Institutionalisation ?

Back in the late 60's Local authorities began to experiment with 'play schemes' during the summer holidays to keep children 'out of trouble'. Short of money at the time, I ran one for two summers on a park in Derby where every afternoon upwards of 200 young people of various ages would turn up to be organised into games and activities. It actually worked quite well and there was a minimum of trouble ... those were the days! But even then I was sceptical about the continuous institutionalisation of childhood and worried that they were getting a diet of the sort of things that schools were offering during term time ( painting, sport, trips etc) The children seemed perfectly happy to be organised and that is what worried me. Since then things have extended and developed. It seems that unless children are 'entertained' they become bored. My thought is that a little constructive boredom might well lead to personal creativity. It doesn't always have to lead to vandalism.

And now today I read that Mr Balls has announced that there is to be a £billion so that:

'Every child will be able to access breakfast clubs, out-of-hours tuition and after-school clubs in sport, music and drama as Ed Balls today announced a massive investment of more than £1billion in the extended schools programme over the next three years.'

And I read that already 5000 schools are offering this 'extended service' ... and I am worried.

If we are redefining the role of schools in this way where is the rationale, where are the best practice models in other countries? Is it a political need or a social function? It certainly isn't an educational invective.

And what of the children who could spend the greatest part of their early childhood in the same building? Who will make the rules that cover its use? Just think of any 'open-plan' primary school you know. These children will be in the care of a transient population of carers with varying authorities and remits.

Or have I got this all wrong?