ABSTRACT

Planning can often be considered an adult activity, where practitioners decide what should be learned, when and how, almost seeing into the future for how the learning experience will be. Planning is translated into practice, which is then evaluated according to whether children have met the learning goals set. Within this model of teaching and learning, control and responsibility lie firmly with the practitioner, their knowledge of each child and skill in designing activities. Here practitioners carry a heavy burden as directors and deliverers of learning. They can experience the guilt of not having sufficient knowledge of each child they work with (sometimes for only a few hours a week) and feel unable to differentiate planning for every child’s needs. They can also feel the guilt of not having spent ‘enough’ time with each child to help them realise the learning that was formed in the practitioner’s head when planning. Regardless of the effort, skill and knowledge of the practitioner, learning is limited, the child can be passive and the practitioner exhausted. There is another way. Planning for possibilities rather than outcomes switches the dynamics of planning. Here, the practitioner’s role is to facilitate learning (to follow rather than to lead). The control and responsibility is more balanced in its distribution, thus resting much more with the child. The plans are determined by an ‘insider’, the child, supported and enabled by the practitioner.