Gunilla Lindqvist

Different agendas? The views of different occupational groups on special needs education

The purpose of the present paper is to investigate how different occupational groups explain why children have problems in school, how they believe schools should help these children and the role they believe that special educational needs coordinators (SENCOs) should have in such work. A questionnaire was distributed to all teaching and support staff in a Swedish municipality (N=1297). As a result, 938 persons (72.5%) answered the questionnaire. The answers given by (a) preschool teachers (b) teacher assistants (c) SENCOs (d) special teachers (e) class teachers and (f) subject teachers were compared. Several interesting patterns emerged from the data indicating that the occupational groups to a large extent have different ideas concerning how the school should work with children in need of special support. The SENCOs were, for example, the only group that believed that they should be involved in school development. The outcome of the study is discussed in relation to the notion of inclusive education.

Is it possible to get away from disability-based classifications in education? An empirical investigation of the Swedish system

Disability classifications is given a minor role in the Swedish national policy on special needs in schools. In the present study questionnaires are used to investigate the actual importance of medical diagnosis in obtaining special support as well as attitudes towards such practices. The study involves different levels of the educational system as well as different occupational groups within compulsory schooling and preschool. The results show that: 1) disability-based categories are seen as less needed in practice by chief education officers than by principals; 2) disability-based classifications have stronger support among school staff than in the guiding documents and among principals and chief education officers; 3) a disability-based approach has stronger support at the compulsory school level than at the preschool level; 4) the group most in favour of disability-based classifications is teachers and those most against are chief education officers, principals and SENCOs.

Voices of special educators in Sweden : a total-population study

Background: There are two occupational groups in Sweden that are expected to have significant impact on educational work related to children in need of special support. These two groups are special educational needs coordinators (SENCOs) and special education teachers. In this paper, we use the collective name ‘special educators’ to refer to both groups. Special educators are expected to have specific knowledge regarding the identification of, and work with, school difficulties. However, there is noticeably little research concerning these occupational groups. This study was undertaken in order to further our knowledge about special educators’ work. Purpose: The overall purpose of the present paper is to provide a first overview of special educators’ work. The paper investigates these special educators’ perceptions of their occupational role, of their preparedness for the role and of how their role is practised. The paper also illuminates questions about SENCOs’ and special education teachers’ knowledge and values as well as the grounds for the occupational groups to claim special expertise related to the identification of, and work with, school difficulties. Design and method: A questionnaire was sent out in 2012 to all SENCOs and special education teachers in Sweden who received their degree from 2001 onwards and in accordance with the Swedish examination acts of 2001, 2007 and 2008 (N = 4252, 75% response rate). Results: According to the results, special educators state that they are well prepared to work with some tasks, such as counselling, leading development work and teaching children/pupils individually or in groups. Concurrently, there are tasks that the groups are educated for (e.g. school-development work), which they seldom practise in their daily work. Conclusions: Primarily using reasoning concerning jurisdictional control, we discuss SENCOs’ and special education teachers’ authority to claim special expertise in relation to certain kinds of work, clients and knowledge and thus, their chances of gaining full jurisdictional control in the field of special education.

Ideas about occupational roles and inclusive practices among special needs educators and support teachers in Sweden

Abstract Special needs educators (SNEs) and their counterparts are expected to play a significant role in schools’ work towards inclusive practices. Studies do, however, indicate a rather diversified picture regarding the occupational groups assigned to work with special support and their workroles, within and between different countries. In Sweden, one can differentiate between two such occupational groups, SNEs with qualifications in special educational needs at advanced level and support teachers (SuTs) with varying teacher education and education in special educational needs. The aims of this article are to investigate the occurrence of SNEs and SuTs within the compulsory school system in 10 municipalities in Sweden and the occupational roles of those SNEs and SuTs in relation to the inclusion agenda. A questionnaire was sent out in 2012 to all SNEs and SuTs in 10 municipalities (n = 511, response rate 61.6%). Main results indicate that: (a) there is wide variation between municipalities regarding the extent to which SNEs or SuTs are assigned to work with special support; (b) the characteristics of the occupational role of SNEs are more in line with inclusive practices than those of the role of SuTs; (c) there is consensus between the two occupational groups regarding what they think should characterize the occupational role of SNEs; (d) SNEs consider, more than do the SuTs themselves, that the role of SuTs should be more in line with that of a “traditional special-education teacher”. Results are discussed in relation to Thomas Skrtic’s theoretical accounts of inclusive education and Andrew Abbott’s notion of jurisdictional control.

Professionalism, governance and inclusive education – A total population study of Swedish special needs educators

ABSTRACT Prior research shows that special needs educators (SNEs) have had problems defining their occupational roles and jurisdiction, particularly regarding inclusive education. There are two occupational groups of SNEs in Sweden, namely special educational needs coordinators (SENCOs) and special education teachers. In this paper, we use the collective name SNEs to refer to both groups. Here, results from a total population study of Swedish SNEs are presented (N = 3367, response rate 75%). The aim is to explore differences in SNEs’ interpretation of school difficulties and if these differences are influenced by SNEs’ employment in different parts of the school organisation. Statistical cluster-analysis was used to categorise SNEs into five distinct groups based on how they view the problems of pupils in school difficulties. Key concepts employed in the analysis are, primarily organisational vs occupational governance in relation to professional jurisdiction. Findings suggest that SNEs are less unanimous in their views of school problems, than prior research indicates. The variance is partly due to where they work in the school organisation, but we also find indications that different groups of SNEs experience different forms of governance with regard to their professionalism. The results are important due to the scope of the data and method of analysis as well as the illustrated variance of professional values and situations of SNEs and the potential consequences for the development of inclusive education.

A comparative study of special educator preparation in Norway and Sweden: Special Educator Preparation in Norway & Sweden

The purpose of this study was to explore similarities and differences between special educator preparation in Norway and in Sweden. Graduates of special education programmes at two Norwegian (n = 3 ...The purpose of this study was to explore similarities and differences between special educator preparation in Norway and in Sweden. Graduates of special education programmes at two Norwegian (n = 320) and two Swedish universities (n = 425) who completed their training between 2001 and 2012 responded to surveys. Findings indicate that both Swedish and Norwegian graduates felt prepared for their current work and that teaching approaches employed in the different programmes were similar. However, there appears to be a stronger focus on pupils’ social goals in Sweden, as well as on advising teachers, school development and promoting inclusive environments. In contrast, Norwegian participants reported a greater focus on preparation to work with specific types of learning and behavioural difficulties. Findings are discussed in relation to differing political and social structures, such as national regulations for steering special educator preparation in Sweden, which are absent in the Norwegian context.

Bureaucracies in Schools—Approaches to Support Measures in Swedish Schools Seen in the Light of Skrtic’s Theories

ABSTRACT In Sweden, policy changes for provision of special support have been introduced, implying that teachers are obliged to provide and evaluate extra adaptations in regular classrooms prior to referring pupils to special support. The policy changes raise questions about school staffs’ views of support measures and of necessary professional competence for provision of the support measures. We conducted focus group interviews with 60 school staff representatives—headmasters, general education teachers, and special educators/school welfare teams—about their understandings of the new policy. The data were analyzed qualitatively, with the objective to explore school staffs’ approaches to the policy changes. Two main “ideal type approaches” were discerned, using Skrtic’s theories, viz. the bureaucracy approach and adhocracy approach. In the light of Skrtic’s theory, professionals’ reasoning about the new policy may reflect difficulties that are encountered in the process of implementing the policy in bureaucracy-steered schools.