Living within state care can have detrimental effects on children’s development, as substantial research has proposed. Recognising how music-making may support children’s social, emotional and personal development, many cultural organisations have begun developing music projects that work specifically with care-experienced children. Although evaluation has detailed the various benefits these projects may have, there has been little research into the approaches employed by the facilitators who deliver these projects. With this in mind, this article examines a community music project that focused on foster family music-making. It explores the facilitators’ social pedagogical approach to music-making and the benefits participants report they have gained from the project, both to themselves and the children in their care.

In every state and territory in Australia, child welfare departments, under various names, maintain or, alternatively, fund group homes for children and young people in the non-government sector. Increasingly, these group homes offer only four places with no integrated treatment or educational services. In that respect they can best be viewed as providing care and accommodation only. Since 2010, following the release of a definition of therapeutic residential care by the National Therapeutic Residential Care Work Group, there has been debate about how to make group homes therapeutic. In 2017, as part of a wider reform effort, New South Wales renamed all their out-of-home care (foster care and residential care) as intensive therapeutic care and ceased using the term residential. The net result is that the group homes in New South Wales will from now on be referred to as intensive therapeutic care homes. This article raises questions about the utility of this renaming and explores whether or not group homes can be therapeutic given the characteristics of the population of children and young people they accommodate, their small size, the staffing complement and the limited job satisfaction with high staff turnover as a consequence of this smallness. All of these factors lead to the well-documented, anti-therapeutic instability of the group home life space.

Robyn is a UK-qualified social worker who has a deeply held passion for, and some 30 years of experience working with disenfranchised and/or vulnerable people and children and young people in care. She has a strong interest in social pedagogy and residential childcare both operationally and strategically. Since 1995, she has been in a variety of management positions and has developed and delivered training, conferences, workshops and consultancy on children's social work and social care for the statutory, voluntary and independent sectors. Her work has aimed at improving both the experiences and outcomes for children and young people in or on the edge of care and raising the profile of those affected by, and working within, the social work and social care sectors.

The increasing predominance of practices associated with risk and ‘risk management’ within social work has been noted in recent years. Some writers have observed threats to fundamental values of social work and cite the problem of risk-aversion and excessive caution. In residential child care settings in Scotland, the author and colleagues noted an increasing problem of ‘risk averse’ practice in relation to very basic and nonrisky outdoor activities such as trips to the beach or cycling. This article gives an account of various policy and guidance responses that were developed as regulatory authorities began to recognise the dangers of over-protection and the growth of written ‘risk assessments’ within small-scale group homes that were intended to provide ‘homely’ care for children and young people. The article notes the contribution of training in social pedagogy, which has recently been undertaken by some residential staff in Scotland and elsewhere in the United Kingdom. One of the impacts of this training has been a reported decrease in risk-averse practice including a greater willingness to undertake outdoor activities. The reason why the adoption of a social pedagogic approach might challenge risk-averse practice is tentatively suggested.

Social pedagogy has a longstanding tradition in many European countries. This article outlines its development in relation to culturally specific concepts of children and their upbringing — the pedagogical — and ideas about the relationship between individuals and their community — the social. Both dimensions are closely connected to social pedagogy's ethical orientation, most notably to respect people as resourceful agents, help them develop their potential and support the construction of a more just society. By drawing on historical thinkers in social philosophy and education, the article explains how these two dimensions have shaped social pedagogy as an action-orientated science that requires professionals to work in an ethical manner. It concludes by discussing the need for critical reflection in order to ensure profound respect of people's human dignity and their otherness.

Guest Editors' Note

As a holistic way of working with children and young people to develop their learning and wellbeing, their inter-and independence, social pedagogy is widely practised across many European countries. While the ways in which it is practiced will differ — depending on the cultural context and setting — there are also common threads that connect the social pedagogic traditions found in several countries. Hämäläinen (2003) suggests that ‘social pedagogy has a certain perspective of its own [which] cannot be reduced to a set of simple pedagogical methods, but should be understood as an educational orientation in which the world, people, society, social problems and social work are observed through “social pedagogical” glasses, as it were’ (p. 76).

Social pedagogy is a field of professional practice associated with the care and education of young children, support of young people, and with family support that has an established place in many continental European countries. It has attracted attention in the United Kingdom (UK) for its potential relevance to the policy ambition of improving the generally poor educational and social outcomes for young people in public care. In this article, I discuss some issues arising from the task of establishing the value, or effectiveness, of the social pedagogic approach. Using findings from cross-national studies, I argue that there are various problems with measuring the ‘effectiveness’ of social pedagogy, but that in countries where social pedagogy is well established and supported by a policy and cultural context, its role in supporting children and families is highly valued. I conclude by considering some implications for the introduction of social pedagogy into the UK.

Some commentators have pointed to the United Kingdom (UK) having a tendency towards reducing ‘new’ concepts or practices so much that they bear little resemblance to the original form. This is why I wish to highlight in this article some of the sometimes subtle, yet profound, differences in a social pedagogical approach to child care in order to better understand the potential of social pedagogy for developing practice. There are five main sections to this article: first, I describe social pedagogy and a conceptualisation of a social pedagogical approach; second, the UK context is examined so as to set the scene for the third, fourth and fifth sections, which examine reflection, relationships and the concept of lifespace through a social pedagogic lens, drawing links to existing good practice in the UK. Although this commentary does not discuss Australian practice, I believe there are some important aspects in the way in which the UK has tried to familiarise itself with social pedagogy that can help Australian readers to better understand some of the subtleties and nuances of the paradigm and inspire their own reflections.

Guest Editors' Note

One of the most central principles for social pedagogues is to critically examine their role and the purpose of their practice: What are the social aspects of relevance for their practice? How can they help the children they work with to develop social competences, to feel included in a social network and the wider society, to have a sense of belonging and take more responsibility for their community? To what extent must social pedagogues be advocates for those marginalised within society, be a critical voice that challenges social inequalities? And on the other hand, what pedagogical aspects are important within their work context? How can they create learning opportunities that prepare children and young people for many aspects of life? To what extent are they expected to be formative and socialise children and young people to fit in, and to what extent must their practice nurture the individual's autonomous development? These are not easy questions to answer, and they need to be asked over and over as the answers will change, depending on the individual with whom social pedagogues work, but also their work context and, importantly, the wider societal–political framework, which might make particular aspects more relevant at times.