sou · GYB393en · 2011-01-01 00:00:00 — The Commission's mission and target group The Commission's mission On 1 October 2009, I was appointed as the special investigator tasked to lead the Commission for Reviewing the Work of Schools with Exposed Children (U 2009:05). The mission was extensive (Dir. 2009:80), and entailed that I should paint a holistic picture of an area which, by its nature, is hard to define. In brief, the Directive encompasses two overall tasks: To survey and analyse how municipal and independent principal organisers in preschools, schools and other educational arenas and the School Health and work with children who are suffering neglect or are at risk of neglect or abuse. To survey and analyse how collaboration operates between and within preschools, schools and other educational arenas, on the one hand, and other societal actors, on the other, specifically with regard to the children and pupils covered by the remit of the Commission. Obstacles and success factors are to be identified. A third important task is to clarify the responsibilities of preschools, schools and other education providers in preventive efforts regarding the children and pupils within the Commission's remit, and mark clearly the lines of demarcation between them and other actors. The work of the Commission consists in an investigation into education policy that is concerned with collaboration from the perspectives of preschools, schools and other education providers. The Directive also refers to the importance of early detection and links this issue to the question of whether there is a need for increased knowledge of how children and young people, in various ways, may give expression to their exposure or vulnerability. Further, the Directive also articulates the view that an all-embracing grip on the issues involved is essential for support to be stronger, more effective and sustainable in the long run. The Commission can, if required, present legislative proposals, and shall, in the course of its investigatory work, report on its deliberations. The Commission's target group Children's exposure is not a well-defined concept. is there any certain information on how many children and young people live in an exposed or vulnerable situation. Failing support from parents may depend on various things, such as substance misuse, mental illhealth, cognitive difficulties, criminality or violence in the family. It may also be a matter of asylum-seeking families with children, or of youngsters who come to without their parents. An important group to which attention should be drawn consists of children and pupils with various functional impairments and chronic conditions that require the interventions of different actors. The children and young people with whom the Commission are concerned make up a heterogeneous group with many different needs for support, and often collaboration between many societal actors is required for these needs to be met. In many families, several different risk factors coincide1. This makes it more difficult to obtain overall statistics on how many of these children there are and carry out research. Data collected centrally and systematically making possible research for increased understanding about the relationship between results and various societal interventions is lacking in key areas. Thus, there is some uncertainty over the nature of the Commission's target group, and how large it might be. What is quite certain, however, is that there are children and pupils with problems, which may be both temporary and longlasting, in preschools, schools and other educational arenas. They need supportive interventions for their right to an equivalent education of to be satisfied. 1 's . A survey of interventions for children and young people at risk 2010, 2010:10. The Commission's points of departure and of working The Commission's points of departure An introductory passage in 's new Education Act is unequivocal, and provides the point of departure for my proposals. It affirms: The right of all to an equivalent education, and the right of all to develop as far as possible on the basis of their own prerequisites. My point of departure is that, given the school's important role as a protective factor, its principal mission is to give children and pupils a good educational environment, which leads to the tasks regarding knowledge and values in the new Education Act being implemented, so that children and pupils are given an equivalent education and enabled to develop as far as possible on the basis of their own prerequisites. But, for the children and pupils with which the Commission is concerned, there is a further central task: See, Interpret and Act! There are three important expressions of the mission in the new Education Act, which must not be neglected: the duty to investigate, the duty to report, and the duty to collaborate. These key components of the regulatory system act as a safety net in relation to the Commission's target group. The school is a strongly person-dependent arena of activity and, on many occasions, decisive to its success is the relationship that arises between teacher and pupil in the educational situation. Despite the difficulties to which this gives rise, it is necessary in the course of this investigation to study both the national level and the central municipal level in combination with the encounter between teacher and pupil at operational level. All these aspects need to be considered to obtain understanding and to be able to create a picture of the totality. This intrinsically complex picture of preschools and schools shall, moreover, be supplemented by consideration of all the other societal actors who see the school as an interesting arena to impact upon, and also by the parties with whom the school collaborates. Against this background, the task of providing an overall picture of work with and collaboration surrounding exposed children and pupils is a challenging one. There are many levels and many actors that need to be investigated. The decentralized governance of schools in means that operative differences are many times greater within and between schools than between municipalities, and might even render my mission impossible. The holistic picture I give in this report entails that I answer the question of how schools, preschools and other education providers work with children and pupils who are known to be at risk, but who cannot be identified in advance. Accordingly, it cannot be excluded in advance that any particular child belongs to the group in question. It is intrinsic capacity and the preconditions for discovery and early intervention that, in accordance with the Directive, are especially interesting to study, and also the identification of obstacles and success factors with regard to work and collaboration. Given the chosen investigatory approach, exactly what needs for support and types of problems children and pupils display are not as important as their identification, and that adequate interventions are made for them, regardless of which needs are to be satisfied. This way of creating a holistic perspective represents an important choice of proceeding for the Commission, and also reflects to some extent the nature of the assignment of schools themselves. Irrespective of which needs a pupil has, attention must be drawn to them. In order to be able to provide a holistic picture, in accordance with the Directive, the school is studied as a system. What is the nature of the task and how is it to be accomplished? In sum, my analysis provides a holistic picture, which confirms that there are problems at all levels. Also, they must be resolved at all levels, although it is very difficult to influence the circumstances that lie within the area of responsibility of a particular principal or how a particular teacher encounters a pupil. The system perspective adopted by the Commission entails that the problems are addressed at all levels, and that solutions are proposed that at least in the longer term can also impact at local level. The Commission's of working The Commission has two major survey and analytic tasks. The first is concerned with answering the question of how preschools, schools and other education providers work with the Commission's target group. The other is to show how collaboration operates between preschools, schools and other education providers, on the one hand, and societal actors, on the other. Obstacles and success factors are to be identified. The Commission's investigators have conducted group interviews in eight municipalities.2, a study which is principally concerned with the empirical foundations for the analysis of ways of working in the educational arena, Close to 400 persons in positions of responsibility (local politicians and heads of administration, headteachers and preschool heads), and also educationalists (from preschool up to and including upper secondary school), alongside representatives of the School Health and , have contributed to this municipal study. The analysis of collaboration rests largely on material from the for Education's report on collaboration, commissioned by the Government, where 90 municipalities took part in development work. Two research tasks have been pursued on the Commission's account. The one concerns an in-depth evaluation surrounding issues of collaboration, the other a review of knowledge on the work of preschools in relation to children belonging to the Commission's target group. The Commission has also published a preliminary report, entitled" See the early signs" – researchers reflect over seven tales from preschool and school (SOU, 2010:64). A conference was arranged in conjunction with publication of the report, which attracted considerable interest. The Commission has adopted an open approach, and has organized several seminars and hearings attended by a variety of stakeholders. Some conclusions from the problems analysis My analysis reveals that there are problems with both schools' and preschools' ways of working. The preconditions for preschools, schools and other education providers to perform their key tasks have changed over time, in part because of major societal transformations. Their mission has, by virtue of the various school reforms over the last few decades, become more ambitious and requires more for it to be achievable. I see this development in the light of increased demands for competence in working life and society at large. I lack an analysis of the consequences of these changes and an in-depth discussion at national level of what is needed to achieve 2 Participating municipalities were , , , , , , , and . success in relation to the ambitions. In the investigatory work, I have met many responsible and committed politicians, officials and educationalists. What they have in common is they want to carry out their mission successfully, but also that they sometimes want an answer to the question of how to do so. This concerns both how the regulatory system is to be interpreted and, in particular, how activities and methods should be shaped in order to obtain desired outcomes. There is today a lack of effective dissemination of good practice, evidence-based methods and the implementation of research findings that would give principal organisers and practitioners the opportunity to adopt stances on what would fit into their own operations while not acting as "rigid pointers". There are interesting and positive learning examples of good municipal practice, but how and by whom are they to be spread further? The Schools Inspectorate's picture of the problems is unacceptable, given its lack of equivalence.3 The authority highlights wellknown and established problems that, despite attention having been brought to them, remain over time. Especially serious is the picture of the children and pupils on whom the Commission is focusing. Their right to an equivalent education rests on a legally correct application of the regulatory system in combination with a high level of competence among practitioners. Also, there are still obstacles to collaboration despite prioritisation of the issue over a considerable period of time. One conclusion I draw is that these persistent obstacles are hard to overcome, and that for this reason efforts are required at several different levels. Other problems are the lack of clarity with regard to responsibilities and tasks, which are expressed in a variety of ways. At national level, there are many different bodies that – without coordination – turn to preschools and schools for various interventions. At local level, there is also a lack of clarity and possibly misconceptions about both the regulatory system and tasks concerning collaborative partners. At the same time, despite this gloomy picture, I still see great opportunities for the achievement of change. In part, these are due to the reforms that have been implemented with reference to the new Education Act and new curriculums, which clarify the national objective and the demands that principal organisers in the educational arena have to live up to. Another important I take is that there are good experiences in the 3 The Swedish Schools Inspectorate (2010). Inspection and quality review 2009. municipalities, which are in need of dissemination. now, it is important to utilize and consolidate the knowledge that has been gained in various research and development interventions with regard to the mental health of children and the young, and in relation to collaboration. There is currently an excellent opportunity to proceed further with the necessary changes. The Commission's proposals and assessments The points of departure for my proposals and assessments lie in prevention and promotion. Preventive efforts include early interventions that might mean that problems can be remedied or resolved quickly so that repeated school failures can be avoided in so far as possible. Preventive interventions may also be a clear regulatory system that leads to adequate interventions when the need arises. Promotional interventions involve the clearing of obstacles to effective collaboration and clearly demarcating boundaries of responsibilities, and also taking measures that can raise competence in the activities affected. My proposals stress the importance of functioning collaboration. The proposals in this section are based on the major developmental interventions that have been made, and are to some extent still in progress. Available knowledge now needs to be put to use, and to lead to operational implementation. Also, attention must be paid to the formal barriers that remain to functioning collaboration. At government level, there is a need for more concordant action. That is why I make proposals that would give sectorresponsible bodies greater coordinating authority for national interventions in the area. The regulatory system that is to protect the very weakest children and pupils needs to be strengthened to provide the protective effects that are intended. I make proposals for improvements in this area. There are signals of a lack of knowledge concerning collaboration, and also of mistrust between the parties who need to work collaboratively. Clarification is needed to be able assess whether this is a real problem, and if so how it might be resolved. There is a need for more research, and the dissemination of knowledge needs to be made more effective. I see this as a matter of national urgency. In the educational arena, work must be embarked upon to render visible what is proven experience, and research at a practical level needs to be stimulated. I explain how such work might be developed. My proposals are based on the new Education Act, and on the curriculums determined for preschools and compulsory schools, preschool , and day-care centres for school-aged children. With regard to the new Education Act, the Commission has only had access to the legal text and preparatory work for legislation. It has not had access to any supplementary ordinances or other regulatory documents. It is therefore important that my proposals are assessed against this background. Further, I have harmonized my proposals with already-determined and implemented reforms in the teaching arena. Examples include decisions on further education such as the Boost for Teachers, upgrading of teaching qualifications, and the setting-up of senior-subject positions to strengthen interaction between research and practice. I take my point of departure in the prevailing distribution of responsibilities between the national government and the municipalities, and the equality that must prevail between municipal and independent providers. My proposals encompass four main areas. Better collaboration at all levels. Strengthening of the rights of children and pupils. Service and early interventions Science and proven experience Better collaboration is required at all levels Within this area there are three different proposals. The first is aimed at the coordination of national activities by allocating coordinating responsibility to the for Education. The second is designed to promote collaboration at central municipal level through systematic and preventive interventions. The third involves presentation and clarification of the duty to collaborate and of schools' equal role in the collaboration. Better collaboration between authorities My proposal entails that the for Education should be given coordinating responsibility for government interventions aimed at preschools, schools and other education providers. The background to the proposals is that schools and preschools constitute an interesting arena for many agencies and representatives of research. This is because it is then relatively simple to contact all children and pupils in order, for example, to obtain responses to various questionnaires. And it is also an arena where it is simple for the same actors to make contact with School Health and personnel, headteachers or other personnel at different operational levels, and also the parents of children and pupils. In the Commission's investigatory work, a lack of coordination in these interventions has been described, and there is a risk of duplicate working. Obviously, these investigations and research surveys provide important and keenly sought-after information, but it should be possible to better coordinate these and other activities of government agencies. Awarding coordinating responsibility to the for Education, with regard to these and similar types of national interventions directed at educational activities, should be capable of improving dialogue and of providing opportunities for promoting efficiencies. Collaboration at central municipal level needs to be improved My proposal entails that development work, for a restricted period of time, shall be undertaken to strengthen collaboration at central municipal level between those responsible for education and for social services. Such work must highlight successful methods and the social-economic consequences of preventive activities for children and pupils with multiple and compounded needs for support. To promote the work time-restricted national funding should be introduced, i.e. a stimulation grant. To obtain an overall perspective on collaboration over preventive actions for children and the young, the efforts made by the healthcare system for this target group should also be encompassed. The background to the proposal is that the home municipality of children and pupils, as the principal organiser in relation to other organisers, in accordance with the new Education Act, occupies a unique position by virtue of its responsibility to monitor compul- sory-school attendance and of its duty to fund the education of children and pupils. These duties rest on the principal municipal organiser regardless of where a child or pupil is undergoing schooling, or takes part in preschool or other educational activities. The overall responsibility provides good opportunities for the follow-up of interventions and support to children and pupils in need of special supportive measures. If children and pupils in need of support are provided with early interventions, and if the preventive work is also successful, it is likely that the costs not only to the municipality but also to society at large will fall, as a consequence of a long-term reduction in the need for supportive efforts. At central municipal level, the home municipality also has responsibilities for social services and educational issues (including culture and leisure time) and can, through agreements with other municipalities or principal organisers for healthcare, facilitate collaboration. Thus, the municipality has an opportunity to take overall responsibility for children's and pupils' education irrespective of where the education is provided. This unique position, with powerful incentives and major opportunities to act, is as I see it not occupied by any other actor with regard to children and pupils in need of various kinds of support. The provisions in the new Education Act with regard to systematic work on quality should be utilizable in strengthening the preconditions for collaboration, primarily between schools and social services, but also with healthcare. The collaboration should focus on what research has defined as clear-cut risk factors for mental illhealth and social problems. And follow-up of activities should also focus on what research has identified as definitive risk factors in these two areas. Further, even the research available on which factors are important for successful collaboration should be utilized. That all this should be a means of strengthening and developing collaboration is supported by what has emerged from the so- called , and by previous development and research in relation to cooperation and collaboration4. Thus, I am of the view that collaboration at central municipal level between those responsible for education and social services needs to be strengthened, and that successful methods and the social-economic consequences of preventive efforts for children and the young with multiple compounded needs of support should be clarified through the pursuit of developmental activities. Such collaboration, with its foundation in municipal responsibility for education and social services can be seen as a natural next step in the development achieved by the , which has its base in the county councils. Implementation should be supported by means of national support for a limited period, i.e. a stimulation grant. I regard such a developmental effort as being closely related to the , which is now being implemented by the Authorities and Regions (SALAR), and which will enter its final phase during 2011. This development is founded in an agreement with the national government on its contents and terms of implementation. There are strong grounds for the Government to consider letting the state enter into a new agreement, based on the perspective of education policy. There are several advantages to such an agreement, since experiences gained from the implementation of the can be utilized. SALAR has responsibility for education, social services and healthcare, and therefore possesses the competence needed to implement development of the kind I propose. It is important, however, for independent actors also to be invited to participate in the work involved. Clarification of the duty to collaborate My proposal entails that the provisions concerning collaboration in relation to children who are suffering neglect or are at risk of neglect or abuse – in both the Health and Care Act and the Education Act – are amended so that the initiative of the local is not required for collaboration to take 4 The Authorities and .