This study explores differences between different groups of Swedish independent schools' work with pupils in need of special support (PNSS). Data comes from a total population study of independent schools. Data is analyzed using six categories of profile that may affect the special educational values at the schools, and therefore the situation for PNSS. Additionally, the data is analyzed with regard to the school ownership structure. Results show that diagnosis is important for receiving support, despite contrary legislative intentions. The groups differ regarding proportions of PNSS (12-100%), incidence of refusals of admission (8-40%), and in the way they explain problems and organize support. Generally, there is little challenge to a deficit perspective in views on school difficulties and the organization of support; market rationality may be a contributing factor. There are more differences between educational profiles of schools than there are between types of school ownership.

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.

The purpose of this paper is to critically analyse research about inclusive education. Prior reviews and the outcome of a recent search of databases are analysed with regard to (a) how inclusion is defined and (b) what empirical knowledge there is regarding factors that make schools and classrooms more inclusive. Our point of departure is that we regard inclusion as an idea about what school systems, schools and classrooms should accomplish, and as such, an expression of an educational philosophy. Four different understandings of inclusive education were found: (a) inclusion as the placement of pupils with disabilities in mainstream classrooms, (b) inclusion as meeting the social/academic needs of pupils with disabilities, (c) inclusion as meeting the social/academic needs of all pupils and (d) inclusion as creation of communities. Under a strict definition of inclusive education, hardly any research was found which reliably identified factors that give rise to inclusive processes. The outcome of our analyses are discussed from the perspective that different understandings of inclusion should be seen, to a large extent, as expressions of different views of what schools should accomplish. We also propose that some of the adherents to inclusion as creation of communities can be placed in the grand educational tradition reaching back to Dewey that tries to establish new ideals for school systems in a society in which individualism is perhaps the main ideology. The main conclusions are that the operative meaning of inclusion in reviews and empirical research should be much more clearly defined and that new types of studies are needed.

The purpose of the reported interview study from Sweden is to contribute to our understanding of how head teachers can promote inclusive practices. Five head teachers were selected from a larger sample of head teachers working in compulsory schools (6–16) according to specific criteria in order to obtain head teachers who work effectively and express inclusive values relative to a relational perspective. The interviews were semi-structured, and a thematic analysis was performed. Head teachers’ strategies were in focus. The theoretical point of departure is critical pragmatism. Overall the five head teachers reported similar strategies. The head teachers describe the importance of educational leadership through observation and participation in activities in the classrooms. They advocate flexibility in the solutions provided for students in need of special support preferring solutions carried out in the regular classroom by the class/subject teacher. Head teachers see special educational needs coordinators (SENCOs) as important partners in their work towards more inclusive practices. Head teachers express the importance of consensus among their staff. They seem to welcome government’s increasing demands and steering concerning how head teachers should manage their schools. Finally, it is discussed whether the head teachers can be said to work ‘inclusively’ and, more generally, the methodological challenges researchers must confront in studies concerning ‘inclusive’ education.

This paper reports on the development of a framework for the classification of local school ideologies in relation to inclusion that provides a tool for classifying the general educational direction as well as work with pupils in need of special support of individual schools. The framework defines different aspects of local school ideology in terms of values related to the societal level, school level and individual level of the education system. The paper also reports on a study exploring variations among Swedish independent schools, concerning local school ideology using the framework as a theoretical tool. In this qualitative analysis, eight schools were selected from results of a questionnaire to all Swedish independent schools (return rate 79.5%) for further analysis based on interviews with different categories of school personnel, parents and pupils. Five different patterns of local school ideologies were found more or less in line with values of inclusion, e.g. the holistic-inclusive and the market-oriented-exclusive. Results are discussed in relation to the multiple and sometimes competing objectives that every school has to deal with and make priorities between. Implications for pupils in need of special support in a school system rapidly undergoing marketisation are finally discussed.

Educational leaders have a comprehensive responsibility for how preschools and schools work with children in need of special educational support. The aim of this research is to study how educational leaders (a) explain why children have problems in schools, (b) consider how preschools/schools should help children in need of special support and (c) the role they believe that Special Educational Needs Coordinators (SENCOs) should have in such work. Educational leaders (N = 45) working in preschools and regular compulsory schools in a Swedish municipality responded (100%) to a questionnaire. According to the results of this study, this group seems to view difficulties in schools as being caused primarily by individual shortcomings. Educational leaders often advocate solutions that are closely linked to the work of special educators. The educational leaders believe SENCOs should work with supervising staff and focus on documentation and evaluations. Preschool leaders attribute children's need of special support to teachers more often than their colleagues in compulsory schools.