How do primary school principals responsible for Swedish school-age educare (SAEC) describe their work? By understanding the principals’ practise as a site of power relations within regimes of practises and, through this, exploring principal subjectivities, it becomes possible to reveal which types of educational leadership for school-age educare are normalised and made possible. In an analysis based on answers from primary school principals in a qualitative survey, a discursive production of a nebulous leadership subject emerges; a bland and nebulous leader is enabled and, at the same time, constrained by the power relations within the regime of practises. This leadership terrain is not easy to navigate and appears to be guided by the notion that good enough is enough. This leadership style is changeable as well as varied, and at the same time, apparently marked by an unwillingness to shoulder all the responsibility for SAEC, and consequently, seeks support in different ways from different directions, transforming responsibility into a collective project driven by joint forces. It is also leadership that constantly needs to adapt its commitments to the needs of others, which in turn leads to a reactive rather than a proactive leadership style. Finally, it is leadership that appears legitimate, even though adequate knowledge about SAEC sometimes appears to be lacking, to some extent, pointing towards an abdicated leadership. For a different type of educational leader for school-age educare to emerge, a changed regime of practises is required, allowing the primary school principals to perform their leadership in ways that today do not appear possible.

I denna artikel utforskas vilka kvaliteter som synliggörs i det systematiska kvalitetsarbetet i fritidshem genom att analysera samtal mellan forskare och fritidshemspersonal i ett aktionsforsknings- och utvecklingsprojekt. Habermas teori om tekniska, praktiska och frigörande kunskapsintressen används som analysverktyg för att diskutera kvalitet. Artikelns empiriska exempel visar på olika former av kvalitet genom att synliggöra olika eller flera sammanflätade kunskapsintressen. Fritidshemspersonalen tycks röra sig mellan dessa kunskapsintressen beroende på vilken del av det komplexa uppdraget som värderas högst i talet om fritidshemmets praktik. Eftersträvan av teknisk kvalitet tycks leda till kontroll både vad gäller deltagande och bedömning av elever. De kollegiala diskussionerna ger utrymme för professionellt meningsskapande om motiven för handlingar och dess bakomliggande värderingar och därmed praktisk kvalitet. Inte förrän förändringar faktiskt sker, i verksamheten och i verksamhetens sammanhang, kan man dock tala om frigörande kvalitet. 

Lek har länge varit, och är fortfarande, en central aspekt i fritidshemmets verksamhet. Barns lekande framstår i sammanhanget som något oantastligt och som otacksamt att kritisera. Med en diskursanalytisk ansats belyser artikeln hur talet om lek i utbildningspolitiska styr- och policydokument legitimerar en viss skildring av samtidens fritidshem och undersöker hur forskning om fritidshem använder begreppet lek. Analysen belyser hur det vetenskapliga talet om lek på ett alltför oproblematiserat sätt reproducerar begreppsanvändningen som har påvisats i fritidshemmens verksamhet genom tidigare empiriska studier. I denna reproduktion används tal om lek för att iscensätta olika element i fritidshemsverksamhet på sätt som passar såväl traditionella fritidshemsideal som rådande utbildningspolitiska idéer. Framträdande i detta är den allsidiga funktion i talet om lek som används för att legitimera andra företeelser, exempelvis lärande och professionalism. Det tacksamma begreppet lek möjliggör därigenom vetenskapliga skildringar av fritidshemmet som den institution utbildningspolitiska intressen efterfrågar idag. Tal om lek – en diskursiv universallösning användbar till det mesta.

In this chapter we aim to describe the Swedish school-age educare from a cultural and historical perspective and we hope to give the reader an informative picture of how Swedish school-age educare is organised and put into practice followed by critical reflections. This will be done by describing purposes, origins, policies, and impacts (methods) of extended education performed both in the school-age educare centres as a part of the public educational system and in recreational activities provided outside the educational system run as community-programmes. Schools and school-age educare centres are integrated and can be managed as public or independent schools. The independent schools could be owned and run by parents, private companies or organisations, but both public and independent schools are financed by taxes. School-age educare centres are chosen, both by politicians and parents, as the most preferred provision for children aged 6-12 years which means that governmental resources, political discussions, and research are directed toward this way of organising extended education.

At a time when educational assessment drives school development in all Nordic countries, it is a challenge to work in school-age educare, where the development of local service should be driven by the needs and interests of the pupils (SNEA, 2018). Our action research project aims to explore this specific part of school-age educare practice together with staff in two urban schools in different socio-economic areas. While there are studies about assessment (Andersson, 2013) and systematic development work (Lager, 2016) that will inform this study, there is no other research about school-age educare that focuses on this particular aspect of school-age educare. Research in preschools suggests that staff develop the service based on their own interests rather than the children’s (Fast, 2007). Moberg (2018, p.122) explores ”how the concept ofchildren’s interestsis allowed to act through its relations to other actors” and thus “what gets to count as children’s interests” (p.123) suggests that we try and trace the concept in practice. The project attempts to map methods already in use as well as explore possible new methods to assess pupils’ needs and interests. We want to discuss whose perspective the practice opens up for and what view of the child the practice allows. The project hopes to activate discussions about what pupils are allowed to do and be or how they should behave in school-age educare. We also want to avoid fixed categorisations of children, since how children are discussed limits or allows for change in different ways (Holmberg, 2017).

Playing is a common part of children’s leisure time, and with children spending an increasing amount of this time in school-age childcare, in both Sweden and England, staff have the responsibility to facilitate play. The way play is conceptualised by staff may lead to different aspects of play being facilitated. These play practices are enabled and constrained by the arrangements of what this dissertation calls the school’s play practice architecture, i.e. where play practices are intertwined with a school’s practice architecture. The aim of the research was to explore how staff talked about play and how to facilitate it, how concepts of play contributed to different play practices and how it might be possible to transform play practice architectures. The research draws on conversations with staff in school-age childcare settings in two Swedish and one English school during an action research project. Just as action research was used to disturb and change practice in order to understand it, concepts from Deleuze and Guattari’s philosophy (1980/2004) were put to work to disturb taken-for-granted concepts of play in order to explore how play works.

Article I explores what the staff talked about in relation to play and its facilitation. The conclusion is that the ability of staff to interpret children’s play as children exploring their agency is crucial when facilitating play in a learning institution. Article II examines some discursive orders about play in school-age childcare and goes beyond them by conceptualising playing as becoming-different. The article argues that when foregrounding play, staff recognised children and themselves as becoming-players. Article III investigates how to think practice as constant change. For any practice, planning is required, and yet the unexpected keeps happening. When playing was conceptualised as a “What If? As If” approach, which allowed for potentialities to become actualised, then this approach was also useful as an approach in practice. The analysis suggests that when engaging in a playing practice, practitioners develop new knowledge and simultaneously change social situations.

The practice of playing, whether intentional or unintentional, can not only disturb but also transform play practice architectures. The practice of playing is sensitised to the disturbances caused by playing and also puts itself “in play”. This opens up for a continuous de- and reterritorialisation of play and playing in school-age childcare practice.