sou · GYB393en · 2011-01-01 00:00:00 — For further information visit the web site for the project: place.5 will continue to have primary responsibility for ensuring that collaboration comes about. The restrictions on supplying information, in accordance with Swedish legislation on professional secrecy and confidentiality, are not affected by the proposal. The background to the proposal is that there is a current lack of clarity concerning which societal actors can take the initiative for collaboration with regard to children and young people who are suffering neglect or are at risk of neglect or abuse. From the legal provisions, it shall be clear that the local 's initiative is not required for collaboration to come about; rather, other societal actors, who are referred to in the provisions on collaboration with regard to children who are vulnerable or at risk of becoming vulnerable, also have an opportunity to take initiatives. The lack of clarity in today's regulations has had the consequence that, in our case, preschools, schools and other education providers, have sometimes refrained from taking the initiative for collaboration, in the belief that they have not had this opportunity despite it having been demanded. Preschools, schools and other education providers have perceived the relationship between them and as unequal. By deleting the words at the initiative of , clarification is achieved in the legislation concerned, and consistency of wording is obtained between the legal texts. Children's and pupils' rights need to be strengthened Under this heading, I present five proposals, all aimed at strengthening the right to an equivalent education. A key reason is that the correct application of rules in decisions involving the practice of the authorities is essential for the children and pupils with which the Commission is concerned to be guaranteed an equivalent education. The right to special support is an example of the decisions referred to. The proposals concern: An inventory of the need for more support for correct application of prevailing rules for the practice of the authorities that affect children's and pupils' right to an equivalent education and, 5 The Health and Care Act (1982:763), as worded in SFS 2010:662, and the Education Act (2010:800). if required, suitable measures on the part of the Government to satisfy the need. Surveying and analysing whether application of the rules concerning professional confidentiality constitute an obstacle to collaboration. Shaping of transitions between different schools and kinds of schools. Follow-up of routines and knowledge concerning the duty to report to . Scrutiny of pupils' right to an equivalent education when they complete their schooling following a placement decision by . support for the correct application of prevailing rules My proposal is that the Swedish Government tasks the for Education and the Schools Inspectorate jointly to survey the needs for ordinances, regulations and general advice to ensure that the application of the Education Act is more legally secure with regard to the practice of authorities in decisions concerning children's and pupils' right to an equivalent education. The background to the proposal is that prevailing provisions in the Education Act concerning children and pupils in need of special support shall guarantee an equivalent education. The Act does not currently achieve that in practice, since there are deficiencies in implementation. The Schools Inspectorate points out in its report to the Swedish Government that deficiencies in this respect have not been remedied despite problems lasting many years6. From the report it emerges that there are major defects in application, despite the general advice issued by the for Education and other supporting material. One serious consequence is that children and pupils may lose their right to an equivalent education. And a serious example of this lies in the defects referred to by the Schools Inspectorate with regard to pupils who are placed in special schools for the disabled on inadequate grounds. This serious picture is also confirmed in the Commission's investigation by the fact that persons with operational 6 The Swedish Schools Inspectorate (2010). Inspection and quality review 2009. responsibility are seeking clear support when administering decisions affecting children's and pupils' right to an equivalent education. The retrospective checks on decisions supervised by the Swedish Schools Inspectorate and decisions on reporting matters cannot meet this need. I regard it as serious that the rules designed to protect children and pupils in need of most support have so far not been able to guarantee their right to an equivalent education, because they are applied erroneously or inconsistently across the country. This is unacceptable, and is required that a change is made when the new Education Act starts to be applied. The deficiencies in application of the 1985 Education Act, pointed out by participants in the municipal study and observed by the Swedish Schools Inspectorate in their reviews, are serious, despite attention having been drawn to them and various supportive interventions. Thus, measures of this kind are not sufficient to come to terms with the problems. A justifiable question therefore is whether the provisions in the new Education Act are capable, on their own, of guaranteeing an application that leads to equality and the rule of law concerning decisions on action programs or adapted schooling, or other decisions or measures where pupils' right to education is affected, without these provisions being clarified in ordinances or regulations, and other guidance in these respects. I make the assessment that, against the background of the serious problems that have been identified, the difficulties in applying the regulatory system cannot with certainty be remedied by the introduction of the new Education Act. Further, it is not credible that the new Education Act alone can remedy the identified deficiencies in the respects referred to above, since the rules concerning children's and pupils' right to an equivalent education are unchanged in many cases. I propose therefore that the Government tasks the Schools Inspectorate and the for Education jointly to take an inventory of existing application problems pursuant to the prevailing rule system in connection with decisions affecting children's and pupils' right to an equivalent education. The authorities should thereafter scrupulously monitor the implementation of the new Education Act, and especially follow up whether the identified application problems have been reduced or still remain, and the need for clarification concerning how the provisions of the new Education Act are to be applied. The primary arguments for taking such an inventory and for conducting follow-up are as follows: There is legal uncertainty for children, pupils and carers alike, since the consequences of the regulatory system in individual cases cannot be assessed. For the decision-makers responsible, the legal situation is also unclear. Administration of different decisions can lead to retrospective criticism from the Schools Inspectorate. Supervision by the Inspectorate has increased, whereby it has become clearer that these decisions on reporting matters lead to de facto standardization. Application of the 1985 Education Act has not improved sufficiently, despite supportive material from the for Education. The right to appeal, introduced in the new Education Act, is designed to reinforce legal rights, but might, if today's conditions otherwise remain, lead to appellants misjudging the legal situation. This may, in turn, give rise to many unnecessary appeals, which would affect the work load and costs of the administrative courts and the for Education's . When the Schools Inspectorate and the for Education have presented their joint report, the Government can adopt a stance on the question of whether there is a need for supplementary ordinances, regulations and other guidance, and if this is the case whether any legal amendments required for this will be possible to implement. If the inventory and the follow-up were to prove that there is a need for supplementary rules to clarify the new Education Act, I shall leave it to the Government to determine how this need can suitably be met. I state, however, that it would be reasonable for the for Education to take the responsibility to issue any regulations and other guidance in the area to the extent that this type of supplementary regulation is needed. Today, the for Education lacks, in several respects, the authority required for this to be possible. Such complementary rules are, in my view, fully compatible with direction and control according to goals and outcomes, and to the current distribution of responsibilities between national government and the municipalities. does an increase in supplementary regulation in the area of equality and legal consistency in the practice of authorities entail any restriction on educational freedom or local responsibility for school development. Does application of the rules of professional confidentiality hinder collaboration? My proposal is that the for Education, and the Schools Inspectorate are jointly assigned the task of surveying and analysing whether the application of prevailing rules on professional secrecy and confidentiality constitutes an obstacle to collaboration between preschools, schools and other education providers, on the one hand, and social services and healthcare, on the other, and if so to what extent. If the difficulties can be resolved through clarification, supplementary regulation or education, the authorities should come back to the Government with proposals on how this is to be achieved. The background to the proposal is that I, during the work of the Commission, have met many people in preschools, schools and the who have expressed dissatisfaction with how many other operational units apply confidentiality legislation in their own areas when collaboration is involved. This may well, in many cases, rest on a misunderstanding of the tasks of, for example, or the for Children and , and of the restrictions placed by current secrecy legislation on the opportunity to collaborate and to supply information, particularly in individual cases. Such dissatisfaction does not promote good collaboration, and the criticism should be taken seriously. It may suggest that the application of prevailing rules on confidentiality acts as a barrier to collaboration. If these difficulties can be remedied through clarification, supplementary regulation or education, the authorities should return to the Government with proposals on how this is to be achieved. One question that deserves particular attention within the frame of this task is how the opportunity for the testing of harm, provided for in some rules on professional confidentiality, is applied, and whether consent from the individual is required to enable the reporting of information that otherwise would have been withheld. Transitions must be designed to support the continued learning of pupils In my view, transitions between schools and types of schools must be designed to facilitate children's and pupils continued learning. Principal organisers need to ensure that routines for transitions are developed and formulated purposefully to achieve this end. The background to my assessment is that I, during the investigatory work of the Commission, have received unequivocal signals that transitions between different schools and types of schools represent a critical point for many pupils, and that they can be particularly difficult for the group of children and pupils with which the Commission is concerned. Transitions within and between different types of schools for children and pupils in need of special support may entail the risk that important educational information gets lost. Today, the information in an action program that contains sensitive details about a pupil is usually covered by provisions on professional confidentiality. When the Commission interviewed practitioners in the municipal study about whether legislation on professional secrecy represents any obstacle or problem at work, there was variation in responses. A majority considered that confidentiality legislation was not an obstacle, since the schools often obtain consent from the pupils' parents to supply the necessary information during transition between schools. Other responses point to problems. There are parents who do not want to give their consent. On many occasions, this is due to the parents wanting their children to enter a new school without being burdened by earlier documentation. My conclusion, with regard to transitions and any confidentiality problems, is that the most powerful success factor is the achievement of a trustful relationship between the school and the parents. Such a relationship is built up through mutual respect and trust in each other, and confidence in the school's documentation being professional and containing information relevant to the pupil's continued learning. Another problem I encountered during the Commission's work is that teachers do not request documentation on a pupil since its professional standard is regarded as too For example, there are shortcomings in the relevance of content or a lack of completeness, which make for problems of interpretation; also, it is not clear what purpose the documentation has. Thus, it is important that documentation in school is of a high standard, both for parents to be positive towards it being handed over, and in order for it to be capable of promoting a good learning situation for the pupil. Another reason why documentation should be of a high professional standard is that that the school receiving the pupil must be interested in obtaining, and even requesting, the information. The Schools Inspectorate has pointed to the problem of the lack of a professional standard in the documentation of pupils, a picture that is confirmed by the work of the Commission. Two tasks for the Swedish Schools Inspectorate Follow-up of the duty to report My proposal is that the Schools Inspectorate shall perform followup, pursuant to Chapter 14 § 1 of the Act, to ensure that education providers have clear routines for and knowledge of the duty to report to regarding children who are vulnerable or at risk of becoming vulnerable. The background to my proposal is that, at national level, there is no clear picture of how providers handle their duty to notify with regard to children who are vulnerable or at risk of becoming vulnerable. This is a serious matter, and I have in the work of the Commission encountered the view that reporting is insufficient in scope. At the same time, it has also emerged, in the course of the work, that other representatives of education providers are of the opinion that they do give notification, and do so without hindrance. The duty to report is one of the most important instruments for children and pupils in an exposed or vulnerable situation to obtain the help they need. Their rights and protection hinge on the rules on reporting being known and applied correctly. The Schools Inspectorate can, in my view, within the frame of its supervisory responsibility and its duty to perform quality inspections, have clear routines for and familiarity with the duty to report. Examination of the duty to report, in the sense that the authority makes an assessment of the justification in a report, i.e. on a matter of fact, falls outside the authority of the Inspectorate. How is the right to education of children and young people placed in accordance with a decision of to be met? I propose that the Schools Inspectorate, in collaboration with , conducts a review of how children's and pupils' right to education is met when they complete their schooling following a placement decision by . It is also important that and the schools take responsibility for their areas of activity with regard to planning, implementation and follow-up in the case of a placement outside the home. The background to the proposal is that the Swedish Schools Inspectorate has scrutinized the special education provided at young people's residential care homes, and found, at the time of their review, that there were some problems and a lack of clarity with regard to this form of teaching. The Schools Inspectorate proposed certain measure to come to terms with the problems revealed. Since the review was performed, the new Education Act has come into force, and this will start to be applied from 1 2011. It is hard to draw any definite conclusions on whether or not the new Act will resolve the problems to which the Inspectorate drew attention in their report. It should, however, be stated that the new Act has resolved some of the problems that emerged from the Inspectorate's review, e.g. collaboration problems and issues of transfer of the responsibility of principal organisers for education. That this is the case has been confirmed privately to the Commission by the Schools Inspectorate. It is, however, of great importance that a new review is conducted. But the scrutiny this time should be extended to cover all the children and young people who have been placed institutionally by , and where the Schools Inspectorate has responsibility to exercise supervision of their education, for the purpose of evaluating the nature of their educational situation. That such extension of the review should take place gains support from the municipal study. It should aim at evaluating whether the new Education Act has solved a large part of the problems that have been found earlier or, in our case, whether some problems remain or some new problems have arisen. The report on the review, to the extent that this is required, should also contain proposals for counter-measures. An especially important question to consider within the frame of the review is whether clearer regulation may be needed for and persons responsible in the municipalities to be able to handle a child's or a pupil's right to education in a secure and expedient in connection with a placement decision reached by . The same applies to the opportunity for persons with educational responsibilities to follow up their duty to ensure school attendance for these pupils. The Schools Inspectorate should also examine the extent to which the educational issues of these pupils can be considered in relation to the granting of permits. The new review should be performed after the provisions of the new Education Act have been applied for a while. In that way, it will not only be possible to assess whether the Act actually resolves the problems I have highlighted, but also to see how the Act is actually been applied. The time for scheduling the review, I leave to the Government to decide. Service and investments in knowledge Under this heading, I make two proposals, of which the first is designed clearly to establish that the introduction of an allembracing School Health and in the new Education Act should lead to the taking of clear positions with regard to the distribution of responsibilities between the for Education, and the Schools Inspectorate. I point also to the need for clarification even where it concerns responsibility for the treatment of children and young people with mental complaints, and also indicate that the Government should review how the component of School Health and can develop collaboration with primary care. My second proposal is that the Government should appoint a delegation to produce a common knowledge-based perspective on the value of early interventions with regard to children of preschool age and pupils in the first year of compulsory school. A comprehensive School Health and – support for pupils goal attainment has a strategic task within the framework of school education, and this is clarified in the new Education Act. For this reason, it should be seen as a self-evident component of education policy. This also has consequences for how responsibility for pupils' health is made apparent at national-agency level. Today, issues guidelines for school healthcare, which constitutes part of the authority's sectoral responsibility for health and care. Now, given the new Education Acts definition of an all-embracing School Health and , there is a need for the role and responsibility of the for Education for pupils health to be reviewed. As a consequence of the shaping of the tasks of the , the Government in the first instance in conjunction with the review that is now taking place of ordinances and other regulations for the activities affected by the new Education Act, should further review the needs for clarification of the responsibilities of the comprehensive that can be found between the sectorally responsible for Education, the supervisory authority the Schools Inspectorate, and with regard to the Service's component . for Education must obtain the conditions and mandate to adopt the role of a sectorally responsible authority, with coordinating responsibility, for the comprehensive School Health and . Such responsibility entails close collaboration with , which currently has authority to issue both regulations and guidelines in its area of responsibility. I regard it as essential that the for Education, as an authority with sectoral responsibility, is given the opportunity to occupy an equal position in relation to . During the investigatory work of the Commission, a lack of clarity in responsibilities for the treatment of children's and young people's mental ill-health have been reported to me. I find such lack of clarity both serious and important to resolve, but the question cannot in any way be regarded as lying within my remit. However, I feel some responsibility for reporting the existence of the problem and that it needs to be solved. My judgment is that this is a task for the Government Offices and the ministries involved there. One further question related to responsibility for treatment is also that the actual content of school healthcare now needs to be examined against the background of the mission of the School Health and , where special collaboration with the healthcare system needs to be emphasized. How and in what ways the School Health and can collaborate with child healthcare is a matter that needs to be reviewed on the basis of the new Education Act's definition of the Service. I propose that the Government reviews these issues. How this is to be achieved I leave to the Government to assess. interventions – an investment in increased knowledge My proposal entails that the Government should appoint a delegation with the task of illuminating the value of early interventions, for children of preschool age and for pupils at early school years in compulsory school, from a cross-disciplinary and international research perspective, and also, on the basis of an education-policy perspective, of formulating a common knowledge-based view on the value and effects of early interventions. The Delegation should include authorities with sectoral responsibility, and its composition should reflect the overall perspective and cross-disciplinary competence required in the early-intervention arena. The results of the Delegation's work should provide a to both decision-makers and practitioners in the area. The background to the proposal is that even today there is international research showing that early interventions for children and pupils are important, and that the risk of later educational failures can be reduced or avoided entirely. Swedish research in the area is largely lacking. The research situation regarding children less than ten years of age is generally inadequate.