Bildning för alla! - DiVA

The latter points were more pronounced for children with disabilities/in need of
special support. The dual structure of mainstream and special measures was also
intact even if the two systems were more integrated than before.
Since the 1990’s several changes have affected the Swedish school system. Most
prominent is perhaps the decentralization of the system providing municipalities
and teachers with increasing opportunities to structure educational processes. The
development from a centralized rule-governed system to a decentralized goal-steered
system meant that the municipalities and teachers became responsible for
how the goals were to be achieved. The formulation of goals was however, still the
responsibility of the state. Moreover, educational choice was incited, both between
municipal schools but also by the introduction of independent schools. Englund
(1993) discussed these changes in terms of a new way to look at schooling in the
Swedish context, i.e. as a change from schooling as a public good to schooling as a
private good. The changes discussed by Englund have developed as will be discussed
later and schools have also become more accountable than before.
Since our focus in the present paper is on the inclusiveness of the Swedish school
system we will focus our discussion on the situation for children in need of special
support and/or with disabilities. In order to do so we will build upon an earlier analysis
of the inclusiveness of the Swedish municipal schools (Göransson, Nilholm &
Karlsson, 2011). Additionally, we will supplement these analyses with some recent
data from a questionnaire about the work with children in need of special support
in Swedish independent schools (Göransson, Magnusson & Nilholm, submitted)
and some additional data about independent schools. Thus, our aim is to provide
an as comprehensive picture as possible of the inclusiveness of the Swedish 9 year
compulsory school. Before turning to the actual analyses of the school system we
believe that it is necessary do discuss the notion of inclusion, especially how we
come to define it in our investigation of the Swedish system.
One word – different meanings
Few words have been interpreted as differently as “inclusive education”. Rosenqvist
(2003) etymologizes the word “inclusion” and finds rather discouraging forerunners.
In addition, Rosenqvist discusses the relation between the concepts “integration”
and “inclusion”. His discussion makes it clear that one has to be quite specific
concerning what one means with these concepts. The problem is not only that
there are different interpretations (Carlsson & Nilholm, 2004) but also that “inclusion”
at times has been misinterpreted as being about physical presence only. This
has been the case not least in the U.S. context where placing a child with disability
within mainstream education all too often is referred to as “inclusive education”.
According to our view the concept inclusive education has to do with the social,
democratic and learning aspects of the whole school context. Emerging in an
Anglo-Saxon context, it has had a remarkable success among special needs researchers
and policymakers in many parts of the world. The significance of the cultural
context for interpretations of inclusive education has been increasingly acknowledged
(Slee, 2006). With these points of departure in mind we will approach the
issue of how to define inclusive education vis-à-vis our purpose to investigate the
inclusiveness of the Swedish system.
gÖrAnSSOn, nilhOlM & MAgnÚSSOn • 163