Banning of Child Performers
12 Jun 07
If Children are working they are not spending their time in forumal education. Regardles of what kind of work they are doing this deprives them of something so important that we make it compulsory for all children. Although the minimum legal requirements can often be provided by turors on the set or sports academies it can be hard to keep performance and education in proper balance when one appears to bring so many immediate rewards both in terms of fame and money.
13 Jun 07
In the end, education is designed to prepare children for their adult lives and careers. Working in a prefession like acting, or training as a football player than shool-based learning. Provided they fulfill legal minimun levels of education why shouldn't they start their career early? After all, almost every country alows parents to opt to home-school their children even if they have no teaching qualification. Almost all child performers have well-qualified tutors and some child stars go on to cachieve high grades in university (e.g. Jodie Foster)
13 Jun 07
Simply banning child performers will not prevent the possibility of exploitation, merely place it out of reach of scrutiny. At the moment, child performers are official employees and as such their pay, hours, and conditions are all monitored by government departments and as such must conform to specified standards. When children become amateurs, part-timers or are completely banned there is an incentive to push these limits and hide the extent of children's involvement. This is only likely to reduce the conditions for children involved.