they sit
in buildings, in tents or even under trees, ideally they are learning, developing and enriching their lives.
For too many children, though, school is not always a positive experience. Some endure difficult
conditions, like extremely hot or cold temperatures in the classroom or primitive sanitation. Others lack
competent teachers and appropriate curricula. Still others may be forced to contend with discrimination,
harassment and even violence. These conditions are not conducive to learning or development, and no
child should have to experience them. A school is considered “child friendly” when it provides a safe,
clean, healthy and protective environment for children. At Child Friendly Schools, child rights are
respected, and all children – including children who are poor, disabled, living with HIV or from ethnic
A Child Friendly School is a school that recognizes and nurtures the achievement of children's
basic rights. Child Friendly Schools work with all commitment-holders, especially parents/guardians of
students, and values the many kinds of contributions they can make in seeking all children to go to
school, in the development of a learning environment for children and effective learning quality
according to the children's current and future needs. The learning environments of Child Friendly
Schools are characterized by equity, balance, freedom, solidarity, non-violence and a concern for
physical, mental and emotional health. These lead to the development of knowledge, skills, attitudes,
values, morals so that children can live together in a harmonious way. A child friendly school nurtures
At the schools, teachers are trained on child rights, while teaching methods focus on a child-
centered approach. Lessons for children include essential life skills aimed at keeping them safe and
building the skills they will need to fulfill their potential and contribute fully to society. In addition,
1
Child Friendly Schools bring together students and members of the community to develop and act on
CFS environments build upon the assets that children bring from their homes and communities,
respecting their unique backgrounds and circumstances. At the same time, the CFS model compensates
for any shortcomings in the home and community that might make it difficult for children to enroll in
school, attend regularly and succeed in their studies. For example, if there is a food shortage in the
community, school-feeding programmes can provide children both with the nutrition they so critically
need and the incentive to stay in school and get an education. The CFS model also builds partnerships
between schools and the community. Since children have the right to be fully prepared to become
active and productive citizens, their learning must be linked to the wider community.
The Education Section of UNICEF’s Programme Division introduced the Child Friendly
Schools (CFS) framework for schools that “serve the whole child” in 1999. AIR, (2009). Today, the
CFS initiative is UNICEF’s flagship education programme, and UNICEF supports implementation of
the CFS framework in 95 countries and promotes it at the global and regional levels. Bernard, (2003).
The framework for rights-based, child-friendly educational systems and schools characterized as
"inclusive, healthy and protective for all children, effective with children, and involved with families
The school is a significant personal and social environment in the lives of its
students. A child-friendly school ensures every child an environment that is physically safe,
Teachers are the single most important factor in creating an effective and
inclusive classroom.
2
Children are natural learners, but this capacity to learn can be undermined and
sometimes destroyed. A child-friendly school recognizes, encourages and supports children's growing
capacities as learners by providing a school culture, teaching behaviours and curriculum content that
children are motivated and able to learn. Staff members are friendly and welcoming to children and
Child-friendly school must reflect an environment of good quality characterized by several essential
aspects:
Inclusive of children
Respects diversity and ensures equality of learning for all children (e.g., girls,
working children, children of ethnic minorities and affected by HIV/AIDS, children with disabilities,
children (e.g., based on gender, social class, ethnicity, and ability level).
3
Promotes good quality teaching and learning processes with individualized
instruction appropriate to each child's developmental level, abilities, and learning style and with active,
water and sanitation facilities and healthy classrooms, healthy policies and practices (e.g., a school free
of drugs, corporal punishment, and harassment), and the provision of health services such as nutritional
and learners.
Helps to defend and protect all children from abuse and harm.
Gender-sensitive
4
Guarantees girl-friendly facilities, curricula, textbooks, and teaching learning
caregivers and educators and helping children, parents, and teachers establish harmonious relationships.
community for the sake of children, and working with other actors to ensure the fulfillment of
childrens' rights.
powerful tool for both helping to fulfill the rights of children and providing them an education of good
quality. At the national level, for ministries, development agencies, and civil society organizations, the
framework can be used as a normative goal for policies and programmes leading to child-friendly
systems and environments, as a focus for collaborative programming leading to greater resource
allocations for education, and as a component of staff training. At the community level, for school staff,
parents, and other community members, the framework can serve as both a goal and a tool of quality
improvement through localized self-assessment, planning, and management and as a means for
5
Effective and high-quality learning environments
A quality learning environment promotes high-quality teaching of relevant knowledge and skills
through instruction that is adapted to meet students’ needs and that encourages children’s active
engagement, rather than relying on traditional rote learning approaches (AIR, 2009). When teachers
encourage student to be actively engaged in the learning process and to do well, and when students are
presented with interesting learning opportunities, they are more likely to stay in school and succeed
academically (Lockheed & Lewis, 2007). Children’s active participation in learning reflects not only a
child-centred approach to pedagogy but also the principle of democratic participation. Further, in the
recently revised manual for CFS, UNICEF describes child-centred learning as follows (UNICEF,
2009): Learning is central to education and in line with the child-centred principle, the child as learner
is central to the process of teaching and learning. In other words, the classroom process should not be
one in which children are passive recipients of knowledge dispensed by a sole authority, the teacher.
Rather, it should be an interactive process in which children are active participants in observing,
exploring, listening, reasoning, questioning and “coming to know.” This is at the heart of the
classroom process in all Child Friendly school models, and it is critical for teachers to be well trained
in this pedagogy.
6
Many schools serve communities that have a high prevalence of diseases related to inadequate
water supply, sanitation and hygiene, and where child malnutrition and other underlying health
problems are common. (WHO 2004c). The international policy environment increasingly reflects these
issues. Providing adequate levels of water supply, sanitation and hygiene in schools is of direct
relevance to the Millennium Development Goals1 on achieving universal primary education, promoting
gender equality and reducing child mortality. It is also supportive of other goals, especially those on
Lack of a safe and secure school environment, both within schools and for children who must
provides the context for provision of safe water and sanitation facilities for children in schools.
Creating a healthy school environment by provision of safe water and sanitation facilities within
schools, to improve children’s health, well being and dignity, is likely to be most effective where it is
Teachers are the key to making schools “child-friendly”. They are trained on children’s
participation in school development and on how to effectively pass on this knowledge and awareness to
The most important factor affecting the quality of education is the quality of the individual teacher
in the classroom. There is clear evidence that a teacher’s ability and effectiveness are the most
7
influential determinants of student achievement. Regardless of the resources that are provided, rules
that are adopted and curriculum that is revised, the primary source of learning for students remains the
classroom teacher. More critically, the importance of good teaching to the academic success of students
Once teachers, parents and community members are trained on child rights, they meet to assess
themselves, the school and community on what they lack and what needs to be improved. Most schools
organize activities for students, including Child Rights Clubs, which students run by themselves.
In addition, teachers are required to prepare individual files on each student, which include
information on the student’s socio-economic background as well as the student’s strengths and
weaknesses in school. This is considered one of the most important elements of the Child Friendly
School, since by having such information teachers become closer to each student and understand much
Lack of clean water and sanitation (e.g. separate toilets for girls and boys and hand-washing
facilities)
Water, sanitation and hygiene-related diseases are a huge burden in developing countries. It is
estimated that 88% of diarrhoeal disease is caused by unsafe water supply, and inadequate sanitation
and hygiene (WHO 2004c). Many schools serve communities that have a high prevalence of diseases
related to inadequate water supply, sanitation and hygiene, and where child malnutrition and other
8
It is not uncommon for schools, particularly those in rural areas, to lack drinking-water and
sanitation facilities completely, or for such facilities as do exist to be inadequate both in quality and
quantity. Schools with poor water, sanitation and hygiene conditions, and intense levels of person-to-
person contact, are high-risk environments for children and staff, and exacerbate children's particular
Children’s ability to learn may be affected in several ways. Firstly, helminth infections,
affecting hundreds of millions of school-age children, can impair children’s physical development and
learning ability through pain and discomfort, competition for nutrients, and damage to tissues and
organs. Long-term exposure to chemical contaminants in water (e.g. lead) may impair learning ability.
Diarrhoeal diseases, malaria and helminth infections force many school children to be absent from
school. Poor environmental conditions in the classroom can also make both teaching and learning very
difficult. Teachers’ impaired performance and absence due to disease has a direct impact on learning,
and their work is made harder by the learning difficulties faced by the school children.
Girls and boys are likely to be affected in different ways by inadequate water, sanitation and
hygiene conditions in schools, and this may contribute to unequal learning opportunities. For example,
lack of adequate, separate and secure toilets and washing facilities may discourage parents from
sending girls to school, and lack of adequate facilities for menstrual hygiene can contribute to girls
Children who have adequate water, sanitation and hygiene conditions at school are more able to
integrate hygiene education into their daily lives, and can be effective agents for change in their
families and the wider community. Conversely, communities in which school children are exposed to
9
disease risk because of inadequate water supply, sanitation and hygiene at school are themselves more
at risk. Families bear the burden of their children’s illness due to bad conditions at school.
The deployment patterns also have implications for gender equity. Across sub-Saharan Africa,
the enrolment and retention of girls in school is lower than that of boys. The under-representation of
girls tends to be greatest in rural areas and among the most disadvantaged communities. While a
number of measures can be shown to have an impact on the retention of girls in school, one of the
important factors is the presence of female teachers in the school (Bernard, 2002).
Discrimination against orphans and girls within the education system and in classrooms
A study conducted by Case et al. (2004) revealed that orphans are less likely to be enrolled than
are non-orphans with whom they live. Consistent with Hamilton’s Rule, the theory that the closeness of
biological ties governs altruistic behavior, outcomes for orphans depend on the relatedness of orphans
to their household heads. The lower enrollment of orphans is largely explained by the greater tendency
Access to food, health care and education is recognized as a basic human right. This right is
enshrined in the Millennium Development Goals (MDG’s) through which all member states of the
United Nations have committed themselves to attaining universal primary education and eradicating
hunger. Despite the high profile given to education within this international agenda to eradicate
10
poverty, UNICEF (2006) reports that in the poorest countries as many as 29% of boys and 35% of girls
are out of primary school and 70% of boys and 74% of girls are out of secondary school. These
Children’s access to education and to learning is affected by the availability and quality of
schooling and by family characteristics such as socio-economic status and parental attitudes to
schooling. Access can also be influenced by child characteristics, such as aptitude, motivation and
behaviour, which can be negatively affected by poor health and nutritional status.
Proximate determinants of health consist of the biological mechanisms that directly affect the
health, growth, and development of children. These include dietary intake, illness burden, and exposure
to environmental contaminants or hazards. Environmental hazards encompass risks associated with the
Transmission of infectious agents, which can in turn have a direct influence on children’s nutritional
status, occurs through a number of routes, including the air, particularly with the spread of respiratory
diseases; dirty food, water, and hands, which can cause diarrhea and other intestinal illnesses; skin and
soil, the conduits of skin infections; and insects, which can spread viral and parasitic diseases
Strategies include policies to provide a non-discriminatory safe and secure environment, skills
based health education, provision of health and other services, effective referral to external health
service providers and links with the community should be put in place. The framework provides this
context by positioning provision of safe water and sanitation among its four core components that
11
It is therefore of some concern that a quarter of all children eligible to be in school are
malnourished (Galal et al., 2005) and that children in developing countries frequently carry an
Subsidizing the education and health fees of orphans could become the main means of
promoting placement of orphans with extended families. The chief merit of this intervention is that it
supports investments in children without encouraging child labor. School subsidies for orphans who are
not in school would benefit orphans for four reasons: (a) subsidies are easy to monitor and less prone to
abuse or fraud than other direct subsidies; (b) education subsidies would give orphans the opportunity
to attend school when school fees are prohibitive; (c) in the short term, orphans would be better
integrated socially into the local community life; and (d) in the long term, orphans would have
marketable skills, making them more productive members of society. Subsidies for orphans and other
vulnerable children already enrolled in school would allow foster families to save on education costs
and increase their consumption of other goods and services, potentially improving the entire
household’s welfare. School subsidies have not yet been tried in the case of Africa’s orphans, although
provision for them exists in two ongoing World Bank operations in Burundi and Zimbabwe. However,
many countries have successfully used school subsidies to meet other goals such as increasing access to
education for girls. In Brazil, the Bolsa Escola Program tries to reduce child labor and increase school
participation through cash grants to families of schoolage children (7–14 years old). The families
receive the grants on the condition that children attend school a minimum number of days per month
(90 percent). Preliminary evidence shows that school attendance has increased, dropouts have
decreased, and the income gap between beneficiaries and nonbeneficiaries has decreased. The effect on
child labor, however, has been inconclusive because the municipality surveyed does not have a high
12
Education is the tool that can help break the pattern of gender discrimination and bring lasting
change for women in developing countries. Educated women are essential to ending gender bias,
starting by reducing the poverty that makes discrimination even worse in the developing world. The
most basic skills in literacy and arithmetic open up opportunities for better-paying jobs for women.
Uneducated women in rural areas of Zambia, for instance, are twice as likely to live in poverty as those
who have had eight or more years of education. The longer a girl is able to stay in school, the greater
her chances to pursue worthwhile employment, higher education, and a life without the hazards of
extreme poverty. Women who have had some schooling are more likely to get married later, survive
childbirth, have fewer and healthier children, and make sure their own children complete school. They
also understand hygiene and nutrition better and are more likely to prevent disease by visiting health
care facilities. The UN estimates that for every year a woman spends in primary school, the risk of her
child dying prematurely is reduced by 8 percent. Girls' education also means comprehensive change for
a society. As women get the opportunity to go to school and obtain higher-level jobs, they gain status in
their communities. Status translates into the power to influence their families and societies.
The presence of female teachers in a school can help to make the school environment a safer
place for girls. Many girls in Africa are forced to drop out of schools because school administrators are
insensitive to gender issues, including sexual abuse and intimidation (PANA, 2003). In addition, the
The hygiene behaviours that children learn at school, made possible through a combination of
hygiene education and suitable water and sanitation facilities, are skills that they are likely to maintain
13
School feeding programme as a means of improving Child Friendly Schools
Two main strategies have been used to improve the nutritional status, attendance rates and cognition of
2. Food for Education (FFE) interventions in which food given at school may be taken home.
These strategies are underpinned by hypothetical pathways that link the provision of school
meals with improved education access and achievement, in two ways. Firstly, educational outcomes
may improve through increased enrolment and time in school due to reducing the cost to the parent of
sending a child to school and benefits to the family from providing take home food. Secondly,
educational outcomes may improve through enhanced attention, cognition and behaviour resulting from
relief of hunger and from better nutritional status (if the quality and quantity of food is adequate and the
Grantham-McGregor and Walker (1998) reviewed studies showing associations between current
nutrition and school performance (enrollment, attendance, achievement, classroom behavior, and
school drop-out). They found a large number of studies that showed children who were stunted,
anaemic, or iodine deficient had poorer school achievement levels and attendance than other children.
Fewer studies had examined the experience of hunger, missing breakfast, or poor dietary intakes but
In a more recent review of the evidence Grantham-McGregor (2005) notes that further
associations have been reported between experience of hunger and children’s psychosocial function or
behaviour, academic attainment and attendance. She points out, however, that most studies have failed
to control adequately for all possible socio-economic background variables associated with hunger,
14
which are likely to independently affect children’s school performance. Rigorous short-term studies of
missing breakfast have generally shown detrimental effects on children's cognition whereas studies of
providing breakfast have shown benefits particularly in malnourished children. But classroom
Grantham-McGregor found that there have been very few longer-term studies of the effects of giving
school meals and nearly all involved breakfast. She notes that it has proved extremely difficult to run
robust trials of school feeding, partly because feeding children tends to be an emotional and politically
sensitive topic, which makes it difficult to have children in a control group. She found only one longer
term randomized controlled trial, conducted by Powell et al. (1998), which found benefits associated
with attendance and arithmetic performance. This study is reviewed further below. Less robust studies
comparing participants with non-participants or comparing matched schools have found benefits of
receiving breakfast but there was bias due to self-selection and schools may have been inadequately
matched. Grantham-McGregor concludes that most studies of giving breakfast have found benefits to
school performance through increased attendance and retention. However, many had serious design
problems, were short-term, and were not conducted in the poorest countries. She argues that in order to
advise policy makers correctly, there is an urgent need to run long-term randomized controlled trials of
giving school meals in poor countries and to determine the effects of age and nutrition status of the
children, the quality of the school, and the timing of the meal. She emphasizes that the special needs of
The study by Powell et al. (1998) demonstrated that hunger during school may prevent children
in developing countries from benefiting from education. Compared to school feeding programmes,
Food for Education (FFE) includes a broader range of interventions designed to improve enrollment,
attendance, community-school linkages, and learning. The United Nations World Food Programme
15
(WFP) is the largest organizer of FFE throughout the world. In 2003 WFP provided food to schools in
70 countries, accounting for more than 15 million children. Once school feeding programmes have
been launched, complementary activities such as de-worming and HIV prevention education can
‘piggyback’ these programmes to maximise the benefits of food aid. (World Food Programme, 2003).
FFE involves the distribution of food to “at-risk” children (usually girls, orphans or other vulnerable
children) who attend school regularly as a stimulus to increase participation, and to help offset some of
the opportunity and cash costs of educating children. The food may be locally grown and purchased or
contributed by aid donors. Where FFE also includes food-for-work, targeted to teachers or parents
involved in activities to improve schooling outcomes, it can be used to boost efforts to improve both the
demand (enrollment and attendance) for education and the supply (quality) of education, which are of
Levinger (2005) points out, however, that to be effective FFE interventions must reflect local
education supply and demand realities. She argues that if such responses result in contextually
appropriate designs then FFE can be a powerful tool for development but warns that the potential of
FFE can only be realized if a full analysis of the supply and demand blockages is undertaken. For
example, where educational quality is high but demand low FFE can best be used to improve
recruitment, but where quality is low but demand high it needs to be used to modify what happens in
the classroom.
The importance of school feeding programmes is discussed by Levitsky (2005) who notes that
the most robust finding from the evaluations of these programmes is that they increase attendance and
asks why governments have not used this evidence to initiate more school feeding programmes for the
poor. Levisky argues that there is a need for more research to make similar links between school
16
feeding programmes and their long-term financial and social benefits in order to build cogent economic
and political arguments that will influence policy and funding decisions.
References
AIR. (2009). UNICEF Child Friendly Schools programming: Global evaluation final report. Washington,
17
Bernard, A. (2003). Review of Child-Friendly School Initiatives in the EAPRO region (draft). Unpublished DC:
Author.
Galal, O. M., Neumann, C. G. & Hulett, J. (2005) International Workshop on Articulating the Impact of
Nutritional Deficits on the Education for All Agenda. Food and Nutrition Bulletin (UNU), 26(2)
(Suppl.2).
http://www.ncpc.org/resources/files/pdf/school-safety/11964-School%20Safety%20Toolkit
Human Rights Council. (2010). Annual Report of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on
Violence Against Children, Marta Santos Pais. New York: United Nations.
Lockheed, M. E. & Lewis, M.A. (2007). Inexcusable absences. Washington, DC: Center for Global
manuscript.
Ministry of National Education, Republic of Turkey. (2006). Preventing and Reducing Violence in
Educational Environments: Strategy and Action Plan. Ankara: Ministry of National Education.
National Crime Prevention Council. (2009). School Safety and Security Toolkit: A Guide for Parents, Schools,
Osher, D., Kelly, D., Tolani-Brown, N., Shors, L, & Chen, C-S. (2009). UNICEF Child Friendly Schools
Programming: Global Evaluation Final Report. Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research.
Pinheiro, P.S. (2006). World Report on Violence against Children. Geneva: United Nations.
Travis III, L.F. & Coon, J.K. (2005). The Role of Law Enforcement in Public School Safety: A National
Survey. Final Report for the National Institute of Justice. Unpublished manuscript.
UNICEF (2006). The State of the World's Children Report 2006: Excluded and Invisible. New York: UNICEF.
18
UNICEF. (2009). Schools as Protective Environments In Child Friendly Schools Manual. New York:
UNICEF.
World Bank. (2000a). “Brazil: An Assessment of the Bolsa Escola Programs.” Report 20208-BR. World Bank,
Latin America and the Caribbean Regional Office, Human Development Department, Brazil Country
Management Unit.
World Health Organization (2004c). Water, sanitation and hygiene links to health. Facts and figures. Geneva.
Development.
Scrimshaw, N. S., C. E. Taylor, and J. E. Gordon. 1968. Interactions of nutrition and infection. WHO
Mosley, W. H., and L. C. Chen. 1984. “An analytical framework for the study of
Levitsky, D. A. (2005) 'The future of school feeding programmes,' food and nutrition bulletin, 26: 286-287.
19