This paper presents the results of a research carried out in a rural area of Satu-Mare County, Romania, which aimed to identify the practices regarding work in family agricultural households of rural children in connection with their school education. 

In Romanian rural communities up to 89% of children in rural households are involved in agricultural work (Ghinăraru, 2004; Sîrca, 2017). The majority of economically active children in Romania work in agriculture; their work is performed manually, mainly in family households, together with adult family members. Although poverty is frequently presented as the "cause" of child labour, economic research demonstrates that this relationship is not linear (Pantea, 2008, p.99).

As several studies have shown, children's work engagement can harm their ability to enter and survive in the school system and make it difficult for children to gain educational benefits from schooling once in the system (Guarcello et al., 2008). School failure, dropping out, and repeating school years can be common among working children (Hanson & Nieuwenhuys, 2012). Children also often become alienated from school due to the perceived incompatibility of their family cultures with classroom educational practices and value systems promoted in educational institutions (Patrinos & Grootaert, 2002). 

In contrast, other research results highlight the fact that many children successfully combine work and school. While work sometimes interferes with schooling, it can itself have beneficial educational effects in developing the child's "personality, talents and mental and physical abilities to their fullest potential" (UNCRC, 2001). An important indicator of the social and moral benefits of work is how working and non-working children constructively integrate into their communities and establish stable and functioning families (Aufseeser et al 2017, 11).

Although child labour is predominantly present in countries with a low level of economic development, the results of contemporary research from different countries show that the phenomenon can also persist in families that preserve a traditional peasant way of life and traditional family values, even in the conditions of the process advanced rural and agricultural development and modernization (White, 2014).

Cultural differences also influence the salience of the phenomenon. In many traditional societies work is believed to be a part of socialization that teaches children the ability to survive through work (Grootaert & Kanbur, 1995). In the traditional rural family, the central position of values related to work and family solidarity, especially the requirement of unconditional mutual help within the family, has a crucial role in shaping the educational model and relationships within the family. Holmes and Jones (2009) highlight in this regard that to be truly beneficial, the protection of children must be holistic, following trends in social protection that address inequalities and promote opportunities, rather than focusing only on avoiding harm.  As Myers and Bourdillon (2012) note, a holistic approach should address the overall situation of the children concerned, so that protection does not lead to more harmful effects elsewhere.

Starting from these theoretical foundations our study is based on exploratory research of the involvement of rural children in the work of family households in connection with their involvement with school education as well as the meanings that parents give to family work and children's school education, taking into account their value systems, expectations, relationships with their families and other relevant factors. Thus, our investigation focused on the following research questions:

1 What is the ratio between the time dedicated to work and that allocated to school activities?

2. How does involvement in family work influence children's school performance?

3. What is the effect of the social values of rural families on parental decisions regarding children’s work involvement and school education?

Our research took place in the geographical area of rural localities located in the Someș Valley between the cities of Satu-Mare and Baia Mare, which extends over a distance of approximately 60 kilometres. In order to reveal as detailed as possible the social-educational aspects and phenomena related to child labour, we opted for a research based on both quantitative methods that present the advantage of identifying general trends and qualitative methods that present the advantage of studying the issue in depth. For the collection of quantitative data, we used a questionnaire based survey on a representative sample of children and their parents, while for the qualitative data semi-structured interviews were conducted with parents and focus group interview focus with teachers. The questionnaires were applied in pairs; we obtained data from the students in grades V - VIII and from one parent, either their mother or their father, thus the sample can be divided into two groups, the group of students (n = 164) and the group of parents (n = 164). From the students we obtained, in addition to demographic data and information on the work carried out in the household, the type of work and the time allocated to these activities, data on school activities and performances, respectively recreational and free time activities. From the parents, we learned a lot of details about the family, their educational and occupational status, information about the home and the assets owned by the family, data on the family's sources of income and standard of living, respectively the parents' intentions regarding the children's future from an educational point of view. The semi-structured interviews were conducted with ten parents of children from the four rural schools included in the research. The interviews were based on a guide that covers topics such as family life, household and agricultural work in which children are involved, and perceptions about the relationship between work and school. The interview subjects represent parents from different socio-cultural and economic situations. The focus-group interview was carried out with a number of six teachers based on the interview guide written after the collection and processing of data from students and teachers, thus during the focus group interview it was possible to reflect on the previous partial results. We opted for this order of data collection so that the results could also be checked from the perspective of the teaching staff.

The socio-cultural profile of the rural child highlights a mix of opportunities and challenges. Regarding the allocation of time dedicated to children's work in family households and the time allocated to school activities (research question no. 1) among parents there is a concern for the balance between school education and household activities of their children; at the same time, they emphasize the relevance of practical education which they think is not satisfactorily provided by school. Concerning the relationship between work involvement and children's school performance, (research question no. 2) the results confirm the existence of inequality between urban and rural schools, some of the factors mentioned by the specialized literature were also highlighted by our research. There are differences in parents' expectations: in urban the emphasis is on academic excellence, while in rural the main goal is for students to attend school and pass. However, rural life also offers children valuable hands-on learning opportunities. Joint activities strengthen family bonds and improve communication. By working, children can learn about nature, growing plants, caring for animals, using machines and managing resources. Regarding the parents' perception of the role of the socialization functions fulfilled by children's involvement in family household work (research question no. 3), the findings revealed that the involvement of children in the work of family households is considered by parents as a natural component of the family socialization of children, related to the need to acquire work skills characteristic of the rural way of life, the development of the child's ability to assume responsibility and the formation of personality traits considered essential for a future adult raised and educated in the countryside. A balanced approach is therefore essential which recognizes the value of work in the context of developing skills and autonomy, and also protects children's rights and well-being.

Aufseeser, D., Bourdillon, M., Carothers, R., & Lecoufle, O. (2017). Children's work and children's well‐being: Implications for policy. Development Policy Review, 36(2), 241-261. Ghinăraru, C. (2004). Munca copiilor în România, Editura Ro Media. Grootaert, C. & Kanbur, R. (1995). Child labour: An economic perspective. International Labour Review, 2, 187-203. Guarcello, L., Lyon, S., & Rosati, F.C. (2008). Child labor and education for all: An issue paper. The Journal of the History of Childhood and Youth 1(2), 254-266. Hanson, K & Nieuwenhuys, O. (2013). Reconceptualizing children’s rights in international development. Cambridge University Press. Holmes, R., & Jones, N. (2009). Putting the “social” back into social protection: A framework for understanding the linkages between economic and social risks for poverty reduction. https://www.odi.org/publications/3286-social-protection-economic-social-risks-poverty-reduction Myers, W., & Bourdillon, M. (2012). Concluding reflections: How might we really protect children? Development in Practice, 22, 613–620. Pantea, M. (2008). Copiii care muncesc în România. Presa Universitară Clujeană Patrinos, H. A. & Grootaert, C. (2002). Child Labor in Bolivia and Colombia. No. 9. World Bank. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/10404 Accessed 14.04.2022 Sîrca, V. (2017). From legal regulations and theories to social and economic realities on the case of child labor in Romania. Fiat Justitia. 1, 273-284. UNCRC. (2001) UN Convention on the Rights of the child. http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CRC.aspx Accessed 23.05.2022 White, B. (2014). Social science views on working children. In H.D., Hindman & H. Hindman, The World of Child Labor (pp. 10-17). Routledge.