Bildning för alla! - DiVA

the municipalities. They conclude that the increased freedom of choice seems to
be less observable for pupils in need of special support than for some other groups
of pupils.
Educational goals are formulated in course syllabi in the National curricula
(Skolverket, 2011). They apply equally for municipal schools and for independent
schools and they are the same in the whole comprehensive school which encompasses
98 % of the pupils within the compulsory school system. Educational goals
can, however, be a double-edged sword with regard to inclusion. As pointed out
by for instance Dyson and Millward (2000) learning goals must be achievable for
all pupils. During 1998–2010 approximately 9-12 % of the pupils in grade 9 each
year, did not pass the goals in Swedish, Mathematics or English (Skolverket, 2010).
Persson, Holmström och Johansson (Skolverket, 2006) also conclude that the goal
system that was introduced in the National Curriculum of 1994 forced teachers to
realize that “goals to achieve” were unattainable for a large group of students with
disabilities. They even quote a passage from the official government report that
preceded the grading reform, where the investigators write: “There are however,
pupils that – despite educational support and personal effort – do not have any
possibility to pass in several subjects on account of different disabilities” (SOU
1992:86, p. 93; authors’ translation). We mean that it is an open question if the new
curriculum that came in to force the autumn term 2011, is less exclusive in this
sense than the former curriculum.
Regarding the opportunity to participate in the social milieu of the school, few
studies differ between public and independent schools or pupils in need of special
support (c.f. Skolverket, 2001; Skolverket, 2007). However one study from public
schools (Eriksson & Granlund, 2004) suggests that pupils with disabilities perceive
themselves as participating to a lesser degree than pupils without disabilities.
A survey of mental health among children and adolescents by the Swedish
National Institute of Public Health (Statens folkhälsoinstitut, 2011) shows among
other things that pupils with disabilities are reasonably content in school even
if it is a slightly less amount than among pupils without disabilities. A majority
also declares that they are comfortable with their teachers even if a slightly higher
amount state that they seldom or never come to terms with their teachers. There
is, however, a clear difference with respect to comrades and bullying. A greater
amount of pupils with disabilities state that they seldom or never have fun together
with their comrades or that they can speak with them about everything, or get
support from them and that they help each other. It is also much more common
that pupils with disabilities are afraid of other pupils, and they are bullied more
often. According to the results, pupils with disabilities were overrepresented in the
group of pupils that had considerable problems.
As regards the underpinning perspective on special needs we must first
mention that in the late 1990’s, three committees proposed a change in the Education
Act regarding the term “students with special educational needs” (SOU
1997:108; SOU 1997:121; SOU 1998:66), to “pupils in need of special support”,
which now is the official wording. One might therefore say that the Education Act
promotes an understanding of school problems that focuses on the relational character
of the need for support, turning the spotlight from an individual pupil’s
166 • BilDning fÖr AllA!