MANY COUNTRIES OFFER younger school children school-age child care. However, the governance, organisation and practical activities and its relation to education and care differs within and between countries. In Scandinavia, the concept of Educare acknowledges the need for emotional, social and intellectual aspects of the holistic view of learning. The Swedish leisure-time centres (LTC) designed for younger school children have, by tradition, an identity that strongly relates to aspects of care. This study aims to gain knowledge of leisure-time teachers’ (LTT) reflections on how pedagogy and care appear in LTCs’ local documents. After examining the written reflections of 22 groups of LTTs involved in a professional development course, it can be argued that care is fundamental to the LTC activities; however, this notion is simultaneously challenged by neoliberal tendencies.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AnderssonB. (2013). Nya fritidspedagoger – i spänningsfältet mellan tradition och nya styrformer [In the field of tension between traditional and new modes of governance] (Doctoral Thesis, Institutionen för tillämpad utbildningsvetenskap, Umeå universitet).
2.
BallS. (2006). Performativities and fabrications in the education economy: Towards the performative society. In LauderH., BrownP., DillaboughJ-A. & HalseyA.H. (Eds.), Education, globalization and social change (pp. 692–710). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
CartmelJ., & GrieshaberS. (2014). Communicating for quality in school age care services. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 39(3), 23–28.
5.
DaviesB., & DegotardiS. (2015). Who cares? Infant educators’ responses to professional discourses of care. Early Child Development and Care, 185(11–12), 1733–1747.
6.
HaglundB. (2015). Everyday practice at the Sunflower: The staff's representations and governing strategies as contributions to the order of discourse. Education Inquiry, 6(2), 209–229.
7.
HjalmarssonM. (2018). Leisure-time teachers’ reflections on systematic quality work: Approaches and challenges. Early Child Development and Care. Published online: 7 March 2018. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2018.1445731
8.
HjalmarssonM., & LöfdahlA. (2014). Omsorg i svenska fritidshem: fritidspedagogers etiska förmåga och konsekvenser för barn [Care in Swedish leisure-time centres: Leisure-time pedagogues’ ethical skills and consequences for children]. BARN: Forskning om barn og barndom i Norden, 32(3), 91–105.
9.
HjalmarssonM., & Löfdahl HultmanA. (2015). Confirming and resisting an underdog position—leisure-time teachers dealing with a new practice. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 23(4), 434–443.
10.
HuangD., La TorreD., & LeonS. (2014). Identification of key indicators for quality in afterschool programs. International Journal for Research on Extended Education, 2(1), 20–44.
11.
JovanovicJ., BrebnerC., LawlessA., & YoungJ. (2016). Childcare educators’ understandings of early communication and attachment. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 41(4), 95–105.
12.
KlerfeltA., & HaglundB. (2014). Presentation of research on school-age educare in Sweden. International Journal for Research on Extended Education, 2(1), 45–62.
13.
LindgrenJ. (2015). The front and back stages of Swedish school inspection: Opening the black box of judgment. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 59(1), 58–76.
14.
Ministry of Education. (2010). Skollag (The education act). SFS No. 2010:800. Stockholm, Sweden: Skolverket.
15.
MoylesJ. (2001). Passion, paradox and professionalism in early years education. Early Years: An International Research Journal, 21(2), 81–95.
16.
NoddingsN. (2002). Starting at home: Caring and social policy.Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press.
17.
OsgoodJ. (2004). Time to get down to business? The responses of early years practitioners to entrepreneurial approaches to professionalism. Journal of Early Childhood Research, 2(1), 5–24.
18.
OsgoodJ. (2010). Reconstructing professionalism in ECEC: The case for the ‘ critically reflective emotional professional’. Early Years: An International Research Journal, 30(2), 119–133.
19.
SimonciniK., & LasenM. (2012). Support for quality of outside school hours care: A case study. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 37(2), 82–94.
20.
SimsM. (2014). Is the care-education dichotomy behind us? Should it be? Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 39(4), 4–11.
21.
Skolverket/National Agency for Education. (2016). Läroplan för Grundskolan, Förskoleklassen och Fritidshemmet 2011 (Reviderad 2016) [Curriculum for compulsory school, preschool and the leisure-time centres 2011, revised 2016]. Stockholm, Sweden: Skolverket. Retrieved from https://kvutis.se/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/lgr11.pdf.
22.
Skolverket/National Agency for Education. (2018). Elever och personal i fritidshem läsåret 2017/18 [Pupils and staff in leisure-time centres for school year 2017/18] PM 2018-04-10. Dnr 2018:602. Stockholm, Sweden: Skolverket: Enheten för förskole- och grundskolestatistik.
23.
TrontoJ. C. (2001). An ethic of care. In HolsteinM.B. & MitzenP.B. (Eds.), Ethics in community-based elder care (pp. 60–68). New York, NY: Springer.
24.
TrontoJ. C. (2013). Caring democracy: Markets, equality, and justice.New York, NY: New York University Press.
25.
Van LaereK., PeetersJ., & VandenbroeckM. (2012). The education and care divide: The role of the early childhood workforce in 15 European countries. European Journal of Education, 47(4), 527–541.
26.
WarinJ. (2014). The status of care: Linking gender and ‘ educare’. Journal of Gender Studies, 23(1), 93–106.
27.
WarinJ., & GannerudE. (2014). Gender, teaching and care: A comparative global conversation. Gender and Education, 26(3), 193–199.
28.
WrennM. V., & WallerW. (2017). Care and the neoliberal individual. Journal of Economic Issues, 51(2), 495–502.
