more playful playtimes evaluation report

playpedagogy

evaluation

More Playful Playtimes

Evaluation Report

Grumpy Salford, Units 14-16 Orchard Street Ind. Est, Alderson Street, Salford, M6 6FLGrumpy Manchester at the Angels, Endcott Close, Gorton, Manchester, M18 8BR

A Centre of Creativity Working Towards a Brighter Future for Children and Young People Through PlayContact: Ruth Northall, Training Coordinator | t : 0161 737 1644 | f: 0161 737 1374 | e: [email protected]

More Playful Playtimes Evaluation report – December 2011 Page !

!

1!

More Playful Playtimes : Evaluation Report

This aim of this report is to provide an overview of the key achievements, lessons learned and implications for the future development of the ‘More Playful Playtimes’(MPP) programme.

MPP was designed by the Greater Manchester Play Resources Unit (GRUMPY) with funding support from Awards for All to enable schools to enhance children’s experience of playtimes. It has been piloted with three Primary Schools in Manchester. The main body of the report examines the programme implementation and achievements.

The report was compiled by the MPP project team and draws on observations, discussions, and materials generated from participation in the programme, end of programme reviews and action plans, and interviews with the three Head Teachers to gauge their overall impressions of the programme. We would like to thank the schools for their enthusiastic participation in MPP, on-going commitment to enhance children’s experience of playtimes, and willingness to contribute and share their experiences in this evaluation report.

Executive summary The structure of the programme Main evaluation findings Main recommendations and areas for development

2- 6

Main Evaluation Report Project development Pilot schools Guiding Principles The MPP process Recommendations and future actions

7- 20

Evaluation


!

2!

Executive Summary Overall, the pilot schools involved in the programme have reported a considerable improvement to children’s experience of playtime. Participation in MPP has brought about, in various ways and to varying degrees, a change in staff understanding, practice and attitudes towards play, improvements to school policy, and interventions to the design of the available play space. The following extract from an interview with a Deputy Head Teacher is a typical illustration of the success of the programme:

We have seen children get very excited about playtime, and we have seen children come together and play together who wouldn’t normally do that… it has mixed up the groups, some children who had been isolated are taking part (Deputy Head, St James C of E Primary School)

But of course, as with any pilot programme, as well as successes there have been a number of suggestions from Head Teachers, Development Workers of issues about how to improve the design and implementation of More Playful Playtimes and this will help inform and refine the next stage of delivery of the programme.

Significant themes that have emerged during the project and the final evaluation are summarised here. These points are developed further in the main body of the evaluation report.

1.1 The development of MPP is a logical extension of GRUMPY’s support offered to schools, and reflects the growing interest in this period of the school day and the positive contribution it may make to children’s health and well-being. To develop this support, GRUMPY successfully applied for funding (amount) from Awards for All to develop and deliver a pilot programme to support playtime improvement.

1.2 The MPP programme design stage produced a detailed outline of the three interconnected themes associated with participation in the programme (summarised as sustainability, capacity and capability). Schools expressed interest to participate as a pilot on the basis of agreeing to this programme specification. Feedback from one Head Teacher suggests that while this was valuable, it did not give a clear outline of the requirements and time scales for development. This is somewhat inevitable at this pilot stage and is also reflected in the guiding principles for the programme which establishes the importance of starting with ‘where the school is at’ and designing a programme from this rather than following a pre-determined blueprint. The experiences of the pilot schools have provided valuable materials that will help shape the future design and development of MPP by being able to give


!

3!

practical illustrations of how schools have approached improving playtime across the three interconnected themes

1.3 The programme is designed to support schools over a full academic year. The intention of this is to spend some time at the start of the process to clearly establish current provision for playtime and to build on this through the development of an initial action plan. This plan should identify small scale, achievable, practical tasks across the three interconnected themes and a time-scale that fits in with all the other demands placed on schools. Delays in selecting pilot schools reduced this period and certainly in one school (St James C of E Primary School), which has been supported during the Autumn-term only, this has proved to be an issue. All schools have expressed an interest in continuing involvement with MPP in 2012 and GRUMPY will work with the pilot group to consider the most effective ways of providing support. The experiences of St James C of E Primary School certainly reinforces the importance of the MPP guiding principle of taking time at the start to identify the nature of existing provision for playtime and fit the requirements of the programme into the schools work programme.

2.1 While the three schools had different motivation for participation and different starting points, each of the schools recognised the value of this period of the day and had undertaken various projects to improve provision. The partnership with MPP enabled the schools to maintain and increase this focus through the guidance and support from experienced play practitioners. As one head teacher comments ‘the support from {the Development Worker) throughout the programme has been invaluable’. It is this aspect of the programme that perhaps, above everything else, has contributed to the development made by each of the pilot schools.

2.2 The commitment and support of the Head Teacher is absolutely vital from the outset in establishing a whole school approach to enhancing playtimes. Time needs to be given to ensuring that MPP guiding principles and the three main development themes are clearly understood and embedded into actions. The Head Teacher (or lead member of staff) champions this vision with all involved (children, parents, school teaching and support staff, Governors). Given the considerable demands already placed on Head Teachers, the initial documentation needs to be clear, concise and realistic in expectations.

2.3 Each school has responded enthusiastically in taking actions to work with the three themes of MPP:

• Pilot schools have developed, or are in the process of developing, a school play policy that also incorporates an outline of the risk-benefit approach to be adopted at playtimes. While the initial drive to

2. Main evaluation findings


!

4!

support change has come from the HT, this has also devolved to include other key personnel including deputy heads, teaching assistants and senior lunchtime organisers. All schools have developed an action plan to maintain expand playground improvements following the completion of the pilot stage

• All schools have undertaken a review of existing provision and the design of the physical play space and following this made interventions to increase the affordance of space for play. A common feature across the pilot schools has been the introduction of ‘loose parts’, which has had a significant influence in extending children’s play behaviours, including den-making and imaginative play. Each school has also identified further physical design interventions to the playground to open up space as part of the action planning process

• School staff have engaged in formal and informal training opportunities to develop a greater appreciation of the nature and value of children’s play. The on-going contact and guidance from the Development Workers has established a supportive and reflective relationship with playground staff and this has led to questioning some of the traditional and habitual ways of supervising playtime and develop increased confidence in working with (and enjoying) children’s play

2.3 While there have been some obvious successes, the limited time to develop the programme may compromise the sustainability of improvements. As the Deputy Head at St James C of E Primary School commented ‘This is the very, very beginning of something – like anything new it takes time for the children to get used to it and for parents to understand, and we are still getting our heads around it as well’.

2.4 All schools acknowledge the many positive changes that have occurred from participation in the programme, including the following comments from Head Teachers:

Armitage C of E Primary School: The most successful feature of participating in MPP – I think it has opened the staff’s eye, especially staff who have never has that playwork experience, to what can be achieved through a lunchtime period…Our lunchtimes now are a 100% better than 2 years ago. There has been a lot of work before the start of MPP but this tended to be organised and I wanted to have more focus on play – this project has opened people’s eyes to play.

St James C of E Primary School: Certain children who didn’t normally play together have been playing together and just listening to the children speak in such a positive way about playtime does make it all beneficial…If


!

5!

you talk to the children they say we don’t want this stuff to go – we really enjoy playing with it. Playtimes are a lot of fun generally.

All Saints Primary School: I feel that the initial development coming in, developing an action plan I feel it has been a great success story and it is now embedded across the school – we can now start to think about how we are going to move it on and keep the momentum going.

From the experiences of working with the 3 pilot schools, it is evident that the MPP programme works; all pilot schools have clearly used this partnership to enhance children’s experiences of playtime and to embed changes into a whole school approach to appreciate the value of this period of the school day. Overall, the findings collected from the diverse range of materials generated through the programme (interviews, action plans, observations and Development worker reflections) suggest that MPP offers a comprehensive support programme to help schools in developing playtime provision primarily through the on-going partnership between key school staff and the MPP development worker. The recommendations listed here are designed to build on the success of the pilot stage:

• The main theme to have emerged from evaluation is the importance of a developing the MPP intervention over a minimum 12-month period. This will enable schools to forward plan requirements into school systems and processes e.g. INSET training days, Governors meetings etc. To a certain extent, the guiding principles of MPP and the role of the Development workers were compromised by having a reduced period of time to implement the programme. However, all pilot schools did adapt to this constraint and showed great commitment and enthusiasm

• The initial period of Development Worker observation and feedback with key personnel is vital in establishing the existing ‘feel’ of playtime and provides a strong foundation for setting realistic and achievable actions across the three MPP themes. This initial period is also important for developing effective working relationships between key school personnel and the Development Worker

• There is an identified need for more practical support in terms of developing policy and procedures, for example, giving outline/sample school play policies for each school to adapt to their own needs. Feedback from Head Teachers also highlights the need to give practical examples /ready to use templates of how to develop a written risk-benefit for such actions as the introduction of loose parts

• Schools commented on the need to have more stuff to make dens. There is also a broader common issue around access to a regular supply of loose parts and this is something that GRUMPY will be discussing with the pilot schools at the review meeting in January 2012


!

6!

• The experiences gained from the pilot stage have established a much clearer picture of the process which will lead to refining the MPP documentation and promotional materials. Pilot schools are willing to share their experiences in school networks and the ‘stories’ generated with the pilot group will be valuable in establishing the expectations and outline process for other schools who may be interested in participating. Through the pilot stage the Development Workers have amended programme materials to the needs of schools, and this will help shape the future design of templates and action plans to assist schools in embedding the approach into a twelve-month timetable

• There was some confusion around membership of school cluster groups. Future development of the programme should clearly attempt to identify schools who are in an active cluster group and develop ways of sharing experiences and mutual support between schools

• Given the success of this pilot stage, GRUMPY will investigate ways of extending this programme to other Manchester Primary Schools (and beyond)


!

7!

MPP Evaluation Report

GRUMPY has long standing and well-developed relationships with many schools in the Greater Manchester area. It provides access to a range of ‘scrap’ play materials and more specialist art and craft products, equipment hire, creative workshops with children, training and information. It has also worked in collaboration with the Salford Local Authority play development team to support the development of playtimes in a number of Primary Schools. This considerable range of experiences has provided a strong foundation for the development of the ‘More Playful Playtimes’ project, a pilot programme designed to work with schools in Manchester over a 12 month period to look at ways of enhancing this important period of the day for children.

Following a successful bid for funding from ‘Awards for All’ GRUMPY have developed and piloted a comprehensive playtime enhancement programme with three Primary schools in East Manchester. The programme has three interconnected themes:

• To improve the ways that children’s play is valued and articulated in school policies and procedures

• To enhance the capacity of the physical playground to afford an environment for playing

• To develop the capacity and capability of school staff to support children’s play

These may be summarised as: embedding sustainability, enhancing capacity and developing capability.

The ‘Awards for All’ grant supported the establishment of a project co-ordinator post and two Development Workers. The Project Co-Ordinator has been responsible for the development of the programme schedule and materials, provide guidance/advice to the Development Workers, and oversee the evaluation of the Programme. The MPP Development Workers (DW’s) have responsibility for supporting each school through the programme according to the guiding principles and programme process (see below). This has been most important to the success of the project, which relies on establishing an effective professional relationship with the Head Teacher and school staff. While the MPP programme has developed a range of guidance and tools, their application to the pilot schools is context dependent; each school has its own understanding of play and the purpose and value of playtime, their own unique spaces and resources (human and physical), history, and existing culture of playtime, all of which contribute to making playtime anything but standard across the schools. However, what emerged from this pilot stage are some commonalities of programme implementation across the schools, and this will help to shape the future design and presentation of the programme.

1. Project development


!

8!

Having established basic foundations for MPP, Primary Schools were provided with information and invited to express an interest in being part of the pilot group. From these expressions of interest, three Primary Schools from east Manchester were selected to pilot the programme1. The decision to work in a specific area was based on the notion that schools within the same geographical cluster may be able to develop a support network during the period of this pilot stage and beyond (sharing experiences, visiting playgrounds, sharing training opportunities etc). However, there was some delay in confirming successful expressions of interest which then put back the start of the programme until after Easter 2011 and it has not been possible to fully develop and test this approach. In response to this GRUMPY are organising a meeting between the Head Teachers and lead playground staff in January 2012 to explore ways of developing mutual support over the next period of playtime development.

MPP is designed to be a 12-month development programme and the delayed start has reduced the amount of time available to work with pilot schools. Thus, the full impact of the programme may be difficult to ascertain at this stage. All three schools have commented on this and expressed an interest in continuing with this process in 2012.

Head teachers were provided with a copy of the guiding principles which inform the MPP approach. These are briefly summarised here, along with relevant comments from Head Teachers about these principles.

3.1 Starting with where the school is at This is a fundamental principle as it recognises that each school will have its own unique approach to playtime that is a reflection of the nature of the space available for play, the current range of equipment and materials, supervision levels, understanding and skills of those involved in supervising play, school priorities and so on. The intention is not to impose some standard blueprint to school playtime enhancement, but to acknowledge what is currently working well and what areas could be developed. As the Head Teacher from All Saints Primary School comments on action plan, ‘we felt that is was something that belonged to us, not something given to us – a development plan’.

For the three pilot schools, paying attention to playtime was not something new, but each indicated a different focus for their interest in working with MPP:

• Armitage C of E Primary School: The Head Teacher highlighted an initial concern when watching playtime and child using skipping rope in creative way to make swing on equipment, but the Lunchtime Organiser (LO) asked the

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

2. The pilot schools


!

9!

child to use it properly’. This brought attention to what might be happening at this time and changes implemented to address this issue. As such MPP was very timely and has enabled the school to consolidate and maintain momentum with this

• St James C of E Primary School: Motivation for participation from this school was focused on a specific issue of managing the behaviour of a small group of children who found it challenging to adjust to the ‘free atmosphere of playtime’ and this had an impact on other children’s enjoyment. The expectation of working with MPP was to make playtime a more positive experience for all children. The Deputy Head from the school added that 90% of children’s comments in the school suggestion box were concerned with playtime – which highlights the value children place on this period of the day. The School Council (SC) had previously been involved with other SC’s from the cluster in looking at playtimes which led to making some suggestions for improvement

• All Saints Primary School: The Head Teacher explained that MPP arrived at a timely point in the schools development ‘we recognised that we were looking for something else’. The school had undertaken work around positive lunchtimes, and all Teaching Assistant’s (TA’s) were involved at lunchtime to develop a ‘consistent approach between inside and outside’. This had led to formal organised ‘zones’ – games, sports and lots of activities set-up for those children who wanted to be ‘organised’. ‘But we didn’t have things in place for children who were on the edge of things and just liked to play – so we were looking at how we could meet their needs’. Before MPP participation, school looking to replace ‘boat’ play structure with other equipment. The MPP DW spent a couple of lunchtime observing and mapping children’s use of space and this presented a new picture ‘we started to look at edges of the space to see what was happening – and because of that we have now done a lot of planting recognising that playground was a goldfish bowl’. As the Head Teacher comments, ‘we have focused on infrastructure, getting the scene right, getting the play space right and now we are at a point of moving in and looking at the boat again’

3.2 Commitment from Head Teachers Research into school playtime improvement programmes clearly highlights the importance of the engagement and commitment from the Head Teacher at the outset, to drive and embed appropriate changes across the school. The MPP development team have worked initially with the HT to review current understanding and support given to playtimes and develop an action plan for progress. What has been apparent from this pilot stage is that the motivation and involvement of the HT in the early stages is vital. As the Deputy Head from St James C of E Primary School comments, ‘I think one of the most important things is that [name of HT] ran with it – it did come from the head and that made a difference’. The Head Teacher concurred with this, ‘It did make a difference, people felt that they had no choice (laughter)’. Equally the HT from


!

10!

Armitage C of E Primary School acknowledged that she was driving the project at the start, and this is often the case for a new initiative. Equally the Head Teacher from All Saints Primary School comments that the pace of change has been ‘pretty fast and has taken up as lot of my time’. But it needs somebody from Leadership to be driving it to make sure it becomes embedded. The Senior TA with playground responsibility knows that without HT support things would not happen.

3.3 Emergence The opening stage of MPP allowed for the DW to observe the current nature of provision at playtime over a period of time and to share these findings with the Head Teacher as the basis for developing an initial action plan to provide a direction of travel for the school. This process establishes some key priorities for action that are based on current practices and understandings, seeking to design responses that are readily achievable, applying a ‘small steps’ approach. Through on-going observations, discussions, training and interventions, the action plan is continuously reviewed in response to what happens and appropriate adjustments made. This process is evident across the three pilot schools, but what seems to be of prime importance is the opening stage of both the DW and HT looking at the ways in which children currently use the playground and the interventions made by playground supervisors. As HT in All Saints Primary School comments, ‘the DW spent some time observing and then drew some sketches and plans of where children were and what they were doing, and also the potential for what could happen’. This process may surface some ‘surprises’ – as in All Saints Primary School – which switched the focus from replacing play equipment to a more subtle appreciation of the nature of the playground and children’s inability to escape from direct and indirect gaze.

3.4 Sustainability The intention of the programme is to support schools in developing their ability to make and sustain changes to playtimes, drawing on the expertise of the MPP development team to look at low-cost, small scale changes that might have the greatest impact. As such, MPP development workers did not work directly with children or run play sessions but rather worked with school staff, Governors, volunteers, parents, and so on to enhance their capabilities to develop attractive playgrounds. Given the limited time available for this, all schools have started to develop approaches and practices that seek to embed playtime as an important part of the school day. Schools have started to draft play policies, and it is hoped that these will be formalised by School Governors during this current academic year. Also schools have responded positively to introducing risk-benefit approaches at playtime.

The real measure of sustainability will be the continuing focus on playtimes now the pilot stage has come to an end, and GRUMPY will be meeting with schools


!

11!

early 2012 to look at practical methods to help schools maintain the momentum established during their participation in MPP.

The overall intention of the programme is to support schools to improve playtimes. This is achieved by DW’s working in partnership with the Head Teacher and key personnel over a period of time. The initial phase of the programme is an opportunity for DW’s to observe children’s play patterns, the ways in which children use space and materials at playtime, and the ways in which adults support children’s play during this period. The Development Workers have extensive experience of working with children’s play in a diverse range of settings and the opening stage allows them to develop a professional relationship – all schools valued their knowledge and insightful observations of playtime and the use of space.

A range of tools have been developed to support this process, and these have been used by both the DW’s and Head Teacher (or nominated lead) to establish the starting position.

This initial familiarisation stage is vitally important in establishing the existing ‘feel’ of the playground, and the observations form the basis for developing an initial action plan, which also accommodates the school’s priorities for the development of the space. This Action Planning process has been significant in establishing a direction of travel by identifying key development activity based on current practices that are achievable in the short term, as well as identifying areas that may require more long term planning. Action plans have functioned as working documents that are subject to continuous review and up-dating according to what happens.

The action plan pays attention to the three interconnected themes of MPP, and identifies a range of short and medium actions to enhance children’s play experiences.

The MPP programme is designed around three interconnected themes, summarised as sustainability, capacity and capability. A summary of some of the main achievements and issues across these themes are introduced here based on interviews with Head Teachers and notes/observations from the MPP Development Workers.

Theme 1:

Embedding understanding of play in school policies, working practices and developing

Armitage C of E Primary School: Initial drive from HT who ensured that all Senior Management Team are regularly briefed on progress. Significant staff now involved with HT in driving this forward e.g. KS2 playtime supervisor.

Changes to policies: a draft play policy is to be introduced after Xmas – another full staff meeting in January/Feb 2012 to have focus on playtime and then the policy is to go to Governors at end of next term (March 2012) also look at sustainability of loose

4. The MPP process

5. The three themes of MPP


!

12!

parts given that stuff gets used and probably needs replacing every 6 weeks – something to look at in January meeting with GRUMPY

The Head Teacher made the following important observation about templates and pro formas, e.g. risk benefit: ‘I need to be able to run with something – I don’t have the opportunity to always re-jig everything. I am going to go down that road without a doubt, but for myself it would have been really useful if there was something compiled with all the various bits e.g. loose parts and an outline of the RB recording of this, obviously then tailored to specific locations. All three pilot projects may be re-inventing the wheel independently – perhaps some standard from that could be sent to schools for adaptation. Also could include a bank of play policies – so we could use and adapt from this’.

MPP was a chance to consolidate some of the shifts brought about; ‘the philosophy could be right through the school – we have done a lot of work with LO’s and TA’s, we have had a staff meeting – but I would like to see it taken right through the school. Our class teachers at KS1 have a better sense of what this is about, but not at KS2 – we still need to do some work with KS2. It is a staffing and resource issue and logistic of playground are different – KS2 has an enormous field with some areas out of bounds in wet periods. I have been looking at this with DW to look at clothing and to move forward with that – it is used a lot more than it was but it is about making sure that they have the clothing’. Head Teacher comment: We had a couple of calls from parents about playing out in light rain – one call from parent complaining that child would catch flu – HT made response explaining health benefits of being outside and how flu is transmitted. Head Teacher also comments on the risk-benefits approach: this is much better than the risk-assessments we currently have, a better way of looking at it and we will continue to adopt this approach. DW comment: The head teacher grasped the task of developing policy very quickly and digested all the supporting information and guidance. This really helped us to work together more closely and for her to advocate for the project and the process of change within the school, and be even more confident of her decision making. As a learning point, I would schedule this policy development phase quite early on in the process almost as part of a type of CPD process for the HT or project lead – it really worked in this instance.

sustainability

St James C of E Primary School: The Deputy Head Teacher comments ‘I think one of the most important things is that the Head Teacher ran with it – it did come from the head and that made a difference. The Head Teacher also recognised the


!

13!

importance of this: ‘It did make a difference, people felt that they had no choice’ (laughter).

DW comment: The HT really did drive this and left no group or person in the school or outside untouched. Everyone in school knew about and trusted the HT’s directive and worked together as a team. There was interested and enthusiastic engagement with our visits. Staff were excited about play. The HT followed the DW’s guidance and when she told staff to watch what happened when loose parts were introduced, they did, and they held their nerve. This brought about much discussion between teachers, Los and management and was of huge benefit for the school in working out what they thought about playtimes and being really involved in the process as a whole school.

All Saints Primary School: The Head Teacher comments: The thing that was good from the start was that the Governors were on-board; DW had done a presentation to the Governing body just after we bought the tents and the governors thought it was wonderful. They really thought this new initiative was absolutely fantastic.

Because we had informed governors and let parents know what we were doing through newsletter, and DW had invited parents to a workshop then when changes made, parents were ok with them. In fact many parents know because their children were going home and saying what was going on and how much they were enjoying it.

I feel that the initial development coming in, developing an action plan has been a great success story and it is now embedded across the school – we can now start to think about how we are going to move it on and keep the momentum going. We have a lunchtime policy and we need to incorporate a section about children’s self-directed play – DW has given examples for this and this is in our action plan.

Teachers had a training session with DW, and they valued the changes and fully supported it – ‘go with the flow’.

DW comment: The speed with which the head teacher took on board the underpinning philosophy to the More Playful Playtimes project was very impressive. The final action plan highlights the school has been shifting its focus from a concern with specific aspects of the playground (equipment) and playtime (the domination of football) to a more holistic consideration of how the playground is used currently, and might be used more broadly in the future. This approach has the enthusiastic blessing of the governors and support right throughout the school.

The next twelve months will be significant in determining the effectiveness of the project in the long term. A more simplified play policy and on-going discussions focussed on playtime will be crucial to this. But huge steps have been made in a very short space of time and this bodes well for All Saints Primary School.


!

14!

Armitage C of E Primary School: The Head Teacher comments: The most surprising thing has been children’s capacity to use any sort of loose play equipment and develop something that it totally unique, and for me it has opened my eyes to play – I have never been a playworker, nor come from that background and when I see children its meant that doing this project, I have been going out a lot more at playtime to see what is happening and standing back and see children with twigs and they can do everything with a pile of twigs – it is not about having £20,000 of equipment; the small things have made that difference. The Head Teacher describes the response from children to the changes: ‘some children said it was the best playtime when we brought out the loose parts which is absolutely brilliant. From the first few days there was a lot of comments about how much they had enjoyed it …it brought a different dimension to playtime. The novelty side has worn off a little bit but it is great to see the den-making still happening, the barrels are still being used – it is about making sure it is happening on a daily basis’. No increase in reporting of accidents – about the same – very few children sent in as behavioural issues dealt with by playground staff. DW Comment: There already was some great imaginative play within the playground environment, in the natural spaces, around the fixed equipment and between children. Now the energy of playtimes is even greater and there is definitely a more playful feel. Children are doing a greater range of physical and imaginative play and using the environment more fully with the use of loose parts. The children who are not naturally sporty have greater opportunities to engage with equipment and each other and children are playing in large groups far more. Every time I visit, new things are happening.

Theme 2:

Extending the capacity of the playground to support play

St James C of E Primary School: The Head Teacher comments: From the children’s point of view they have enjoyed the more imaginative play situations. We have seen children get very excited about playtime, and we have seen children come together and play together who wouldn’t normally do that… it has mixed up the groups, some children who had been isolated are taking part. We have tried to talk to children about their ability to negotiate and share and in some ways they have done that very well…but when it came to the den-making stuff, it was very different… it was all very tribal. Either sort it out or it goes in the bin.

If you talk to the children they say we don’t want this stuff to go – we really enjoy playing with it. Playtimes are a lot of fun generally. There is a lot that still hasn’t happened that needs to happen – they like doing den building and we talked about getting some pop-up tents so that it would be easier to pack away – and there are practical issues like storage, we talked about getting wheelie-


!

15!

bins so they could be dotted around – so there are a lot of practical things. Looking at ways of getting rope swings on trees – but difficulty in finding a company to do this - I don’t want to buy equipment, I want someone to come and do some very basic work, that means we can develop this stuff that the DW’s have started.

DW comment: When we first visited the school the children played pretty freely within the space which has lots of natural features. Most children stuck to the building edges and some ranged towards the edges. We were struck by the great rapport that LO and teaching staff had with the children, there was a lovely family feel. Now the LOs don’t see the children who were hanging at their arms because they are off ranging across the entire space, using their bodies more actively and doing and playing with each other far more and with the loose parts.

All Saints Primary School: The Head Teacher comments: What we agreed was that children like to be secluded and have places where they can play and hide and be out of adult vision. So that is where we started – we got pop-up tents (they op-up but certainly don’t pop-down) – the children loved it – comments from local people that ‘we were developing a shanty town with all these tents’ or preparing children for Glastonbury! From there, the money we had assigned for new structures we used that to create screening. We have utilised the trees that are along the fence by a stretch of road – and we have had ropes attached – work undertaken by schools ground staff – based on an intervention by DW of putting ropes up and ‘children just flocked to it’ – I think we must be the only school in Manchester that has spent its budget on ivy, because once it gets going it covers everything. The next point was introducing loose parts which have gone down really well – and one of the things we had to do right away was to get storage space – by extending existing outdoor store. It’s been absolutely brilliant but also caused some anxiety – too much stuff out altogether caused chaos. The HT comments ‘this project is about adults feeling that they still have control – but they were put into situations where they felt like they were out of control: when you saw one child bash another around the head or where children were rolling in barrels then it became dangerous’. Senior TA adds ’ But it was lovely to see what children did with them, something as simple as getting in a barrel and lots of children pushing it – it was brilliant’. We have taken some stuff away – the ropes – they weren’t being used in a good way and quite a lot of accidents were happening with them. Boxes obviously get broken and we have had to take some of the barrels away – as edges got rough and so we have to


!

16!

think about what we can use instead of these –thinking about getting some plastic boxes – and more robust scrap materials alongside the other stuff – something for GRUMPY to consider.

They love the blue material – they run with them as if they were capes. Following observations, school have decided to keep the mound (originally planned for nature area) because of the affordance it offers for play – ‘so that in the summer we can do these barrel rolling things’. The first 2 weeks there were a number of minor accidents but this has settled now. DW comments: The HT came to realise early on that the exposed nature of the playground was limiting the opportunities for children’s play, and addressed this almost immediately (before Loose parts were brought in) with the purchasing of the tents. These were an instant success at the school, and allowed for children that were struggling to maintain playful relationships to do so on different terms. Since that time significant investment has been made in structural development, planting and storage, and there are plans for further investment in the new financial year. If all the plans come off, the changes could transform All Saint’s as a play space. Armitage C of E Primary School: The Head Teacher comments: Staff attitudes have changed in a short period of time. We had a good starting point with KS1, but KS2 has seen some resistance from a couple of staff and HT is currently dealing with this situation. The biggest shift came about from DW work with LO’s and TA’s – having an hour before session – thinking about their own play experiences etc – some had forgotten about that – thinking about own children and not being allowed to play out so maybe not getting that rich experience – it raised a few questions for them – I think for me it was the training that made a real difference. DW comment: The school has faced some real challenges with reluctance by a limited number of staff to fully engage with the process and move away from traditional ways of supervising children at playtime. The head teacher had to have a real re-think about the type of staffing appropriate to supporting play. There has been real change and a dynamic response which has enabled other staff space to embrace the new approach. The head teacher is extremely committed to the MPP process and to improving the quality of playtimes in the school. As a learning point for us, this commitment by the Head Teacher illustrates how effective and rewarding these changes can be for the school, staff and ultimately for children.

Theme 3:

Developing capability of adults to support play

St James C of E Primary School: the Head Teacher comments: LO’s get very enthusiastic about any sort of training, They really do get on board with it and make the most of it… It’s like they feel


!

17!

valued and it’s our way of saying how important this time is and we want it to be successful for the children. It has given them more of a voice in saying what is going on and the issues they face at playtime ..,.we are very, very lucky here. It’s a hard job, it is an unstructured part of the day and they haven’t had much training. I think the positive thing is that they are starting to ask questions ‘Well I didn’t know what to do they are working these things through – at the end of the term they are very positive about the experience’

HT: One of the things which has surprised me the most is the ways in which the KS2 staff have taken it on board and got on with it

Over the cardboard tubes issue (one of the loose parts available at playtime and used by children in rough and tumble play forms), I think LO’s were more relaxed at playtime than teachers, who were much more anxious LO’s would say about play fighting, ‘I have not got a problem with it’. They get a lot of pleasure from seeing the children playing well together and enjoying themselves

There seems to be a difference between KS1 staff and KS2 staff – KS2 are much more open and taken ownership of it. KS1 are much more cautious and closed about it.

DW Comment: This school has a real asset in the lunchtime staff who have a great sense of teamwork and a strong staff leader whom they have a great working relationship. They all clearly love children and everything that the children do. As a result they embraced the changes and have dealt with difficult issues promptly by talking things through with each other, seeking prompt approval from management and getting on with their approach. This is a really dynamic approach that should really be commended.

All Saints Primary School: the Head Teacher comments: Looking at preparation of LO’s to deal with changes. Head Teacher outlined that again DW delivered training days – a staff day in October which had a play focus. The playground is now staffed by TA’s with some LO’s – to overcome some of the issues with LO’s around unreliability and children more familiar with TA’s as they are classroom based - we found it was helpful for TA’s to be outside. ‘We have given LO’s training in the past but this seems to have had little impact, and that is why we stopped investing time in training – ‘nothing was changing and they had very deep rooted opinions’. Senior TA comments: Children initiated their own loose parts – an example where near a tent some children had collected sticks from under a table, using it as a shelter and were using these for an imaginary campfire – In the past if a LO had seen child picking up sticks their initial reaction would have been ‘put your sticks down’. Since MPP we have seen a definite shift in responses to these


!

18!

situations. Staff are more relaxed and more engaged – definite improvement.

DW comments: The staff team have shown enthusiasm for the project in training sessions and subsequent observations by the DW, and have allowed the approach to challenge their thinking about playtime.

This selection of comments and observations reveals that the MPP programme has been influential in improving the conditions for children’s play experiences. The pilot schools all report a significant and positive change in children’s experiences of playtime, and while each school has adopted their own tailored response, it is possible to discern some common elements across the pilot group that have contributed to success:

• the importance of the opening period of observation of playground use and discussions with key school staff with responsibility for playtime to frame the initial action plan

• the commitment of the Head Teacher from the outset in driving changes across the three interconnected themes of MPP and embedding changes into school policies and working practices

• the importance of developing a whole school approach, so that an understanding of the schools intentions and practices at playtime are fully explained and supported by key stakeholders (children, parents, teachers, governors, and playground supervisors)

• the on-going discussions and review sessions between DW’s and key personnel, in particular the support and guidance given to playground supervisors as they implement actions and change traditional ways of working at playtime

• the importance of introducing ‘loose parts’ in extending the capacity of the playground to support children’s play

• formal and informal training opportunities for Lunchtime Organisers and wider school staff

As well as these anticipated themes, there are potentially some further exciting possibilities that have emerged from the pilot schools, in particular the use of school playgrounds outside of school hours for holiday playschemes (one of the pilot schools has operated holiday playschemes for a number of years). This will draw on the growing confidence and experience of playground staff to offer local children access to valuable community play space and GRUMPY are planning to offer a co-ordinating/support role to these schools.


!

19!

The pilot project has been a valuable learning experience for all involved. Working closely with the three schools has enabled the MPP team to trial and test the approach and to be responsive to the local conditions of each of the schools in line with the MPP guiding principles. This process has identified key themes which will inform the future development of the programme and build on the success of the pilot stage:

• The main theme to have emerged from evaluation is the importance of a developing the MPP intervention over a minimum 12-month period. This will enable schools to forward plan requirements into school systems and processes e.g. INSET training days, Governors meetings etc. To a certain extent, the guiding principles of MPP and the role of the Development workers were compromised by having a reduced period of time to implement the programme. However, all pilot schools did adapt to this constraint and showed great commitment and enthusiasm in taking forward the main themes

• The initial period of Development Worker observation and feedback with key personnel is vital in establishing the existing ‘feel’ of playtime and provides a strong foundation for setting realistic and achievable actions across the three MPP themes. This initial period is also important for developing effective working relationships between key school personnel and the Development Worker

• There is an identified need for more practical support in terms of developing policy and procedures, for example, giving outline/sample school play policies for each school to adapt to their own needs. Feedback from Head Teachers also highlights the need to give practical examples /ready to use templates of how to develop a written risk-benefit for such actions as the introduction of loose parts

• Schools commented on the need to have more stuff to make dens. There is also a broader common issue around access to a regular supply of loose parts and this is something that GRUMPY will be discussing with the pilot schools at the review meeting in January 2012

• The experiences gained from the pilot stage have established a much clearer picture of the process which will lead to refining the MPP documentation and promotional materials. Pilot schools are willing to share their experiences in school networks and the ‘stories’ generated with the pilot group will be valuable in establishing the expectations and outline process for other schools who may be interested in participating. Through the pilot stage the Development Workers have amended programme materials to the needs of schools, and this will help shape the future design of templates and action plans to assist schools in embedding the approach into a twelve-month timetable

6. Recommendations and future actions


!

20!

• There was some confusion around membership of school cluster groups. Future development of the programme should clearly attempt to identify schools who are in an active cluster group and develop ways of sharing experiences and mutual support

• Given the success of this pilot stage, GRUMPY will investigate ways of extending this programme to other Manchester Primary Schools (and beyond)

Concluding Remarks The overall intention, development and implementation of MPP has undoubtedly been successful in supporting the three pilot schools to enhance playtime experiences for children. This is due in no small part to the commitment that schools have shown in fully engaging with the guiding principles of the MPP process. Given the limited time available for working with schools, they have each made considerable progress in changing policies, practices, and the design of the playground, Discussions with Head Teachers suggest that this is the start of a process of paying increased attention to this period of the school day and each school has developed an action plan to continue with the changes introduced during their period of participation with MPP. GRUMPY will explore ways of continuing to support these schools through the regular provision of loose parts and further advice and guidance. Accompanying this, GRUMPY will seek additional funding to extend this programme to other Primary schools in the Manchester area to build on successes and establish an approach in which schools appreciate the value of children having positive play experiences and collectively make Manchester schools a beacon for playful playtimes.

more playful playtimes evaluation report

Documents

pilot programme

programme implementation

playful playtimesmpp

development of mpp

final evaluation

experience of playtimes

future development

end of programme reviews