Lens of Lack: The Identification of Children through the Adult Perspective

An issue that has come up through lots of the research I have done as well as the work I have done in the non-profit sector has been the identification of the needs of children through the eyes of adults.

One of the biggest problems that leads to the ineffectiveness of after-school programs is it tends to be more adult-centered than youth-centered. Adults and society are the ones defining what children need and the behaviors they need to exude. Constructing youth as deficient leads to youth demonstrating education and social downfalls and exhibit negative behaviors. Adults assume the needs of children, and thus define the support that is provided to the youth. Adults, society, and schools define what it means to be an educated child by stating what type of knowledge is valued and how it can be measured to be deemed as successful. Childhood is constructed by those involved in after-school programs through policies where adults control time, place and experience. Adults define the social capital that are accessible to kids and equate “good children” with those who academically achieve, as shown in grades and standardized test scores.

Childhood is portrayed as an empty space to be filled by adult visions and state parameters for experiences in education, some appropriate and some not. In this regard, children do not participate in the narrating of their own experiences. We understand childhood through a fragmented construction-visual image and test scores. Childhood is organized into a division of work, school, and play, where their need for safety and vulnerability to high risk behaviors leads to the necessity of adult and state regulations.

Many times, youth development, as emphasized by after-school programs is to help children become what they’re not, for them to develop in contradiction to their values, beliefs, and skills of their own communities. Good children are academically successful, and education is defined in terms of performance objectives measured by performance indicators. Value is placed on school-based goals and behaviors not to those seen as resistant to normative expectations of learning.


This is more detrimental for children who live in high poverty communities. Children and families in high poverty areas and who attend low performing schools are constructed as lacking and in need of additional schooling intervention.

How can this be resolved in after-school programs so children are truly at the center of the program while gaining ownership over it?