Abstract
PURPOSE: In this paper, we explore and contrast the Swedish state and NGO arguments for installing two changes in national educational degree objectives in Swedish teacher education: one regarding sex and cohabitation education, and the other regarding support for pupils with ʻneuropsychiatric difficultiesʼ (here referred to as neurodivergent pupils, such as autistic or ADHD pupils).
APPROACH: Using critical policy analysis, we compare the arguments from the government as well as responding bodies for instating the two objectives, with a focus on neurodivergent pupils.
RESULTS: Our findings suggest that discourses concerning sex and cohabitation education for all pupils and support for pupils with ʻneuropsychiatric difficultiesʼ respectively, derive from different educational ideologies and reproduce different ideas about pupils; as active citizens versus passive objects of interventions. The objective of sex and cohabitation education is framed within a norm critical discourse putting forward reflexivity and identity, and where pupils are active subjects to be involved in the process. In contrast, neurodivergence is framed within a deficit approach as neurobiological, individual impairment, and a special educational problem that should be managed by professionals. It is seen as a risk for school failure, where neurodivergent pupils are passive objects of professional discovery and support.
CONCLUSION: In a Swedish educational policy landscape, stressing the importance of educating pupils in line with ideas of children as right-bearers, our exploration illustrates how ʻall pupilsʼ versus neurodivergent pupils, already in teacher education, are positioned as belonging to different categories of citizens; as active subjects of rights, versus passive subjects of care. This perception of neurodivergence, we argue, hampers progress towards embracing neurodivergence as social category, and neurodivergent pupils as political subjects.
APPROACH: Using critical policy analysis, we compare the arguments from the government as well as responding bodies for instating the two objectives, with a focus on neurodivergent pupils.
RESULTS: Our findings suggest that discourses concerning sex and cohabitation education for all pupils and support for pupils with ʻneuropsychiatric difficultiesʼ respectively, derive from different educational ideologies and reproduce different ideas about pupils; as active citizens versus passive objects of interventions. The objective of sex and cohabitation education is framed within a norm critical discourse putting forward reflexivity and identity, and where pupils are active subjects to be involved in the process. In contrast, neurodivergence is framed within a deficit approach as neurobiological, individual impairment, and a special educational problem that should be managed by professionals. It is seen as a risk for school failure, where neurodivergent pupils are passive objects of professional discovery and support.
CONCLUSION: In a Swedish educational policy landscape, stressing the importance of educating pupils in line with ideas of children as right-bearers, our exploration illustrates how ʻall pupilsʼ versus neurodivergent pupils, already in teacher education, are positioned as belonging to different categories of citizens; as active subjects of rights, versus passive subjects of care. This perception of neurodivergence, we argue, hampers progress towards embracing neurodivergence as social category, and neurodivergent pupils as political subjects.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 15-29 |
| Number of pages | 15 |
| Journal | European Journal of Inclusive Education |
| Volume | 1 |
| Issue number | 1 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 13 Oct 2023 |
Keywords
- neurodiversity, teacher education, ,
- norm critical education
- critical policy analysis