‘I want to go home’: a comparative study of unsafe and safe spaces in two Swedish school-age educare institutions

ABSTRACT

In Sweden, many children between the ages of 6 and 9 years attend Swedish school-age educare (SAEC) institutions before and after school, when their parents work or study. This study aimed to explore and compare safe and unsafe spaces in children’s everyday lives at SAEC institutions. Ethnographic fieldwork, including observations and interviews with the staff and children, was conducted at two different SAECs. Using space, agency, and violence, this study explores how the staff relates to safe and unsafe spaces in children’s everyday lives. Findings revealed differences in how everyday life plays out in the two SAECs, where unsafe spaces, with a risk of violence, more frequently exist in one SAEC than the other. The manner in which staff members perceived safe and unsafe spaces also impacted how children’s agency emerged in different spaces. The study findings have important implications for politicians and decision-makers.

KEYWORDS:

• School-age educare
• comparative ethnography
• safe and unsafe spaces
• agency
• violence

Introduction

In the Global North, inequalities in urban, suburban, and rural areas are increasing in terms of opportunities and living conditions (Shucksmith and Brown 2016). Since 2007, public spending on infrastructure, health, and education has considerably decreased, thereby affecting rural areas (Shucksmith and Brown 2016). This spatial injustice, with consistent patterns of social and educational inequities between urban and rural areas, has led to several disadvantages (Beach and Öhrn 2019). Since rural areas lack resources and facilities, they are at a greater risk of negatively affecting young people both socially and educationally (Powell, Taylor, and Smith 2013). Since the early 1990s, the Swedish school system has undergone several changes in line with new public management and marketisation (Beach 2017; Dovemark and Lundström 2017). Ideals of equal access to education as part of the Swedish welfare society have failed (Beach et al. 2018; Beach and Öhrn 2021).

There is a gap in research that focuses on understanding rural childhood and children’s experiences of freedom and safety (Powell, Taylor, and Smith 2013). This gap also applies to education in rural Sweden (Beach and Öhrn 2019), especially in school-age educare (SAEC) institutions (Borg 2023). SAEC institutions are part of the Swedish welfare system and fall under the umbrella term ‘extended education’ (Hoon Bae 2020). They offer care and education before and after school for children in the age group of 6–12 years, when their parents work or study (Klerfelt et al. 2020), and 84% of all Swedish children in this age group attend SAECs (Statens Offentliga Utredningar [SOU] 2020). In many cases, the SAEC is attached to compulsory schools and shares the same staff and buildings (Klerfelt et al. 2020). Children attending SAECs have a legal right to equivalent education and care, which includes child safety (SFS 2010, 800). SAECs, as part of the Swedish education system, have been evaluated by the Swedish School Inspectorate (Skolinspektionen 2010; 2018), who reported that the quality of education varies between institutions. The lack of teacher-trained staff and insufficient time for planning and organising the work negatively affects the quality of SAECs. SAECs need access to suitable rooms, spaces, and materials, which seemed unsatisfactory in several of the evaluated institutions (SOU 2020; Swedish National Agency for Education 2000; 2018). In rural Sweden, SAECs face challenges in recruiting teacher-trained staff (SOU 2022). The local contexts of SAECs, socioeconomic circumstances, and ethnic structure had a significant impact on the interactions between children and the staff. This risks reproducing differences at a structural level in children’s lives (Andishmand 2017). When the quality of SAECs is poor, a risk of unsafe spaces in the form of violence among children arises (Borg 2023; Borg and Lager 2023). Safe spaces can be described as those that ensure physical safety, are free from harm, and provide social and emotional conditions required for psychological freedom and free expression (The Roestone Collective, 2014). Unsafe spaces lack these aspects and preconditions. Research conducted at a rural SAEC in Sweden showed that safe and unsafe spaces existed in children’s daily lives (Borg 2023). Physical and psychological violence among children occur in schoolyards, gymnasiums, and canteens. Children find ways to navigate and handle violence by avoiding certain places (Borg 2023).

Many children spend considerable time in schools and SAECs. SAECs are a unique place that provide care and education but are threatened by a dearth of quality. SAECs that lack staff resources fail to offer children safe places. Therefore, through a comparative study of two rural SAEC institutions, this research aimed to examine how the staff perceived safe and unsafe spaces in children’s everyday lives.

The research questions guiding this work are as follows:

• How do the staff relate to safe and unsafe spaces in the two SAECs?

• What consequences for children’s everyday lives are created in the two SAECs and how can they be understood in relation to the local context?

This study builds on ethnographic fieldwork conducted at two SAECs in rural Sweden. The research questions were addressed using a comparative approach.

Comparative ethnography, two cross-cultural settings

The local contexts explored in this study were Spruce and Pine villages. Spruce village is part of a municipality with economic challenges in the form of high costs per resident owing to an ageing and declining population (Statistics Sweden 2023). The municipality faces challenges with socially disadvantaged areas (Salonen 2023). Although Pine village is also part of a municipality with an ageing and declining population, its economic and social situation is comparatively better.

Both villages are located approximately 20–30 kilometres from the municipality’s city centre, which provides most welfare services. The two villages are on the local periphery, which has consequences for the everyday lives of the residents (Stenbacka and Cassel 2020).

The villages are fairly similar in terms of their appearance and the welfare services they offer. In both villages, there have been concerns that local schools have been threatened by closure, but as of now, both schools remain. As in many rural villages in Sweden, school principals face challenges in recruiting staff with teacher education specialised in SAEC, and economic resources have been insufficient. In the Spruce SAEC, one staff member is teacher-trained. During the last few years, staff members have been laid off, and children with special needs have access to extra staff support in the SAEC but only during school hours. By contrast, in the Pine SAEC, none of the staff members are teacher-trained; children with special needs have staff to support them throughout the day, including during SAEC.

The Spruce SAEC has access to a building used by the school during school hours. Children spend most of the time indoors, with the exception of times when they have access to the gymnasium. All children share the same rooms regardless of their age. This building comprises four small, crowded rooms where the children play with LEGO® sets, dolls, and paintings. There is a large room with three sofas and a table with chairs. The furniture and materials are mainly designed for younger children. Books for reading, puzzles, board games, and iPads with pre-decided games that do not exceed the age limit of six years are available.

The Pine SAEC is slightly different owing to the availability of rooms. Children are divided into two groups (younger children 6–8 years; older children 9–12 years) and have access to different buildings, with rooms that are furnished and adapted to their needs. Older children have ample space to talk, read, watch TV, and surf the Internet. The younger children are in a building with three large rooms and one small room used for rest, reading, and watching TV. All rooms are light and airy and offer different materials suitable for the younger children, such as puzzles, board games, building blocks, and dolls.

This study aimed to focus on the routines and activities during the afternoons in SAECs and analyse the children’s indoor and outdoor time. In Pine, the author examined the younger group of children. Both SAECs have approximately 20 children coming every day after school. The number of children enrolled in SAEC varies over the semester; some children join while others quit.

(Un)safe spaces and places in school and leisure institutions

Safe and unsafe places, both inside and outside schools and leisure institutions, were researched by Zumbrunn et al. (2013), who found that the conflict-prone areas described by children were the playground, restrooms, and canteen. In these areas, children experienced fighting, rule-breaking, verbal and physical aggression, excessive noise, overcrowding, and the absence of teachers. Langager and Spencer-Cavaliere (2015) suggested that the gymnasium was considered potentially unsafe because of experiences of fights, teasing, bullying, and rumours. Horton and Forsberg (2020) showed that school canteens were reported as unsafe by children, depending on how many students spent time there; high noise level; possibility that students were whispering, name calling, kicking, hitting, bullying, spitting in the food, throwing food; sexual harassment; or assault. Berggren et al. (2020) highlighted hallways and queues as critical spaces where children faced the risk of being teased, hit, or bullied.

Massey, Neilson, and Salas (2020) reported that bullying, fighting, and conflicts can occur during recess. Vaillancourt et al. (2010) pointed out that children in elementary schools perceived schoolyards as particularly unsafe. In a literature-based article (Mulryan-Kyne 2014), the playground environment was described as a relatively unregulated place where students engaged in aggressive activities, such as bullying. Lago and Elvstrand (2019) found social exclusion among children in the schoolyard in an SAEC. Children were also at risk of not being acknowledged by teachers. Hjalmarsson and Odenbring (2021) noted that professionals working in SAEC institutions need to identify critical areas inside and outside the SAEC building in the schoolyard, talk to children about relationships and unsafe places, and be present and engaged during recess. Borg (2023) revealed that in SAEC institutions, children moved between different places, and violence seemed to occur within most of these places, creating spaces that shifted between the safe and unsafe category. Children seemed to adapt by avoiding unsafe places and handling violence by either hiding or changing seats or places. Borg and Lager (2023) reported the experiences of violence between children and difficulties in handling violence due to poor resources, as described by the staff at an SAEC. However, Stan and Humberstone (2011) revealed that teachers’ approaches to risk may negatively affect children’s outdoor experiences. Controlling and restricting children’s interactions can have negative consequences on their agency. Elvstrand and Lago (2019) described the tension between children’s agency and adult power. This implies that the relationship between children and adults is a key aspect of children’s ability to participate. This was confirmed by Lager (2020), who highlighted the social relations and structural aspects of SAEC institutions. Hjalmarsson and Odenbring (2019) found that SAEC institutions can play an important role that is complementary to children’s home environments and provide support for more equal childhoods. The authors emphasised the importance of further knowledge of the construction and reproduction of social injustice in the everyday practices of SAEC institutions (Hjalmarsson and Odenbring 2019).

Research underscores the need for staff working in educational institutions to be present and active to prevent and manage situations of social inequalities and violence among children. SAEC institutions have the potential to contribute to the improvement of children’s lives and future possibilities in society. However, this also depends on the structural conditions that enable compensatory work in SAEC institutions. Beach et al. (2018) reported the negative impact of spatial injustice and market politics on schooling, such as inequalities, especially for people living in rural and economically poor peri-urban metropolitan areas. Such individuals were often referred to as bearing the burden of educational difficulties rather than focusing on spatial injustices (Beach et al. 2018). Andishmand (2017) concluded that the local context of the researched SAECs, socioeconomic circumstances, and ethnic structures had a significant impact on the interactions between children and the staff. This risks reproducing differences in children’s lives at the structural level.

Previous research has shown that during children’s everyday lives at school and leisure institutions, both safe and unsafe spaces exist, making it interesting to focus on how the staff relate to these spaces and how this can be understood in relation to the local context.

Theorising safe and unsafe spaces

In this study, spaces are understood as relational work that are continually undergoing transformation (Massey 2005). Massey (2005) emphasised that social relations are dynamic, experienced, and interpreted in various ways depending on individuals and their specific positions. This means that space takes shape in the interwoven relationships between children and adults and the specific conditions in the institutions in which they participate. Daily life in an institution is constituted of not only the surrounding society (Massey 2005) but also material aspects and social relations that construct the room and spaces within it (Lefebvre 1991). Social relations reveal how different individuals have diverse spatial experiences. The spatial experiences of a room cooperate with the physical environment, everyday use of the room, and language of people planning the institutional place (Lefebvre 1991). Therefore, everyday life within institutions constructs spaces in different ways, depending on the conditions in specific places, rooms, materials, people, and times. This means that children’s agency, described by James and James (2012, 3) as ‘the capacity of individuals to act independently’, will be co-constructed within these spaces. Spaces can be perceived as safe or unsafe. The Roestone Collective (2014) described spaces as not fixed, continually forming and reforming, and experienced in different ways by various individuals. Safe spaces can be described as harbouring physical safety, being free from harm, with the social and emotional conditions required for psychological freedom, and conditions required to facilitate free expression (The Roestone Collective, 2014). Unsafe spaces lack these aspects. This means that they may contain violence, as understood in this paper using Galtung’s (1990) concepts of direct, structural, and cultural violence. Direct violence can be physical, psychological, intentional, or unintentional. Structural violence explains the differences created within a society and the effects of institutions. For example, structural violence is created due to insufficient resources within an institution in relation to what the children within that institution need. Cultural violence refers to symbolic spheres created in relationships and within institutions. For example, direct violence among children is minimised and denied by the staff responsible within the institution (Galtung 1990).

Methods

This study was designed as a comparative ethnography in two different educational institutions (Abramson and Gong 2020; Lahelma et al. 2014). Similar incidents in two cultural contexts were explored. The aim was to enrich the interpretations by contrasting the two cases. The choice of fields builds upon the knowledge of the lack of rural educational settings being represented in research (Beach and Öhrn 2019; Borg 2023). Therefore, the author selected SAECs in rural areas with maximum one and a half hour of commute (one way) from their home. The aim was to choose two different municipalities to research and compare how everyday life plays out among children in different SAECs. While both were rural municipalities, some differences in preconditions exist, which were worth exploring.

The current research draws from ethnographic fieldwork conducted during autumn and winter in 2021 (Spruce) and winter and spring in 2022 (Pine). An identical field visit procedure was followed in both cases. During the first two weeks, intensive field study was conducted. The purpose was to become familiar with the children, staff, places, rooms, and organisations. Four to five days a week, spread out in the mornings and afternoons in the SAEC institutions, enabled the author to develop a sharper focus (described by Jeffrey and Troman 2004 as compressed time mode). During the rest of the semester, the author spent two–three days every week observing and interviewing the participants. Inspired by Back (2007) on the importance of careful listening and analysis of everyday life, the author followed the children and staff to understand how local cultures were created and to relate them to the surrounding society. During participant observation, selective and descriptive field notes were made after each occasion in the field (Emerson, Fretz, and Shaw 2001). Semi-structured interviews with the participants were recorded and fully transcribed.

This study was approved by the Swedish Ethical Board (Dnr. 2021-02903; Dnr. 2022-03438-02). The same ethical procedure was followed before starting the fieldwork. First, the school principal was informed about the study, and then they informed the staff. All staff members provided oral and written informed consent. Subsequently, the parents of all children were informed of the study, and written consent was obtained. During their time at the SAEC institutions, the author repeatedly informed all participating children about the study. Children had the opportunity to ask questions and decide whether to participate. Those who wished to participate provided oral and written informed consent. During the fieldwork, the author informed the children about the study, reminding them of their role as a researcher and not as a staff member.

Data collection

This study involved 206 h of observations during field studies and 31 individuals participating in interviews and walk and talks (Table 1). Spruce and Pine each have about 100 students. In the SAECs of each school, the number of children attending varies during the semester and on a daily basis. Approximately 15–30 children attend the SAECs every day. The low number of participants can be explained by the ongoing coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. This meant that the author had less time to establish relationships with the children.

Table 1. Type and amount of produced data material.

	Field studies	Interviews	Walk and talks
Spruce village	131h	Staff (individual) 10	Children 11
		Children (individual) 4
		Children (pair) 4
Pine village	75h	Staff (individual) 5	Children 0
		Staff (pair) 2
		Children (individual) 2
		Children (pair) 2
		Children (group) 3

Data analysis

Inspiration was taken from Atkinson’s (2015) ethnographic abduction in which local details represented in quotes and extracts were embedded in multiple levels of social institutions and processes, which were combined with categories of broader analytic significance.

While reading and interpreting the data, the author was surprised over differences in the occurrence of violence in the SAECs. It seemed worthwhile to further analyse these differences to deepen the knowledge on how violence among children becomes constructed. The author noticed differences in the data according to how the staff worked with violence, which made them interested in understanding and explaining these differences. The process of abduction in this study refers to the analysis of how the staff relates to safe and unsafe spaces to develop a deeper understanding of the practice. The aim was to challenge and develop interpretations of violence among children with the theoretical concepts of space and violence, which were combined in the concepts of safe and unsafe spaces. It seemed reasonable to study safe and unsafe spaces to better understand this issue. The author has attempted to explore how their theoretical choices can be applied in the SAEC practice and thereby develop an understanding of what matters that comes close to the actions of children and staff.

The case analyses were structured by identifying recurrent routines and activities and analysing them using three points of comparison: space, agency, and violence. Both the SAECs structured the afternoon in similar ways. By examining and contrasting three of these recurring routines and activities (arrival in the afternoon, snack time, and play time) in Spruce and Pine, the present study will clarify different ways of structuring everyday life for children and their consequences according to safe and unsafe spaces.

Reflexivity in ethnographic processes

The methodological choice of comparative ethnography raises questions about whether it is suitable for the two cases. When contacting the two principals, the author was unaware that such a large difference between the two institutions could exist. These contrasts shed light on the processes of safe and unsafe spaces, which might have passed by had the author focused on only one SAEC institution. Discovering processes and contrasts helped in the analysis to better understand the situation.

Results

The two cases are presented separately, starting with the SAEC in Spruce, followed by the one in Pine.

Everyday life at the SAEC in Spruce village

Arrival time

When the children arrived in the afternoon, an unorganised arrival of the children and staff was observed. Staff often had tasks to complete during school hours, meaning that they arrived at the same time as the children and occasionally, even after them. During one afternoon, the author arrived on a school day and entered the SAEC building. Several children were in the hallway, getting their jackets off in a rush. Some hangers had jackets and bags while shoes, bags, and coats were thrown on the floor in a complete mess. In the hallway, loud noises from the rooms could be heard – it was the children screaming and shouting.

I enter the large room in which everyone usually gathers. An increasing number of children drop in. They ask me, ‘Should we be outside or inside?’ I reply that I don’t know and that we can ask John once he comes. One of the children shouts that John is in the gymnasium. It takes a long time for the staff to arrive. I am alone with the children.

(Fieldnote extract Spruce, 211028)

This extract shows how the everyday routine of children was unclear and how they tried to gain control of the situation. When the staff was not around, they asked the author, an adult, where they should be. The children knew that they were supposed to play either outside in the yard or inside. However, when it was unclear which place to be in, the children moved around between the small rooms, talking in a loud manner. The unpredictable timing and crowded rooms not arranged for SAEC activities are part of this created and experienced space, which was being handled by the children who tried to gain control and share that control. This is an example of how space creates freedom for children to act and make their own decisions regarding how to spend time. Simultaneously, this space of freedom and agency may contain violence.

Snack time

During snack time, a recurrent routine in the afternoon, the loose and free space of children’s everyday life comes to expression. This day, as on many other days, follows the routine of the staff trying to get all the children to assemble in the canteen by calling them. Some children directly go to the hallway, wash their hands, and stand in line waiting for their turn to grab a plate and fill it with snacks. Others continue playing, ignoring the instruction, or running between the rooms while the staff goes after them and repeatedly calls them to the canteen. Finally, when all children had served themselves to eat and were seated, about three children on each table with predetermined seats were supposed to remain quiet. These efforts from the staff to create and maintain a routine seemed to be constructed in a different way by the children, which the following extract exemplifies.

John (a staff member) repeats that the children must be quiet in the cafeteria. First, 10 min of silence, and then, they can talk to each other in a normal conversational tone.

Tindra invites me to sit beside her at the table, so I do. Rick is also seated at the same table. He is silent and eats his sandwiches. I remember seeing him sitting quietly and eating. He turns from one side to another on his chair and appears anxious. Tindra seems unconcerned about the rule of maintaining silence and talks about random things, smiling and looking satisfied. I listen to her talk, look at her, and nod, and neither do I encourage her by joining in nor do I correct her while talking. John repeats, ‘Everybody has to be quiet in here’.

John’s phone rings, and he leaves the canteen; shortly afterwards, Frida’s (the staff) phone also rings, and she walks out of the canteen. When both have left the room, a higher noise level arises among the children, who are chatting and shouting. Several children start moving around the canteen, walking between the tables … Rick, sitting at my table, looks worried and pulls his shirt over his head.

John and Frida return. John tells the children that this is not acceptable behaviour; now, they all should sit quietly and eat.

(Fieldnote extract Spruce, 211028)

This extract demonstrates how the staff’s efforts to create a routine around snack time were challenged by some children. This challenge, which was a part of the children’s attempts for autonomy (James and James 2012), becomes expressed when the children ignore the rules by talking when they are supposed to be quiet and moving around when they are supposed to be sitting still. The children enjoyed talking to each other, but this was prevented by the staff by arranging their seats at predetermined places spread out over the entire canteen. When the children refused to follow the rules and challenged adult authority, they did so by talking and moving their bodies, challenging the rules, and using their agency. Thus, the use of the room contradicted and seemed to create spaces with a risk of unsafety. Some children were not comfortable with the others challenging the rules. Rick seemed distressed, pulling his sweater over his head when the noise emerged and the children began moving around. The staff’s efforts to create and maintain a quiet and calm space for snack time seemed to not be acceptable for many children.

Play time

Examining the everyday life of the SAEC in Spruce village offers insight into how the relational processes of space intertwine with rooms and material conditions. The following example shows a situation in which the children and staff at Spruce SAEC returned from the gymnasium. John and Frida (the staff) had cut the session short and returned with the children from the gymnasium, as some of the children did not listen to the instructions he tried to give them, and they kept interrupting him with a lot of screaming and shouting. This ended with John cancelling the planned activity, and by that time, Frida’s shift had ended. Back in the SAEC, the author sat on a chair by the table in the meeting room and observed what was going on. They had a good overview of the room. John and the children gathered around three sofas in the room. Some children sat down while the others moved from one sofa to another, climbing on the backrest of the sofas. John had a tired expression on his face, which could also be heard in his voice when speaking to the children. John announced that everyone had to remain indoors. He said that the children could then go and play. Several children began running between the rooms and shouting out loud. Nora was one of the children who waited quietly and patiently.

Nora is lying down on the sofa, saying, ‘John, I will lie down here now, I am going to lie down here until my mummy comes and gets me’. She grabs the blanket and pulls it over her body. She then closes her eyes and remains in this position for a long time. Two children begin to argue beside her on the sofa, pushing and pulling each other. Nora keeps her eyes closed. The two children are now standing beside Nora near the couch. One of the children pushes the other, and the child falls onto the couch on top of Nora. Nora moves up into a sitting position and pulls herself backward on the couch. John acknowledges what happened and tells the two children to stop. Nora leaves the couch, grabs a few small toys, and sits on the floor between the table and the bookshelf behind me. ‘I want to go home’, she says. John constantly walks between the rooms repeatedly saying, ‘Stop it! Stop fighting, or someone might get hurt’.

(Fieldnote extract Spruce, 220103)

This extract shows how the relationships between children and adults flowed with the surrounding materiality in the rooms of the SAEC institution. The staff tried to control and guide the children into calm activities by repeating the rules. Some children followed the rules, and others challenged the staff by running around and making noise. The staff seemed to try to use the place to support the authority of the adults by cancelling the activity in the gymnasium and switching places. This did not have the controlling effect that the staff sought; rather some children seemed to challenge the authority even more. Places, rooms, and relationships are important aspects of this situation. First, the afternoon began at the gymnasium, which contains ample space and possibilities to practice movement; it is a place created for this purpose. This was interrupted by cancelling the activity and moving to the crowded, small rooms in the SAEC. The children’s expectations were not fulfilled, and this seemed to have contributed to the chaotic situation. This acting out among the children (James and James 2012) can also be interpreted as a way of resistance against the lack of control and structure. For Nora, this seemed to be violent, and her way of acting out was by first using the blanket on the sofa. When the noise and movement from other children got rather close, she moved to another part of the room, placing herself behind the author and in the shelter of the bookshelf and table. This also suggests how poor structural circumstances in the form of insufficient staff and rooms not adjusted for the SAEC institution’s needs co-construct the everyday life of children and risk developing into violent situations. This can be compared to what Massey (2005) described as the relationship between the local and the global. Here, it is interpreted and narrowed down to regions and local circumstances where the conditions for the children and staff in SAECs are different, depending on where the SAEC is located, that is, spatial injustice.

Everyday life at the SAEC in Pine village

Arrival time

In Pine, the arrival of the children was structured in an identical manner every day. All children were directed to a pavilion located outside on the schoolyard. Every child was required to sit down properly on the benches placed on each side of the pavilion, creating a square in which everyone could see each other. Running around or standing on the bench was not acceptable. Usually, the staff began a conversation to ensure that all the children supposed to be in the SAEC that afternoon were present. The staff picked up events that had occurred during the day and discussed and resolved them. After discussions, they arranged the attention game with the purpose of not allowing all children to run to the canteen simultaneously. Three or four children were sent to the hallway to hang their bags. Subsequently, they could go to the canteen for snack time. The next group of children was then discharged. During one afternoon of fieldwork, the following scenario played out:

Kicki (the staff member) says to Lisa, ‘Did you tell Mary that her shirt is too small?’ Lisa responds, ‘Yes, I did, but the shirt did look too small’. Kicki continues, ‘Now, it is the case that clothes can look different. This is nothing that we should comment on. We all choose differently, and no one should say anything about it. This could be perceived as offensive’. One of the children asks the meaning of the term offensive. ‘It means saying something that makes another person feel bad,’ Kicki explains. Lisa looks straight ahead and says nothing.

(Fieldnote extract Pine, 220223)

By using the pavilion as a consistent place for the children, the staff used recurrent routines regarding what to do when arriving, which places to go to, and which furniture to sit on. The place and materiality in the form of benches were well-suited for this purpose. The staff were present and alert, creating a routine follow-up with recurrent activities played out in the same manner every day that were predictable, understandable, and manageable. They were created to shape the afternoon into a calm and peaceful one for both the children and the staff. The children seemed to adjust to the routines and follow the predetermined rules, which did not challenge adult authority. Controlling the children into acting properly and narrowing agency but simultaneously inviting them to express their own reflections was a successful approach. Therefore, the space seemed controlled but not closed.

Snack time

During snack time, the clear structure was repeated. The children stood in line outside the canteen, and the staff let them in to wash their hands, grab a plate, and serve themselves. In Pine, the children could choose their seats and talk to each other during meals. The staff moved around the room. When the staff wanted to get the children’s attention, they used a routine created for this purpose; they would start clapping their hands in a special rhythm.

Kicki and Jonna walk between the tables and chat with the children. They then walk to the middle of the room and turn against the children. They start clapping their hands in a rhythm.

Clap, clap … clap, clap, clap.

Jonna and Kicki only have time to do two claps, and the children join in. Kicki and Jonna stop clapping and the children do so as well. Jonna asks one of the children what the clapping means … ‘Precisely’, she says, ‘You should be quiet and wait. Now, today, the children get to choose the activities. We received suggestions for jump ropes, tunnel balls, crafts, and cycling. Who wants to jump rope (three children raise their hands), who wants to make a tunnel ball (five children raise their hands), who wants to do crafts (six children raise their hands), and who wants to ride a bike (seven children raise their hands)? Well, that is good then; it is well distributed. You can clear the tables and go outside’.

(Fieldnote extract Pine, 220504)

This extract shows the maintenance of routines, structure, and control of the peer group and space. The staff moved around the room, watching and chatting with the children, taking control of the room, and monitoring what was happening. The purpose was to take control of the activities and ensure that the children were separated into smaller groups. The children joined in the clapping, stopped talking, and waited for instructions. There was predictability, and the children knew what was expected of them. They adjusted to the activities, and no one challenged the adults or asked to complete another activity. This can be seen as not feeling comfortable acting in opposition to the staff, meaning a narrowed down agency; however, it can also be interpreted as a sense of meaningfulness in the activities offered by the staff. The activities seemed to fulfil the purpose created by the staff, but the lack of children challenging the adult culture makes it questionable according to the children’s agency.

Play time

The relational processes of space can be explored by examining the everyday lives of SAECs in Pine. This is demonstrated by describing the use of one of the rooms inside the Pine SAEC building called the building room. It offers different types of construction materials for playing; for example, there is a set of blocks for building a castle that seems popular among the children. However, the staff identified this room as being unsafe after conversations with the children. Some of the children described a feeling of unsafety in the building room because of violations among the children. The staff responded by locking the room and not allowing the children to play there. A solution that the staff seemed satisfied with was avoiding problems with violations, but the children reported that they missed playing there. In the following extract, the author conducted fieldwork in the afternoon and one of the children, Abbie, wanted them to interview her. When the staff gave the instruction that all children should go inside, Abbie and the author found a place to sit down alone. The only available room was the building room; therefore, the staff unlocked it and allowed them to enter. Abbie seemed satisfied and was not interested in completing the interview. After a while, she started walking around the room, checking different boxes, and found the one with the building blocks. The author was worried that she might want to stop the interview and thereby asked her:

Interviewer: You know, if you want to play, we can finish today’s interview.

Abbie: No.

Interviewer: Would you like to continue? Because you decide on that, and let me know if you want to stop. You know, I will be here for several weeks.

Abbie: Yay!

(Interview with Abbie, 220405)

The author interpreted Abbie’s exploring the room as a signal of no longer wanting to be interviewed, but this might have been a misinterpretation based on Abbies’ firm response. Rather this can be understood as a way of accessing denied spaces – in this case, the building room and its materiality in the form of building blocks. The building room was considered unsafe by the staff and locked up, denying access to the children. Abbie found the possibility of using the room through an interview as an opening and found a way through agency.

Contrasting and comparing how the staff related to (un)safe spaces in the SAECs

Comparing the two cases, the controlled environment in Pine seems to have succeeded in preventing and managing situations that could be unsafe and potentially violent. Safe spaces seem to be created by the staff’s continuous movements among the children and by being alert, which seemed to bring predictability. In Spruce, everyday life seemed violent and free. The free and loose frames of the SAEC in Spruce, where the staff related to safe and unsafe spaces by trying to create rules on how to act, did not have the desired effect of controlling the children. Rather the children seemed free to act and chose how to spend their afternoons, but this also seemed to create unsafe spaces with violence. If violence becomes embedded in the language of children and adults and is a normalised part of everyday life (Borg 2023; Borg and Lager 2023), it also becomes a part of the everyday life of peer cultures. Adults not managing violations among children and peer cultures poses a risk of creating a situation where violence is reproduced.

In Pine, everyday life seemed controlled and embedded in a clear structure of how, when, and by whom things should be done. However, the children were controlled by adults to a degree where they almost appear to be followers, obeying what the adults set as rules. Since the adult authority is strongly controlling, it seems difficult for the children to challenge authority, which risks limiting their practice of autonomy.

Discussion

Results indicate that the two institutions are governed by the same laws and rules but with different ways of organising children’s leisure time due to structural, cultural, and spatial circumstances. Both SAECs are located in municipalities struggling economically. This is due to the uneven development across the nation, where some municipalities in Sweden are rich while the others are poor (SOU 2020; 2022). This study demonstrates how spatial injustice may affect children’s everyday lives. This is especially notable in the Spruce SAEC, where a lack of staff resources was observed, and in the building where the SAEC institution has rooms that are not adapted to the needs of the children (cf. Lefebvre 1991). Spatial injustice that stretches out in economic relations (Massey 2005), creating poor circumstances in the institution, together with the relationships between children and adults, seems to co-construct unsafe spaces that involve risks and enable violence. However, it facilitates autonomy, which is an important part of childhood. In the Pine SAEC, everyday life is constructed with adequate adjustments because of buildings, rooms, materials, and sufficient staff resources. The staff’s way of creating clear routines and being present and alert seem to contribute to safe spaces together with the relationships between adults and children. However, in the Pine SAEC, the control can risk narrowing the children’s practice of autonomy. It is important to note that only one staff member in both SAECs was teacher-trained (Spruce), which can be of importance in how children’s everyday life plays out. If teacher-trained staff is able to get access to adequate resources, they can create an everyday life in SAECs offering both safe spaces and possibilities for children to practice agency and autonomy.

Even if small, the differences between the settings are important in determining what type of everyday life is constructed at SAECs. Circumstances in structural conditions explain why the Spruce SAEC fails to offer childcare and education in safe spaces. At the Pine SAEC, there seems to be a risk of narrowing children’s agency, which can be understood in relation to the lack of teacher-trained staff. However, creating a balance between safety and agency in SAECs is not an easy practice. It presupposes the knowledge and ability to analyse both individuals and groups of children in situations that occasionally demand immediate decisions and actions. However, the laws and rules that governs SAECs are clear in expressing responsibility to do so.

Regardless of the circumstances, children have the right to equal leisure time in SAEC institutions. These results highlight how SAEC institutions risk reinforcing social injustice rather than contributing to more even life conditions. This study emphasises the urgent need for politicians and decision-makers to prioritise resources to contribute to equalising the living conditions of children that SAEC institutions have the potential to be a part of.

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank all the participants in my study. I would also like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).