{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02320185614849188, 'fraction_numerical': 0.004640371229698376, 'mean_word_length': 5.849206349206349, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Framing children’s lives through policy and public sphere debates on COVID-19: unequal power and unintended consequences

ABSTRACT In this paper we analyze five dominant policy frames adopted by governments in their responses to children during the COVID-19 pandemic – the institutional, developmental, pathological, normative family and rights-excluding frames. We argue that these frames serve to meet the interests of non-child stakeholders in politically expedient ways, rather than addressing the needs of children and their families. We provide some suggestions for alternative policy approaches that take into account the interests of children, including understanding the ambivalent implications of lockdown, taking into account the social ecologies of children, and a renewed focus on children’s rights, most importantly children’s participation rights.