Session Information
23 SES 02 B, New Forms of Governing in School Education (Part 2)
Paper Session continued from 23 SES 01 B, to be continued in 23 SES 03 B
Contribution
In accordance to a new provision in the Education Act (2010) schools have to report and investigate all incidents of degrading treatment. The focus of this paper is to study how schools and school authorities handle this provision.
In 1991, the Swedish school system changed from centralized and thoroughly regulated to decentralized, along with the liberal politics of the time. Since then, the state has step by step reestablished control over the school system. Similar changes have been observed in many European countries (Eurydice 2015). It can be considered as ”the state strikes back” (Hudson 2007), through recentralization and juridification (Teubner 1987, Blichner & Molander 2008, Brännström 2009). One common denominator is that legal regulation is imposed on more activities in school and in a more compelling way than before. The discourse of rights that appear in the strengthened regulation regarding degrading treatment is not only a national phenomenon, but influenced by international conventions like the Rights of the Child.
Since the application of the new Education Act (SFS 2010:800) in Sweden, the schools have an obligation to report and investigate acts of degrading treatment in school to the local school authority (Education Act, chapter 6). The investigation that the school must undertake consists of interviews with the parties concerned, and accounts for measures to prevent from further mistreatments or grievances. The impact on the work of teachers and principals becomes apparent, since the procedures require extensive investigation and documentation on the behalf of the school administration.
The decision to introduce the obligation to report and investigate by law transfers the responsibility to the schools to handle all incidents of grievances. In this context the obligation can be understood as a form of self monitoring, a way of governance where the schools themselves must monitor their work with incidents. In the same time as they are constantly aware of, that it can be surveyed by the School Inspection, SI. This provision can be understood as a consequence of the growing number of complaints sent to the school inspection by pupils and their parents. The process of making a complaint was digitalized through the webpage of SI. The number of complaints grew to unsustainable levels, especially considering that every single complaint had to be investigated by the staff at the inspection. Through the new Education Act, parents and pupils can still make complaints about the school directly to the SI, but are recommended to contact the school first, who are obliged to deal with the complaint directly (Barn- och Elevombudet 2015, Skolinspektionen 2015). In case the SI receives a complaint, the existence of documentation is decisive in whether the school will be considered to have taken appropriate measures or receive public criticism. However, there are no clear guidelines for what qualifies for a report or can cause complaints. The fear of receiving public criticism from the school inspection has lead to an excessive use of incident reports.
The analysis will draw on the concept of self-regulation (Focault 1979), as the self-monitoring can be understood as a form of governance where the schools themselves must monitor their work with incidents, constantly aware of that they can be controlled by the inspection. We will also apply aspects of juridification, when applied to formerly not legislated social areas and in this case understood as expropriation of conflicts (Teubner 1987). The aim is to get a further understanding of the impacts of self-regulating aspects in schools, and also to gain a better insight to how it affects the relations between school and parents/pupils as well as between the school leaders and teachers.
Method
Expected Outcomes
References
Barn- och Elevombudet (2015)(Child and school student representative) http://beo.skolinspektionen.se Retrieved in January 2016 Blichner, L. C. & Molander, A. (2008). Mapping Juridification. European Law Journal 14(1): 36-54. Brännström, Leila (2009): Förrättsligande. En studie av rättens risker och möjligheter med fokus på patientens ställning. Malmö: Bokbox förlag. European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice, 2015. Assuring Quality in Education: Policies and Approaches to School Evaluation in Europe. Eurydice Report. Luxembourg: Publications. Foucault, M. (1979) Discipline and Punish: the birth of prison. (1977) Harmondsworth : Penguin, 1979. Hudson, C. (2007) Governing the Governance of Education: the state strikes back? European Educational Research Journal 6 (3), 266-282. Skolinspektionen (2015) (Swedish School Inspectorate). http://skolinspektionen.se Retrieved in January 2016 Skollagen SFS 2010:800 (Education Act) Teubner, G. (1987). Juridification – Concepts, Aspects, Limits, Solutions. I G. Teubner (ed.). Juridification of social spheres : a comparative analysis in the areas of labor, corporate, antitrust, and social welfare law. Firenze and New York: De Gruyter.
Search the ECER Programme
- Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
- Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
- Search for authors and in the respective field.
- For planning your conference attendance you may want to use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference
- If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.