Taking Out of School
Services Seriously
International Perspectives
and Values
Pat Petrie
Centre for Understanding Social
Pedagogy
Staten- Generaal
Opvang en Vrije
Tijd van
Schoolkinderen
Brussels
24 April 2014
Taking Out of School Services Seriously –
Some International Perspectives and Values
•
•
•
•
•
2
What are the parameters?
Why look at other countries?
Out-of-school and the school
Staff Roles
Values and the image of the child
Legal and economic
context for out of school services
Children must go to school and
parents to work
A balancing act for families
3
Economic and political contexts
• The part of the market and of the state in
providing out-of-school services
• Childcare and education: public or private
responsibilities?
4
School sets parameters for out of
school services
• School hours
• School holidays
• Age for starting school
• Transport – provided/not provided
• School dinners – provided/not provided
5
Employment sets parameters for out
of school services
• Is parent available for childcare?
One parental income or two needed?
Other benefits of employment
Equality issues
Entitlement to flexible working hours
Annual leave entitlement
6
Values and understandings underlie
out of school services
• What image of the child, the family and
society inform services?
• Do the values that inform services in other
countries inspire us?
• How could they inform our out-of-school
services?
7
France: the school plays a large part
• School bus
• Hours 8 30 – 16 30 / 17 30
• Up to 2 hours lunch, full meal provided, play/
organised activities
• After school: homework, play or activities
then school bus takes children home
8
But rather few school days
• 160 days per year
• Wednesdays/Wednesday afternoons free
• Public and voluntary leisure centres on
Wednesdays
• Colonies de Vacances – residential holidays
9
Values
•
•
•
•
10
Entitlements
Rights and duties
Citizenship
‘Circadian biorhythms’
England
• Private, market-based system, tax credits for low earners
Average: £50 (61Euros) per week: after-school care
£109 (133 Euros): holiday care
• Parental entitlement to request flexible working hours
• Schools may extend day and provide (or house) schoolage care
• Compulsory registration and inspection where a child
under 8 years is present
Registration requires minimum qualification levels for
some staff only
11
Values
• Childcare is a private family matter, provision is
best left to the market
• Getting poor parents into work
• Little discussion of pedagogic issues
• Little consideration given to specific groups, e.g.:
older children and young people
disabled children
12
Nordic countries
• High levels of maternal employment (most
children have been in state provided
nurseries)
• Universal subsidised provision up to 11 in
school-based ‘free-time homes’ before and
after school
• School-based and other clubs for older
children
13
Why school?
• Pedagogical principles: continuity, holistic view
of child, deriving from early childhood and ‘free
time’ pedagogy
• Welfare: services on one site better for families
• Cost reduction: bringing ‘free time’ services into
school - although traditionally outside the school
14
Free-time pedagogues (out-of-school
staff)
• Sweden: a common education for teachers,
preschool teachers and free time pedagogues
• Denmark: common education for free-time
pedagogues, early childhood education and care
and e.g., children’s residential homes
• Norway: school-age care qualifications less
developed
15
Denmark: proposed changes
• Proposals to lengthen school day and
shorten free-time provision so as to increase
academic achievement and cut costs of
free-time provision
16
Sweden: integrated care and
education
• Pre-schools attached to schools with one ‘head
teacher’
• Common curriculum for compulsory school,
pre-school class and ‘free-time home’
• Free-time pedagogues as part of the classroom
team
17
Sweden
‘The purpose of increased integration of preschool – school - fritidshem is that all pedagogical
services for children and youth can be seen as a
unity and as a part of life-long learning. These
services should be more closely linked to each
other in order to promote that a common view of
learning and development can grow in the
meeting of different pedagogical traditions’
Skolverket/National Agency of Education 2006 p.31
18
Sweden : extended role for free-time
Pedagogues
• More contact with parents than teachers have
• Special knowledge of children because they
meet them in different contexts
• During school day may focus more on social and
emotional development, and creative work than
teachers do
19
Sweden: Position of free-time pedagogues
• Difficulties about their status in the classroom
team
• Recently, one third of rektors have been
preschool teachers or free time pedagogues
• Somewhat less favourable employment
conditions than for teachers
• Shortage of free-time pedagogues
Value base and the image of the child(1)
• Education in the broad sense. Free-time
provision a benefit in itself, moving on from
‘mere’ childcare
• Valuing democracy and collective life
– Public provision – sharing responsibilities
and entitlements
– Good for children to be with their peers
21
Value base and the image of the child(2)
• The whole child: head, heart and hands
• Staff bringing their own head, heart and
hands to relationships with children
• Children as co-constructing knowledge with
pedagogues and peers; dialogue
• Social agents – not passive recipients
• The importance of play & creative activities
22
Taking Out of School
Services Seriously
International Perspectives
and Values
Pat Petrie
Centre for Understanding Social
Pedagogy
Staten- Generaal
Opvang en Vrije
Tijd van
Schoolkinderen
Brussels
24 April 2014