Inclusion through Participation: Fostering Pupils’ Feelings of Belonging in Swedish After-School Care

Abstract

The guiding principle for after-school care is to avoid segregation and specialist solutions. However, a tendency to segregate children needing special support in Swedish after-school care is a reality. A significant problem that after-school care faces is maintaining inclusive activities. This study aims to map the problem and find methods to reduce segregating processes in after-school care. Based on interviews with after-school teachers and student teachers focusing on work in after-school centres, the aim is to paint a picture of the centres’ current perspectives and efforts to create a sense of belonging for all children. In the analysis, a division of special pedagogy is used based on three discourses present in previous studies. As the results show, the interviewees advocated for an inclusive pedagogy. The scope, ambition, and prerequisites for this work varied between the different after-school centres, but all those interviewed agree that working with participation is the key to inclusion. The staff had a range of strategies and methods to ensure that all children in the organisation experienced a sense of belonging. The interviewees agreed that after-school centres should receive more resources and space for their after-school pedagogies to maintain an inclusive function.

1. Introduction and Background

Swedish after-school care originated in old Swedish workhouses set up at the end of the 19th century and later developed into an institution called “afternoon home”. When the workhouses were dismantled, the afternoon home grew out of preschools’ predecessors, kindergartens [1]. Here, the importance of play and children’s need for recreation were emphasised. During the 1990s, activities were transferred from the social sector to the education sector [1]. After-school activities have been linked most closely to school activities through the sharing of curricula and educational concepts with compulsory schools. Originally primarily care- and social-pedagogy-oriented, the after-school care centre is now a tangible element in the integrated education system [2]. As the demands on after-school care as a learning environment have grown, more robust societal, social, and collective goals have been overshadowed. In this environment, teaching is a critical concept that must be defined and anchored in an institution in which terms such as play and learning processes have become more familiar [3].

After-school care has changed over time and has become apparent in the curriculum’s goals and educational activities. A new chapter in the curriculum clarifies that after-school teachers must conduct goal-directed teaching in activities [2]. Ultimately, after-school care is governed by the School Act [4], which emphasises that education must be based on pupils’ needs, stimulate their development and learning, and complement compulsory school instruction. In summary, the after-school care mission is to complete and compensate [2]. Compensatory tasks at after-school centres have previously been associated with nursing and social activities linked to the home, participating in clubs, societies, and culture. However, these tasks are now more connected to subject results in school [3]. This pedagogical course change could easily lead to children attending after-school care being treated and assessed based on the norms, expected knowledge, and actions required in compulsory school. Because of this new direction, it is expected that after-school care will eventually be called school-age Educare [5]. Against the background of the change that is taking place, the study presented in the article aims to map and investigate the conditions for after-school care centres to develop and run inclusive after-school activities. Few studies have included children needing special support in after-school care. This becomes particularly clear regarding the inclusion of children from special schools. A measure of this deficiency is that only one thesis has been produced since this activity started. The present article strives to reduce the knowledge gap between compulsory school and after-school activities regarding states and conditions for an inclusive environment in Swedish after-school care.

1.1. Professional Role

Teaching in after-school care is a young profession that has undergone significant changes since the first students were admitted in 1964. The professional role was initially closely related to the roles of parent, preschool teacher, adult, and peer. The task was primarily to guarantee care and nursing for children of early school age before and after the end of the school day [6]. As after-school care has moved towards a more explicit teaching mission, after-school teachers’ duties in school have increased. Many now share their teaching duties between compulsory school and the noncompulsory activities of after-school care.

Since the advent of the profession, teachers in after-school care have been given much latitude for developing a relationship-oriented pedagogy and have often stepped into the role of representatives for “vulnerable children” [7,8,9]. In this respect, there are signs that the after-school teacher’s role and mission have weakened. The explanation includes a high workload and an increase in specially adapted after-school care centres. There are few surveys where after-school teachers expressed their experiences and opinions regarding inclusive activities. One reason is that Swedish after-school activities are unique in their organisational form. It is, therefore, appropriate to present a study on the experiences of teachers working in compulsory schools. In most of these investigations, teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion were essential [10,11,12]. The definition of inclusion established by the Salamanca Declaration in 1994 is based on values shaped around social justice and everyone’s equal right to participate in a community [13]. According to the declaration, the essential principle for inclusion is to plan and shape society for all citizens. What this community should look like leaves room for discussion and interpretation. Inclusion has been profiled as one of the desires of special education in recent decades. Inclusion is often defined as a process in which being included is the end goal [14,15].

Today, inclusion is often used within clearly defined areas, and environments and thus has a limited meaning. Peripheral inclusion is a concept that can be used to express a more limited form of inclusion. Elementary inclusion has included community participation at the centre, and the overall goal is to contain and create natural encounters between all people. This type of inclusion works to avoid level groupings and segregated environments [16]. Many teachers are positive about inclusion [17,18,19]. These positive teachers refer to policy documents that underscore inclusion as an overarching principle. At the same time, they feel frustrated by the discrepancy between what is written in the school laws and curricula and what can be implemented in the schools [20]. There are, of course, also teachers who are more generally pessimistic about working inclusively in their classrooms [18,21].

In several studies, teachers highlighted the need for support and further training to work inclusively [18,19,22]. One way to help with competence development is for special teachers or resource teachers to guide staff and students towards a more relational approach [23]. The “dos” and “don’ts” of inclusive education depend on the situation [20]. It is important that the teacher can solve problems on the spot and is prepared to improvise so that all students feel included [24]. One study reported a connection between self-confidence and self-knowledge among teachers and how self-reflection can be used successfully in inclusive teaching [25,26]. Patience and experience are also factors linked to successful inclusion, which can be trained and imparted during practice [22].

Farrell et al. [27] argued that there must be structures, a system, methods, and an overall strategy to meet the needs of all children. Giving student teachers the tools and courage to envisage the possibilities of inclusion during initial training would lead to more positive attitudes towards inclusion [28]. Teachers who give students more influence over their learning and who are attentive to students’ interests are more likely to succeed in creating an inclusive environment [28,29,30]. Determining the strengths and appropriate teaching methods for each student is vital to teaching progress [31]. Highlighting the strengths of children strengthens their self-esteem, positively affecting their perceptions and attitudes towards others [32]. Placing a label on a student or placing a child in a category can lead to overlooking the individual’s potential and focusing solely on the student’s limitations and diagnosis [33,34].

It is easier to work towards inclusion if the leadership is positive and supportive towards the staff [35]. It is also crucial that everyone in the work team has the skills to work inclusively [36]. Communication and information work well in both directions and can facilitate inclusion [37].

Many teachers request more resources, and technical support is recognised as a potential for inclusion. However, this factor has less significance for successful inclusion than teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion [36].

1.2. Special Education in General

The activities offered to children needing special support are traditionally defined as special education. Unique teaching methods and a specially adapted methodology are central to the most common special education perspective, which is often called the categorical perspective. The corresponding methodology is frequently practised separately from regular activities and focuses on compensating for difficulties through teaching and practice [38]. Often, this type of pupil’s perspective can lead to exclusion and segregation [39].

Another type of special pedagogy is inclusive, often referred to as special relational pedagogy, where equality, participation, group, and community are keywords to prevent exclusion and stigmatisation. In this case, participation refers to social relations, being part of a community, and feeling a sense of belonging. Inclusion means that all children’s differences are an asset, and these differences enrich the group. Individualisation takes place within the framework of the community. Differences become assets and not problems [40]. In an inclusive activity, special support is provided within the framework of regular after-school activities. An inclusive activity includes all children on equal terms, regardless of the children’s conditions, interests, and ability to perform, and everyone feels safe and involved. The feeling of belonging to a context is the primary basis for functional inclusion [41].

1.3. Pedagogy and Special Education in Different Contexts

Compared to the school’s more traditional knowledge-oriented pedagogy, established after-school pedagogy can be considered special. This pedagogy is characterised by learning that is situation-driven, experience-based, and group-oriented to a greater degree and based on pupils’ needs, interests, and initiative. Special pedagogy is an intervention in teaching that seeks to meet all students’ different needs and is suitable for learning, where the development of the teaching content is the focus [42]. This structure does not necessarily entail immediate or close-in-time planned interventions. It also refers to preventive work in more long-term planning [43]. Special pedagogy is often characterised as “more of the same”. For example, if a student is a weak reader, he or she will spend even more time reading, which becomes the special educational solution. With the same logic, after-school special pedagogy could also be considered more of the same—a more accentuated and in-depth after-school pedagogy.

One way to define special pedagogy in compulsory school is when staff with formal education in special pedagogic skills are involved in activities that can include supervision, observation, support in planning, and more direct work with individual pupils or groups of pupils. With this approach, the person with extended and in-depth competence in after-school pedagogy becomes the legitimate representative of after-school special pedagogy.

Working at an after-school centre with both special educational perspectives, the compensatory and the relational, proposed in [44] can be problematic and possibly counterproductive. On the one hand, a relational special education direction indicates that it is acceptable for people to be different and that people’s skills, regardless of what they look like, should be valued equally. On the other hand, intensive reading training takes place simultaneously in special groups. This compensatory approach signals that it is not acceptable if you do not reach the expected reading level and that it is precisely this skill, with high status in the school context that should be taught. This opposite relationship has previously been problematised and referred to as the special education contradiction, that is, to “accept a “difference” but at the same time work for this difference to become more like the prevailing norm” [45] (p. 12).

Working with both perspectives in a relational and compensatory way is a clear challenge for teachers. Overly eager compensatory-oriented special education quickly leads to feelings of alienation and stigmatisation among pupils [3]. One way to avoid this issue is to allow relational special pedagogy to dominate at after-school centres, unless there is a clear risk that with an increased focus and responsibility towards compulsory schools’ goals and requirements, special pedagogy at the after-school centres will develop in a more compensatory direction [46].

1.4. Current Situation of After-School Activities

The after-school centre, through its development, increasingly resembles a school. The premises, curricula, and operational concepts are now shared, rather than covering only the same pupils. It is well known that the sizes of after-school children’s groups have rapidly doubled, while the proportion of staff lacking pedagogical training has increased [47,48,49]. However, after-school staff now devote significant time to compulsory school activities. Many after-school centres have had to relinquish their educational ambitions due to flawed premises that do not enable after-school educational teaching [50,51]. At the same time, the same tasks remain or increase with the growing number of children in the groups [49]. This reality has resulted in less time for planning and evaluating nonmandatory activities at after-school centres [52]. Uncertainty about what should be prioritised in after-school care centres’ systematic quality work, combined with the growing number of children in after-care centres, has led to a reduction in the time available for working with children in need of special support [53]. Students receiving special support often lose their extra resources, such as support from a teaching assistant, when school hours are over. This factor reduces the possibilities for realising socially oriented participation discourse.

2. Theory

Three special pedagogical discourses common in previous studies were used as the starting point for the present theoretical analysis. The first can be defined as compensatory discourse, the second as differentiation discourse, and the third as participation discourse [46].

2.1. Compensatory Discourse

In compensatory discourse, students’ school difficulties must, through special compensatory solutions, be raised to the level of the other students [38]. The special pedagogy in the repertoire of this discourse can act compensatorily by enabling students to achieve the school’s normality requirements [45]. The idea is to compensate for a student’s shortcomings or issues in the home environment and for efforts to be directed towards current standards. An expansion of compensatory discourse in after-school centres can be directed towards the earlier socioeconomically oriented compensatory discourse. Compensatory discourse involves the discipline of the students, as those who differ from the norm must achieve normality through compensation. The compensatory idea has been prominent throughout the history of most after-school centres. Only during brief periods have compensatory assignments been called into question.

2.2. Differentiation

There are clear signs that teaching in school is increasingly based on an imagined homogeneous group of students. The special education-organised differentiation in school has been transferred to the after-school centre, as the number of students enrolled in segregated after-school centres has multiplied in the last ten years [45]. In today’s after-school centres, special pedagogy is tied to school performance, wherein after-school centres’ and schools’ special pedagogic efforts are combined. Pedagogical differentiation then adapts to those who cannot follow the intended teaching by individualising the problems. The students in question receive increased skills training in the subjects they encounter difficulties with [53]. Teaching then works under this perspective in a differentiated way to make it easier for the school to continue conducting traditional departmental teaching.

In differentiation discourse, special education is linked to organisational differentiation (e.g., a small teaching group) [54]. In the same discourse, special education is also linked to differentiation in regular teaching, which is called pedagogical differentiation in this study [55].

2.3. Participation

Participation discourse contends that one of the most critical tasks of special education is to ensure that all students feel they are part of the community and have full participation [56]. Participation in its various forms is essential to make the teaching environment accessible to all in special education work. This fact was highlighted by the Special Education School Authority [57]. Participation discourse, primarily the influencing aspect, determines which discipline technique is preferred. Such techniques include open formal discipline, where there is clarity over what the students are allowed to have influence over, discipline that takes place through a teacher-led pastoral technique, and hidden liberal discipline, where the students must understand through self-discipline what they can have influence over.

Currently, participation in after-school centres is conditional participation, where the space for individual activities can conflict with the intentions of the curriculum [58]. Another point of view on influence is that children are allowed to participate and vote on topics they cannot put into a larger context or issues so trivial that the influence becomes a chimaera [59]. If the staff tries to guide the children into predetermined norms for different rules and activities, there is great risk that several aspects of participation will not be met [60].

3. Purpose

Against the background described above, with limited conditions to maintain a participation discourse, this study aims to map and highlight possibilities for after-school centres to work for an inclusive environment for all children participating in after-school care.

The following questions guide the study:

How do after-school teachers and students working in after-school centres describe and assess:

• The starting points and conditions for an inclusive activity?
• Essential factors for an inclusive after-school environment?
• Ways to organise and increase children’s sense of belonging?
• Sustainable approaches to special pedagogy?

The study was part of the national experimental activity DLR Development, Learning and Research (in Swedish, ULF, utveckling, lärande och forskning).

4. Method

This study is based on interviews with after-school teachers and elementary student teachers specialising in after-school centres.

4.1. Data Collection Method and Instruments

The interviews were conducted as group interviews/discussions and individual interviews. A total of 26 after-school teachers from 9 after-school centres participated in the group interviews/discussions. Everyone who was part of the group interview was invited to a themed day where the opportunity to collect data was limited to one and a half hours. The research leaders could only be present for a limited time in each group. Therefore, choosing a respondent in the group to take minutes became a solution. The argument for not using a tape recorder was to enable a more accessible and frank discussion without the risk of any respondent being negatively affected by the tape recording. In the individual interviews, ten after-school teachers and four student teachers participated in their final teacher education semester. Those who participated in the individual interviews did not participate in the group interviews/discussions. The project applied the ethical rules that guide international and national research [61,62]. In addition, the project’s national coordination group was guided on ethical issues through PM 2020. More information on this study’s ethical stance can be found at the end of the article under the heading Institutional Review Board Statement.

In the group interviews, questions were asked and answered orally and in writing. A researcher also interacted with the groups to repeat and clarify the questions. The group interviews/discussions were documented in notes in part by the researcher and in their entirety by a participant in each group, as there were some brief occasions when the researcher left the room. When there were notes from both the participants and the researcher, both texts were used for validation. The measurement consistency between the researcher’s and participants’ notes was high in these cases. The group interviews/discussions lasted between 45 and 60 min. The individual interviews, which took between 45 and 60 min, were conducted via a digital meeting tool or in person.

Two models were used as a basis and support for completing the interviews as an interview guide and framework for reflection and discussion in the group interviews. The first is called positive and negative branding [63,64], and the second is called inclusive individualisation [65,66]. Both models were based on a systematic analysis of activities to continue with concrete measures to increase students’ sense of participation in after-school activities.

4.1.1. Positive and Negative Branding

In several studies, stigmatisation theory has been used as an explanatory model when adults or children are met with an approach that counteracts or hinders a sense of belonging. Negative branding or stigmatisation means that people or groups attribute negatively valued deviant characteristics or behaviours to a person [67]. When a person is in a particular environment, they may not meet the requirements set by the activity and become met with a negative attitude. This negative stigma can occur at different levels and appear in several forms. Characteristics valued negatively in one context can be valued positively in another, more permissive climate. Based on this reasoning, branding can be negative or positive [63]. Activities and efforts that lead to discrimination are called negative branding. Approaches that work in an inclusive direction are called positive branding. Negative and positive branding can become visible in the environment’s approach and through laws and regulations. Examples of factors that give a positive impression include a positive, affirming, and engaged approach that signals to the individual child that everyone in the after-school group is essential.

4.1.2. Inclusive Individualisation

The inclusive individualisation model is based on the idea that individual choices and opportunities are anchored in a group-oriented way of working [65,66]. The model specifies a systematic order where the current situation’s orientation, planning, activity, and evaluation are linked to six critical perspectives in the after-school centre’s operations. Inclusive individualisation always assumes that pupils are part of a group community in which the group, with its differences, is seen as a vital resource. The goal is that the after-school centre’s group-oriented planning and working methods should consider individual needs and desires and highlight the best way to foster an increased sense of belonging in the after-school group. The model was first conceptualised with the support of prospective special educators and special teachers [65] and then tested and developed in the preschool context [66]. Considering essential factors, after-school activities can meet different needs in various ways. In this model, these possibilities are systematically inventoried. It is essential to evaluate, discuss, and consider the actions in each step. Proposals for activities and changes are then drawn up based on the analysis. The six steps, anchored in previous research, are as follows:

• Step one: What goals/expectations are directed towards the pupils? Value and knowledge goals.

Based on the curriculum, more precise and concrete individual value and knowledge goals are formulated under this point. To maintain the democratic values on which the principles of inclusion rest, it is essential that students have a real influence on the formulation of goals [68]. Pupils have more significant opportunities to develop in learning environments where students influence teaching [29].

• Step two: what tasks and activities are planned and carried out?

It is important to shape and encourage activities based on the child’s perspective and agency in learning [69]. Varying interventions for children/students needing special support significantly affect learning [29] to form a comprehensive solution in an everyday and meaningful context for the child.

• Step three: how do the educators work?

The staff must teach in a way where the children are encouraged constructively and engagingly. Thus, the teacher must act dynamically with consideration for all students [70]. Acting clearly and confidently as a teacher and avoiding labelling students are patterns of action that significantly affect students’ learning.

• Step four: What groups does the child belong to? Classmates?

Groupings do not have to be based on similarities but can be based advantageously on differences. Peer effects mean that a pupil’s results are affected by the level of performance of his or her peers. Swedish studies also confirmed that peer effects are significant, especially for students who have difficulties reaching their goals [71,72]. As part of a positive context, stable peer contacts and good social relations are important for a well-functioning learning situation [73].

• Step five: what does the environment look like inside and outside?

Management and teachers often see pupils as the only reasons for problems, but difficulties can also be caused by the after-school centre’s internal and external environment. The physical environment influences the activities that can give children opportunities for movement, play, and privacy [74,75,76].

• Step six: what materials and resources are used?

Different types of tools provide a range of possibilities for versatility and individualisation. Assistive technology should be available to all students, as it creates multiple learning opportunities. Research shows that children/students need significant support from teachers when computers/digital resources are used in teaching [77]. Knowledgeable teachers with good planning skills can use computers as practical teaching tools [78].

4.2. Study Population Characteristics

Among the after-school teachers interviewed, 60 per cent were women, and 40 per cent were men, which corresponds well with the distribution at Swedish after-school centres (70 per cent women and 30 per cent men) [79]. The age of the interviewees varied between 23 and 60 years, with a representation from three rural and six urban areas. The predominance of after-school centres in urban areas also represented the national situation. The staff’s professional experience varied relatively evenly between 2 and 40 years. A summary of the number of individuals in the background variables is presented below in

Table 1. The number of individuals represented in the different background variables.

Age	21–30	31–40	41–50	51–60
Group interviews/discussion	N. 6	N. 9	N. 6	N. 5
Individual interviews	N. 3	N. 4	N. 4	N. 3
Gender	Male	Female
Group interviews/discussion	N. 10	N. 16
Individual interviews	N. 5	N. 9
Workplace	Urban area	Rural area
Group interviews/discussion	N. 17	N. 9
Individual interviews.	N. 7	N. 3
Professional experience	2–10	11–20	21–30	31–40
Group interviews/discussion	N. 6	N. 8	N. 8	N. 4
Individual interviews	N. 4	N. 2	N. 3	N.1

.

The survey did not study any differences in attitude based on the abovementioned variables. However, it may be worth noting that the interviewed group reflected qualified after-school teachers working in Sweden. The four students interviewed were two men and two women, all under 30 years of age.

4.3. Data Analysis Method

Interviews were recorded and transcribed according to the sentence concentration method, where longer statements were shortened without losing the essential meaning of the interview [80]. From the five group notes, the word count varied between 250 and 600 words. The total amount of text was 2125 words. The transcription from the individual interview text varied between 450 and 800 words. The total number of words was 8680 words. The interviews were analysed and categorised by a licensed researcher and a co-assessor with the same training. The coassessment yielded no deviant results. The data were analysed twice, and the answers were sorted and categorised based on the questions formulated in the problem statement. The questions constructed from the two theories worked well for this sorting. No qualitative software was used.

5. Results

In the results section, the after-school centre’s opportunities to work inclusively are mapped and highlighted by presenting the perceptions and experiences of after-school teachers and student teachers focusing on work in after-school centres. Here, there is no division between these two groups or group and individual interviews. The answers are not strictly quantified, but when the direction is clear, we express this likelihood using words such as “many”, “several”, and “some”. The quotations are taken from written and oral comments; no participant or group is quoted more than twice. Categorisation and the results section are based on the first three questions in the purpose. The fourth question was based on the results of the first three questions and is presented in the discussion.

5.1. Starting Point and Conditions

The after-school centres represented in the survey work inclusively. Several interviewees maintained that it must be possible to include all children, as the following quote exemplifies:

We do not want to contribute to or support an exclusionary activity. There are a few exceptions, but the principle of inclusion should apply. (After-school teacher, male, 31–40 years, professional experience 2–10 years, rural workplace.)

Our after-school students must meet and learn by meeting children who now attend a particular school. The basic approach must be to try to make inclusion work. Some after-school centres give up too quickly. (After-school teacher, female, 4–50 years, professional experience 21–30 years, urban workplace.)

Some children may enjoy a particular activity. However, if there is an exclusion in the future, it is not a good solution. (Student, female, 21–30 years.)

At after-school centres, teachers are optimistic about special activities for children who attend special education schools. Here, there is significant trust in specialist knowledge and special operations. The staff believe these measures provide a good solution, as the groups are large, and many children need special support. According to one interviewee, “resources are needed to complete an inclusive mission, which is significantly more difficult now than, for example, 20 years ago”. (After-school teacher, female, 31–40 years, professional experience 11–20 years, urban workplace.)

Most after-school centres represented in the survey function according to age. Four different groups based on age are not unusual. Based on the interviews, after-school centres often have limited space because a limited number of children are allowed to be indoors. At after-school centres, children are divided into indoor and outdoor groups. Materials and resources, such as assistive technology, are not designated uniquely for children needing support but as generally suitable for all children. No interviewee suggested that assistive technology could have a negative impact on children or activities.

Situations where a child is part of the after-school community but feels alienated can manifest differently. Outgoing children can easily be left out of a group, as other children want to avoid participating in a conflict-filled game. Exclusion may start in the classroom and continue at the after-school centre. Some children, whom after-school teachers describe as wanderers, go from activity to activity without establishing peer contact. Other examples include those in a group who do not have a deeper connection with anyone else. Some children exist on the side lines, participating in “adjacent activities”. Some stay close to the staff. “Alliances” may also make it more difficult for an individual child to enter the community. In after-school centres, different communities exist side by side and can gather around an interest that excludes some individuals. Children can also be subtly excluded, which becomes difficult for after-school staff to detect. One interviewee mentioned examples where children were not missed by any child at the after-school centre, even though they had been absent for a long period of time.

For children with physical disabilities, inclusion is rarely a problem. What may worry staff is the medical responsibility for children with, for example, diabetes, convulsions, and severe allergies. Those who deviate significantly from the norms (e.g., children from a special primary school focusing on specific subject areas) are met with great understanding and consideration by other children and parents. Some interviewees say it is more difficult when the deviations from prevailing norms are minor.

Some children cannot bear to spend a whole day in large groups and seek solitude, without this solitude being labelled as exclusion. According to many interviewees, however, arranging a calm and secluded environment is a challenging task.

According to some interviewees, making friends from class is often the most important factor, as it is more challenging to make friends in the large groups present at an after-school centre. Some children are firmly attached to a classmate and are left out when a friend is absent. One after-school teacher noted that comments and questions expressing concern about being left out of the group could be heard by the children. The teacher gave some examples:

Is anyone from my class here today? I have no one to be with. Who is in free time today?

I do not know everyone.

It feels empty; I have no one I know near me.

5.2. Essential Factors for an Inclusive After-School Environment

The interviews show that the staff must be trained, have a consensus, and ensure that activities accommodate children’s differences. Training and supervision aimed at working with children with special needs are considered a way to revalue the mission to include all children. In-depth knowledge of disabilities and conflict management is also required by student teachers in their primary education. Professional after-school teachers emphasised the same need for skill development.

Changing roles in the work team are considered necessary to show everyone in the environment, such as other children and parents, that children who require more support are a shared responsibility. According to some interviewees, talking openly and positively about differences can benefit inclusion.

Many interviewees suggested that children who need special support will find it much more challenging to build peer relationships without placements at an after-school centre. The staff can encourage, initiate, and support new contacts among children at the after-school centre. As noted by the interviewees, if the responsibility for building relationships and connections is left entirely to the children, there is a risk that things will go wrong. It is possible to have a varied after-school centre without losing precise planning and structure. Too much freedom can create alienation, said one interviewee. Exclusion is often more significant in compulsory schools than in after-school centres, as the goals and content are narrower, and the opportunity to make choices is more limited. The requirements at an after-school centre are not the same. According to all the interviewees, at such schools, children have more options for choosing activities with a broader range and significantly less assessment. Many children who attend after-school centres have a disability, but the staff at the after-school centre do not always experience the problems surrounding the child as defined by the school.

No interviewee directly mentioned special education as a tool in the after-school centre’s operations. It is unusual for staff to contact special educators or special teachers. Contact with these professional groups usually corresponds to compulsory school activities. Discussions about children needing special support at the after-school centre are generally limited to the teachers’ staff groups. According to many interviewees, compulsory school actions are most crucial. If after-school teachers work inside the compulsory school and support their students, the process should work the same at the after-school centre. One interviewee stated that both functions are valued equally and complement each other.

The class teacher can join in and encourage the child during free time. It would be appreciated by the staff and the children’s group. (After-school teacher, female, 21–30 years, professional experience 2–10 years, urban workplace.)

Those interviewed would rather see a higher pupil/staff ratio than strengthen special education competence. If support from special educators is allocated, it is suggested that a suitable task could be to observe the work of the staff and then follow up with supervision. When after-school teachers work together, a better opportunity is created to discuss each other’s treatment and actions towards the children. Based on the interviews, it appears that teachers often work alone with a large group of children, making this reflection difficult. It can also be positive to obtain more information and facts about a particular disability, noted some interviewees. As after-school care staff, many find it challenging to deepen their relationships when so many children are at the after-care centre. It is essential to listen to the children, as illustrated by the following comments:

I wish we could have more time with the kids. Now we have huge groups. (After-school teacher, female, 41–50 years, professional experience 21–30 years, urban workplace.)

Sometimes you want to let go of the demands of the curriculum and hang out. (After-school teacher, male, 41–50 years, professional experience 21–30 years, rural workplace.)

5.3. Organising and Increasing Children’s Sense of Belonging

In the interviews, it became clear that a central problem is organising work when the workload is high, and the after-school teacher has commitments in compulsory school. Frequently, teachers work alone with 20 children when the entire group of, e.g., 70 children is divided into 2 or 3 groups. At the after-school centre, children usually stay for a shorter part of the day compared to school. Often, children are picked up in the middle of activities, and the staff are busy determining who is leaving or joining the activity. Overall, this reality means that it can be complicated to plan and organise the necessary work.

Staff often work with direct intuitive observations and actions, with little time for observation and documentation. Consequently, staff discuss their observations and propose measures when the opportunity arises. Staff believe that they must be sensitive and pick up on the involuntary or self-chosen seclusion of children. The problem may, therefore, be missed. This factor becomes particularly problematic when the child does not want any help in establishing peer contacts. The interviews indicate that it is important to create activities that suit everyone and to detect and respond to the risk of exclusion early. When groups are of mixed ages, it is often more accessible for children to find friends on the same wavelength. Some interviewees noted that slightly older children can act as role models and take more responsibility. According to most of those interviewed, it is important to collaborate, work towards the same goal, and keep value-based work alive. Examples of comments made in the interviews are as follows:

We must maintain an open and understanding climate. (After-school teacher, female, 21–30 years, professional experience 2–10 years, urban workplace.)

We must see all pupils as competent and really listen, showing that we believe in them. (After-school teacher, female, 31–40 years, professional experience 11–20 years, rural workplace.)

5.4. Activities That Have Been Tried and Found to Work Well

The interviewees provided many examples of activities that increase children’s sense of belonging. An example from one after-school centre was the children’s creation of friendship bracelets, which were later given to friends. The staff ensured that everyone was assigned a buddy and that the recipient of the bracelet would remain a secret until the handover, at which point a predetermined text was read out by the person who made the bracelet: ”You are a good friend because you…”. They have also tried “yes days” when everyone tries to be optimistic about suggestions and activities suggested by peers. Another example of measures that can strengthen a sense of belonging is being assigned a sponsor. “Friend teaches friend” is an activity in which a child with a special interest teaches another child something they do not know. One after-school centre has worked with sociograms, a method that can help staff discover if someone is missing peers in the group. Some after-school centres ask questions about the children’s experience of belonging to a group through a simple questionnaire.

Cooperation exercises and role plays are also suitable methods for increasing children’s understanding of each other and gaining more insight into what it can be like to experience exclusion. Digital support for this work includes the app “Ritprata”, which can be used in various ways, including social storytelling. Working with conflict models is another way to increase feelings of belonging. One after-school centre has tried random table placement. The children pull a coloured needle and then sit in a location with the same colour. In this way, the children can make new contacts.

If something does not work for a child socially, staff must continue to work, noted one interviewee, adding that staff should allow it to go wrong—”push and polish and not give up”. Staff can approach a solution, even if more conflicts emerge. If an activity works for children requiring special support, that activity is almost always suitable for the whole group, said one after-school teacher. One example mentioned was picture support for communication, which can be helpful for the entire group.

5.5. Planned Activities and Proposals for Activities

Conversations with children are valuable. One interviewee suggested scheduling time for conversations that differ in structure from after-school councils. These conversations include “talk time”, which involves four-corner exercises, role-playing, cooperation exercises, and other activities that can strengthen feelings of belonging. One after-school centre is considering testing “children interviewing children” next year. In this activity, older children form a sponsor group that interviews younger children, and the staff help design the questions. Another after-school centre is considering testing whether older children can run activities for younger ones. These are all measures to increase the sense of belonging for all children at the after-school centre.

6. Discussion

The results show that the discourse of participation rhetorically dominates after-school centres, a rhetoric based on previous research [40,41]. The desire to include all children is clear, but staff often face challenges in realising this goal. Organizationally, compensatory discourse is a reality, and many children are initially placed in special after-school centres. There were no vital elements of a compensatory discourse observed in the represented after-school centres. Nothing indicated a strong focus on compensating for children’s difficulties or limitations, and a permissive attitude dominated. Compensatory discourse focuses on offering special educational support and supervision to compensate for and supplement the school’s activities, which often include a special activity [38,39].

The goals, expectations, and requirements set in the after-school centre were discussed and compared with the purposes of compulsory school. The interviewees maintained that it should be easier to include children in after-school activities than in compulsory school. After-school centre teaching offers greater freedom, flexibility, and a greater scope for individual differences. However, a remaining question concerns the need for more school-oriented activities. The after-school centre should supplement education in the preschool class more clearly because school can reduce these opportunities. The school’s curriculum is directed towards more traditional knowledge acquisition, making it more challenging to fit in and fulfil school requirements and standards. Large groups of children also affect the possibilities for individual choices [49], and after-school centres should receive more resources and space to achieve their after-school pedagogies. The inclusive individualisation model used here as the basis for the interviews could function as a working model, similar to how this model functions for preschool [60,61]. After-school staff have a range of strategies and methods to ensure that all children in the centre have a sense of belonging. Several suggestions and examples of ways to make all children visible and create peer contacts were expressed by the respondents. The interviewees explained that their behaviour towards individual children, both as individual after-school teachers and as a work team, is essential.

Regarding relational and social tasks, after-school teachers rarely request special pedagogical support and supervision. According to the interviewees, special educators and teachers work directly with after-school activities. In the future, these professional groups may gain increased importance in activities, perhaps more oriented towards compensating for and supplementing school activities. Staff recognised the challenges of working with children with special needs or those who need help in following traditional teaching. To meet these challenges, carefully implemented differentiation could be an option. There are traces of differentiation discourse in the interviews analysed. Individualised teaching methods and a stricter age division in regular activities are examples that were highlighted as potential ways to differentiate activities.

The results from this study also show that strict age classification can be applied at after-school centres. The results of interactions between younger and older peers at the after-school centre were not obvious. Dividing children into age groups gives a clearer picture of what is expected of a child at a certain age. As a risk, comparisons between staff and children define, in part, what is “normal” or age-appropriate, which can contribute to individual children’s feelings of exclusion. The more homogeneous a group is, the easier it is to be seen as different if the prevailing norm is challenged.

Staff rarely considered the reality that children from special schools are often placed in special after-school centres. Thus, knowledge of how this activity is organised could be stronger. Most of those interviewed were, in principle, optimistic about including students from a special school in regular activities, but few worked for this change. The issue remains low on the priority list, and it is likely to take time to influence a change.

This study has some limitations. For research on inclusion and feelings of participation, it is essential to question both children and parents. However, in this study, only after-school teachers and prospective after-school teachers were interviewed. This is an explicit limitation, and future studies should elucidate the perspectives of children and parents.

Despite these limitations, this report has value for discussions and work around participation issues and the possibility of working towards inclusive after-school centres. It is important that after-school teachers discuss their views on special education and more clearly decide which inclusive individualisation and positive or negative branding should guide their future work.

6.1. Conclusions

As the results show, the interviewees advocated an inclusive after-school centre pedagogy. The scope, level of ambition, and prerequisites for this work varied between the different after-school centres. All those interviewed agreed that working with participation is the key to inclusion. Only a few interviewees believed in specialist competencies and special efforts in special facilities. At the after-school centre, the staff employ various tactics to foster a sense of community among all pupils. The individuals interviewed emphasised the importance of the behaviour of individual after-school teachers and the collective team towards each pupil in creating a sense of belonging. Several techniques for making every child feel seen and connected with their peers were suggested to promote inclusivity and social connections.

6.2. Implications for Practice and Future Research

Staff can help reduce or increase a child’s sense of exclusion. It may be appropriate for teachers to discuss the situation based on their own actions and the actions of their colleagues. It would be appropriate to discuss expectations and role allocations through extended collaboration within the work team. A discussion about age distribution in groups could also be justified based on an inclusive perspective. Mapping and evaluating the activities of special after-school centres are also urgent research tasks. No official statistics show the extent of after-school care centres running special activities. This data gap should be remedied, as it is a crucial value gauge for the development or, perhaps more correctly, the decline of an inclusive institute. It is important that after-school teachers discuss their views on special education and more clearly decide which inclusive individualisation and positive or negative branding should guide their future work.