Disability & Society Vol. 22, No. 6, October 2007, pp.

639653

Children with cognitive disabilities in a Swedish educational context: reflections from a case study
Mara Westling Allodi*
Stockholm Institute of Education, Sweden
Disability 10.1080/09687590701560279 CDSO_A_255884.sgm 0968-7599 Original Taylor 2007 0 6 22 Mara mara.allodi@lhs.se 00000October WestlingAllodi and & Article Francis & (print)/1360-0508 Francis Society 2007 (online)

The present study analyses the experience of parents of children with cognitive disabilities attending compulsory school in regular classes or in special units. It relates this experience to the arguments presented by the staff of special education services in a Swedish municipality, their administrative decisions and the organization of special education services. The parents had different standpoints: some defended the existence of special units and the resources available to them, while some fought to have their children accepted in regular classes, while other parents accepted the special units but were critical of certain aspects of their functioning. The situation presented here seems likely to generate conflicts between parents and educational administrators, and even among parents.

Background Early reforms aimed at reducing segregation In Sweden the education of all children with cognitive disabilities became compulsory in 1967. This education was provided by a separate organization under the responsibility of the National Health Authority. The responsibility for special schools was transferred to the National Agency for Education (NAE) only in 1985. Between 1988 and 1996 the responsibility for education was also successively decentralised to the municipalities. The special schools were then transformed into special units located in regular schools. The intention of this reform was to decrease the segregation of special schools and their pupils from regular schools (National Agency of Education, 2005a, b). The increase in pupils in special units According to the school law children who cannot reach the required educational goals because of cognitive disability, autism or brain damage can attend (are eligible for a placement in) a special unit.
* Stockholm Institute of Education, Box 34103, SE-100 26 Stockholm, Sweden. E-mail: mara.allodi@lhs.se ISSN 0968-7599 (print)/ISSN 1360-0508 (online)/07/06063915 2007 Taylor & Francis DOI: 10.1080/09687590701560279

640 M. Westling Allodi The pupils in special units are entitled to support at school and after school, but in fact they enter a sort of parallel educational world that is still separated from the regular one in many ways. The education of children with cognitive disabilities has recently been examined by a National Official Inquiry (Statens Offentliga Utredningar (SOU), 2003), which identified and analysed several problems with the present situation, but gave no clear suggestions for substantial changes. A problematic aspect revealed in the inquiry and in a previous report (NAE, 2000; SOU, 2003) is the dramatic increase in the number of pupils in special units since the 1990s. The percentage of pupils of compulsory school age identified as being eligible for special units has constantly increased, from 0.8% in 1991 to 1.4% in 2004. The educational system goes efficient Much happened in the 1990s and after. The special units at that time became municipal and a new curriculum emphasizing individual responsibility for success at school and a goal-related grade system were introduced. School accountability became a more important issue than before and each schools results were more easily checked and compared. At the same time, the total number of pupils in compulsory school increased, while the teacher:pupil ratio decreased. Many municipalities underwent an economically weak period at that time and many implemented noticeable financial cutbacks in the school system. Decentralization of the school system led in many cases to rationalization, a priority on efficiency and the dominance of an economic system of values in the organization, to the detriment of a humanistic system. The management of schools became inspired and ruled in this way by the principles typical of profit organizations, even though an educational system as a non-profit organization should have completely different goals (Westling Allodi, 2002). In this light the increase in special groups for children who cannot keep up or fit into the regular organization can be seen as a compartmentalization that corresponds to the general principles of division of labour, but at the same time disregards the declared educational goals of participation, inclusion, adaptation to individual experience and needs and the avoidance of differentiated settings (Westling Allodi, 2002). More recently, financial resources have been restored to the educational system, with several national investments, but the trend towards an increase in pupils attending special units has still not been broken. Other problematic issues It is problematic that the increase in pupils in special units varies to such an extent between municipalities and counties. In certain counties more than 2% of the pupils attend special units, while in other counties the percentage share is under 0.9%. Another troublesome issue, observed and analysed in a few reports (Bel Habib, 2001, and Lundstrm Hahne, 2001, both cited in SOU, 2003) is the over-representation in special units of pupils with an immigrant background. Lundstrm Hahnes study described poorer investigations before decisions on registration in special units are

Children with cognitive disabilities

641

taken for students with immigrant backgrounds. It suggests that the high representation in special units of these pupils depends on the present scarcity of resources in the regular school system for giving support to students who are low achievers, but do not have specific cognitive disabilities. The introduction of parental choice As from 1995 the parents of children eligible for special units were accorded the right to consent to or refuse placement in a special unit. The parents could, therefore, let the child attend a regular class. The regulation does not, however, give any indications regarding the amount of support the child is entitled to in the regular setting. The school situation of children who are eligible for special units but are attending a regular setting can, therefore, vary greatly between municipalities, and even within the same municipality, also depending on the parents ability to mobilize and claim resources (Roll Pettersson, 2001). Education cannot be considered a right and instead risks becoming only a duty if children and their parents are not permitted to refuse a particular school placement but are confined to a particular setting. To be perceived as a right, education has to meet the requirements of availability, accessibility, acceptability and adaptability (Benedek & Nikolova, 2003). Contradictory tendencies in the educational system The possibility for children with cognitive disabilities to attend a regular class was introduced precisely in a period when the educational system actually started to more effectively sort out those pupils who could not attain the required educational goals, even if such an aim was certainly never formulated in any policy document and hopefully did not correspond to the intentions of most people working in schools. The coincidence of these processes can be seen as contradictory. On the one hand, the school system strives to be more acceptable to parents and children, becoming less authoritarian towards a minority whose members risk feeling categorized. The system then allows the right to consent to or refuse a school placement. On the other hand, and simultaneously, the educational system is put under pressure to attain higher efficiency, which, paradoxically but not inexplicably, results in the system becoming more selective and less adaptable. This contradiction raises questions about past and present circumstances for children who are eligible for special units but are attending regular school and about how the educational settings accommodate or reconcile these contradictory tendencies. Children in regular classes eligible for placement in a special unit The integration in regular settings [sic] of children eligible for special units can be analysed with the available official statistics from the NAE (2005c). Nationally, the percentage share of pupils eligible for special units attending a regular setting increased

642 M. Westling Allodi from 13% in 1997 to 17% in 2003, but decreased again to 15% in 2004. The variation among municipalities of all types is great, indicating that local factors are affecting families choices. In some municipalities all children eligible for special units are in a regular setting while in others none attend them. It is possible to identify some factors that make the placement of children eligible for special units in regular setting more probable. In the smaller municipalities (population below 10,000) about 40% of pupils in special units are attending a regular setting, while the proportion in the big cities is much lower (13%). A low population density seems also to be a factor that favours the attendance of children eligible for special units in regular settings: the municipalities with the lowest population densities have in fact 46% of pupils eligible for special units in regular settings. It seems, therefore, that practical and organizational considerations make the attendance of children eligible for special units in regular classes more or less attractive for the municipality. These facts also raise the question of whether the parents really are enabled to make individual choices or how far they feel influenced by municipal policy. The interaction between parents and the educational system An overview of the research in this area reveals that the interaction between parents of children with disabilities and the educational system is intended to be based on cooperation, but may generate conflicts. In many countries the parents are expected to participate in the decision-making processes related to special educational services and provision. In Sweden parents who do not agree with decisions on special support can contact the NAE, which can give an opinion on a specific matter. Parents can also report the municipality to the NAE, which may direct criticism at it. The NAE, however, lacks the power to impose sanctions or penalties on the municipality or school that makes a wrong decision. Another possibility is to contact the Handicap Ombudsman, also a national agency. In the UK parents can obtain support from the Parent Partnership Services or can appeal to a Special Education Needs Tribunal if they wish to complain about the services offered (Duncan, 2003). In the USA mediation between parents and school staff is possible, with the participation of a professional but neutral third part (Rowley & Gersch, 2001). It is not uncommon for parents to go further to due process hearings. The issues leading to requests for due process hearings are often related to placement, services and identification (Lake & Billingsley, 2000). A study of parents involved in conflict with schools regarding special needs services (Duncan, 2003) criticized the marketplace model of school, noting that this model assumes that all customers are equal. In reality, some parents risk being considered awkward when they request costly services for their children. The study cited shows that their conflict with the school is a profoundly painful and distressing experience for them. Duncan suggested that the metaphor of warfare could be appropriate to describe their relationship with the school. Some parents were able to obtain the support of a powerful advocacy group. Otherwise, the situation tended to be that:

Children with cognitive disabilities

left to speak for themselves, the parents in that study felt bamboozled, ignored and patronized by a confusing number of functionaries. (Duncan, 2003, p. 352)

643

Lake and Billingsley (2000) analysed the factors that contribute to parentschool conflict in special education. These emerged from interviews with 22 parents, 16 school officials and 6 mediators, and eight factors that escalate or de-escalate conflict were identified: discrepant views of a child or a childs needs, knowledge, service delivery, constraints, valuation, reciprocal power, communication and trust. The authors pointed out that it is important to maintain collaboration and partnership between school and parents in the face of adversity. In Sweden parents are also expected to participate in, and influence, decisions concerning investigations of special needs, placement and individual educational plans. Despite the fact that divergent views between parents can be considered likely, the need for mediation services has still not been recognized or regulated in the special needs legislation.

Aim The present aim was to analyse the experience of, and attitudes towards, schooling among parents of children eligible for special units in a Swedish municipality and also the standpoints of personnel in special education services, particularly concerning children eligible for Special Uunits in regular settings and in special units.

Method The author was commissioned by the Board of Education of a Swedish municipality to investigate the organization of special support in the whole municipality. The Board was concerned about some problems of costs and quality evident in the national surveys. It required an independent review to help reveal problem issues as a basis for further policy decisions. The author was considered to be a thoroughly independent observer since she had no previous acquaintance or relationship with anyone involved in this study in the municipality. She was guaranteed access to all schools where staff were expected to participate in the investigation and consent to be interviewed. The investigation was carried out over 3 months in the autumn of 2003. One situation to be investigated was the school attendance of children eligible for special units. A group of about 20 children eligible for special units were attending regular classes, in accordance with their parents wishes. The author visited 21 schools, made observations, conducted interviews and had informal talks with the headteachers of these schools, where possible with some teachers and special educators from each school, and also administrators, special needs coordinators, other professionals, parents and pupils. The main results of the study were presented to the Board in 2004 and reported later in a research report (Westling Allodi, 2005).

644 M. Westling Allodi The parents of children eligible for special units were informed about the investigation and invited to share their views in interviews, when I visited their childrens school or by contacting me and arranging a meeting elsewhere. The invitation to the parents came from the school staff and other administrators. The interviews took place in appropriate circumstances in school, at parents association meeting places or at the municipal education office. In all, eight parents were interviewed. The interview consisted of open questions with varying follow-up questions. The answers were noted. The main questions concerned: (a) personal experience of the special educational services; (b) circumstances and issues perceived as obstacles or difficulties; (c) circumstances perceived as supportive and positive; (d) how the special education services could possibly be developed. The analysis was done in two steps. Firstly, the contents of the answers were analysed and grouped into general themes, describing the informants main attitudes to schooling and special support. The results of the analysis of the parents standpoints were then related to the findings emerging from the analysis of the special-education services and their staff. In the second phase the contents were analysed and compared with findings from other studies of parents of children with special needs in order to find similarities and differences. Results Parental attitudes to schooling and special educational services The attitudes of parents expressed in the interviews were categorized as: positive, critical or ambivalent. The positive standpoint. This was represented by those who reported satisfactory experiences of the special educational service offered in the special units. The parents defended the existence of the special units, looked upon them as a resource for children with disabilities and as a right to be defended and secured. The parents motives underlying the positive attitude were both defensive and assertive. They were defensive since they feared that change or reforms abolishing the special units and their regulations might soon lead to more limited resources, a deterioration in quality, an arbitrary organization and an unpredictable group composition. The motives were also assertive since the parents were convinced that a group of children with similar conditions or disabilities was the most favourable learning and social environment for their child. The critical standpoint. This was represented by parents who advocated a regular setting for their children. They were critical of the special units as a differentiated placement because they believed that their children could develop better through

Children with cognitive disabilities

645

interaction with children in a regular setting. They expected respect for the idea that this was a good and realizable goal for their children. They looked upon their own children as unique individuals and did not want to categorize them on the basis of a particular disability. They feared that school staff might see pupils with the same disability as all alike, when they are not. The special units were already differentiated from the regular settings. However, the special units could also be internally differentiated into rather homogeneous groups of pupils. It seems, therefore, that the type of diagnosis or syndrome had an important effect in deciding the placement of a child in a special unit group. There were, for instance, classes where all the children had Downs syndrome, which was awful for the parents. The parents encountered resistance to their wishes to have their children in a regular setting and felt pressured to give up this idea. They also told of their own conflicts between several considerations and of uncertainty as to what strategy to adopt to reach the best solutions for their children. Sometimes parents felt that they might win the battle but lose the war. For instance, they might succeed in obtaining the desired placement in the regular setting or some extra resources, but if the staff felt bad about this decision and how it was taken or did not believe in it they might block satisfactory application and oppose its practice. In this case the parents might doubt whether their battle with school staff would favour their children in the long run. On the other hand, they felt that they had no option but to fight, since they really believed that a heterogeneous setting was best for their children. They wished their children to be welcome in the regular school as they were, and they wished the staff could share their vision and believe in it. They did not always trust the school people; they did not fully believe that schools always did their best to support them and their children. They wanted resources and services for their children even if they were in a regular setting, and they were critical of the extra financial municipal compensation that schools got for children attending a regular setting instead of a special unit. They considered the compensation too low, often not covering the cost of necessary support and services, and felt it should be the same as for children in special units. Financial support to the regular school could provide the conditions for successful schooling and might increase the efforts of the home school to keep children eligible for special units in the regular setting.

The ambivalent standpoint. The third standpoint is termed ambivalent since the parents were both positive about and critical of the special educational services offered in the special units. These parents had children attending special unit. They were quite satisfied with the resources offered in the special education setting, but were critical of certain other aspects. Some of the critical remarks related to particular features, but others were quite general, concerning a special unit culture. The parents appreciated the quieter learning environment, but criticized the teachers apparently low expectations of their childrens development and learning potential.

646 M. Westling Allodi Very little happens at school. Expectations, stimulation and challenges risked being too low or too rare, further impairing the childrens attainment. Some teachers neglected or disregarded the critical comments, defending themselves somewhat aggressively, questioning the parents credibility and competence and placing the blame on them instead. The complaining parents found themselves accused of having unrealistically high and, therefore, possibly harmful expectations of their children. Another teacher argument reported by a parent was that the parents were critical because they had not yet emotionally accepted the childs disability and its consequences. These staff strategies appeared to be very effective in silencing moderately critical, reasonable and low voiced parents. The parents could be critical of, and very alarmed by, previous teachers who had proved to undervalue the children in special units and their worth. Some parents also asserted that the teachers in special units might have had low expectations of the parents too; the parents themselves sometimes felt patronized by the school staff as if they were incompetent and afflicted by shortcomings. The parents conveying these standpoints did not seem angry or offended, but only reported them with a certain resignation as somewhat annoying facts.

Standpoints among school staff and administrators In this section I report the standpoints expressed by the school staff and administrators interviewed that are relevant to a comparison with those of the parents.

Advantages of differentiation and homogeneity. The school staff and administrators could often easily see the advantages of differentiated settings, in which the groups were composed of children with similar characteristics. Even in the special units the need was sometimes expressed for other settings for certain pupils who did not fit in the Special Uunit. There should be special groups elsewhere for special unit pupils showing behaviour difficulties according to some teachers, as there are for pupils in regular settings. The advantages were reported to reside primarily in the homogeneous group composition, but also in the possibility of having staff that could handle the diverse groups and were specialists in them.

Advantages of inclusive settings. The staff sometimes considered that there were advantages in having groups of varying abilities and children with cognitive disabilities attending school together in the regular setting. The teachers with experience of these settings told of the advantages they had experienced in their own classes. They reported that an inclusive setting could be a favourable learning environment for children eligible for special units, when school resources were adequate. The teachers also saw positive gains for relationships between the children and for the general classroom climate. These advantages were recognized, but not emphasized.

Children with cognitive disabilities

647

Conditions of inclusion. The possibility of inclusion was conditioned by a set of circumstances. A child eligible for a special unit can attend a regular class, if it works. The criteria for successful experience as presented by the staff primarily concerned the characteristics of the child himself/herself and his/her interactions with their social environment, their social behaviour, their relations with their classmates, their relationships with staff and the childs self-concept. If one of these aspects was considered problematical or poor, this was seen as a reason to review the school situation and consider a new placement in a differentiated setting. Reasons stated for doing this were consideration of the childs needs and protection of the child from a hostile environment. It appeared less easy to work to improve and change the present impoverished school situation than to remove the child from the regular educational setting. This state of affairs suggests that the staff did not yet wholeheartedly and unreservedly believe in the idea of inclusion. One may conclude that pupils with cognitive disabilities in the regular setting were therefore included on probation. The schools efforts to make the inclusion experience successful could not be expected to be massive. The interest of the child. Some staff involved in decisions about placement expressed a sense of duty towards the children. They had to intervene in the interest of the child when they saw that the regular school setting was not good for that child and that this was affecting their behaviour and self-concept. In these cases staff felt that they had a mandate to act for the childs good, even against the parents wishes. Some staff felt that the parents perhaps did not want to see the real problems if these conflicted with their own convictions and beliefs. If the school situation was bad for a particular child, the staff had to bring this home to the parents. The suggested alternative was then often placement in a special unit. There a strong commitment on the part of the people working in school to protect the child emerged, even against the parents wishes. This commitment and conviction could make the staff powerful in forcing these issues with the parents. Resources and needs. Two important arguments were given by staff involved in making decisions and assigning resources to children with cognitive disabilities attending a regular setting. Their school situation seemed to require more negotiation with parents, and potential conflicts, than did that of children in special units. One issue was that schools had to act according to general principles of justice and work for the common good, in a system with constrained resources. Otherwise there was a risk that the most active and able parents would get all the resources and services they wanted for their child, and this could entail other children, whose parents were not so successful or active, missing out on services that they perhaps needed more. The educational system sometimes had to refuse services wanted by parents, taking into account a common interest that was difficult for parents to consider and understand. What the parents demanded was not always considered necessary or even beneficial for the child in the regular setting. However, parents sometimes refused to listen to

648 M. Westling Allodi the staffs educational arguments, insisting on resources and services that others had been granted. One example of negotiation about resources was related to the extra service of an assistant in the class. For many parents it was important to get this resource, while the staff maintained that it was not always necessary; it would be better in certain cases to use the resources for qualified extra teachers instead. An assistant in the class might be a great support for the child, but might sometimes involuntarily contribute to the child with disability being and remaining isolated in the group. School staff maintained that it was unreasonable to let the parents decide the amount and the kinds of resources needed for the child. They argued that their expertise in knowing what was needed should be recognized by the parents. Additionally, they had to economize and study the needs of other children as well, while parents might be seen as only looking after their own childs best interests. Results from this study and factors contributing to conflict escalation/de-escalation The themes emerging from this study can be related to some of the factors found by Lake and Billingsley (2000) as contributing to conflict escalation or de-escalation between parents and personnel involved in special education decisions: divergent views about a child or a childs needs, about service delivery (i.e. the quality, quantity and case management of services and instructional programmes in the regular setting) and about constraints, valuation, reciprocal power and trust. Divergent views of a child or a childs needs seemed to exist between school staff and those parents who preferred the regular setting. Among parents in differentiated settings there were some who largely shared the staff view on childrens needs, but some viewed the childrens need for educational challenges differently and felt school expectations were too low. The stronger concept of beliefs, rather than views, would be appropriate, since it was not merely a matter of opinion but of divergent convictions, for both parents and staff, about what was right for the child and about a childs possible development of competency. The modality of service delivery was also an area of potential disagreement between parents and the school. Financial constraints were also a source of escalating conflict. Resources were not unlimited. The modality of calculating the funding for children with disabilities or in need of support could entail differences in the services offered for children with different impairments. The overall management costs for individual schools were also affected by other costs (rent, furnishings, etc.). These could differ between schools and could severely affect a particular schools budget for special education. Here one may consider not only financial constraints, but also financial models and priorities. The special educational services in the municipality studied were funded according to several different models. When districts or schools received funds for all their activities from the same pool, the special educational services could be disadvantaged, in that the funds could be employed for other activities and investments that were apparently accorded higher priority. When funding was assigned centrally from

Children with cognitive disabilities

649

the municipality to a child or to some specific special educational programme the constraints seemed less noticeable. A particular school could also have problems in managing its budget for special education interventions, being unable to save capital to use later for special educational support due to encouragement to spend its whole allocation in that same budget year. The factor valuation refers to whether parents and staff felt valued or undervalued by their counterparts. The parents felt their children were undervalued when expectations of them were low and when they felt unwelcome in the regular setting. Sometimes the feeling of being undervalued was reciprocal. For the staff, the fact that some parents were critical or unsatisfied with the proposed services or the special unit as a whole was also frustrating and could contribute to feelings of low worth, considering that they had worked for many years in special educational provisions that were now being questioned by some parents. The factor reciprocal power applies to the attempt by both parents and staff to use power in resolving conflicts. The confrontations between parents and staff in this study stayed at the strictly educational level and could not be resolved in court under current legislation. Both parties tried to interpret the actual regulations and norms. The parents were trying to identify what their children were entitled to, and the municipal administrators what boundaries the services offered were expected to fall within. One example of a situation in which parents and staff both made efforts to win with the support of the regulations was the schooling of a child in a regular setting in an independent one, i.e. not run directly by the municipality but still funded with public money. The parents wanted the child to continue in the regular setting, but the school actually had the right to refuse, because it was independent. Both parents and the school consulted the NAE, which confirmed the schools interpretation. Independent schools may not reject pupils on the grounds of their need for special support, according to the regulations in the Education Act, but schools are allowed to do this if the pupils attendance causes inconvenience to the school. The degree of trust in the relationship between parents and staff appeared in this study, as well as in others, to be a precious resource that could run short and affected the dialogue between parents and schools. When parents did not trust the staff they would not listen to their advice and suggestions. The issues of communication and knowledge did not emerge as important factors. Discussion The present study was based upon interviews with a small group of volunteer parents of children with cognitive disabilities, all attending or eligible for special units. The sample was very limited and the experiences reported here might not be representative of the present Swedish school system. The experiences reported may, however, indicate processes that typically occur in the interaction between parents of children with special educational needs and school staff, considering that similar tendencies and processes are evident in other reports, including those from other countries.

650 M. Westling Allodi The participation of the parents was strictly voluntary, and the participants represented divergent standpoints and opinions. The modality of selection based on the parents active role may imply that the voices of parents who did not believe they had anything important to say are absent. Parents with minority backgrounds were not represented, for instance, although it would be very interesting to investigate their situation, considering that minority students are over-represented in special units. This study shows that the relationships between schools and parents concerning decisions on placement and resources may give rise to conflicts that can be deep and protracted. In particular, parents who refuse routine placement in a differentiated group and struggle for the child to attend a regular group may be resented by the staff and may experience resistance, being thought rebellious or unreasonable. Both parties have strong beliefs and motivations as a basis for their actions, suggesting that conflict can also be equally strong and devastating as a power struggle. The cost of confrontation is high in terms of time, stress, frustration and suffering. It is also possible to imagine that the different standpoints among parents on special educational services, special units and regular settings may evolve into more political conflicts between groups of parents within parents associations advocating different policies. However, some conclusions may be reached. First, the development of conflict between parents and school is, in a way, a positive sign that the educational system is open to divergent opinions. Such conflicts could simply not occur earlier, when children with cognitive disabilities were automatically placed in a special unit. Changes in the system, requiring parental acceptance of placement in a special unit, have created the space for action, making the emergence of divergent opinions and wishes possible. Conflict can, therefore, be seen as useful, but only if it can contribute to further change and adaptation in the educational system. The second consideration, however, is that the school system does not yet seem prepared to handle these possible conflicts and resolve them. The rules have evidently been changed without their natural consequences being foreseen, in this case the surfacing of divergent opinions on placement and special education services. The system evidently needs to develop models that admit collaboration with parents despite divergences in opinions and criticism. Other educational systems have created structures that support parents and school staff in handling these issues, offering mediation services, consultancy, management and also representation for parents who may feel alone against the school and all its representatives. In the recently decentralized Swedish school system there is as yet no specific national regulation of these matters in the legislation. The present study shows that this is an area that needs to be developed. The situation of children with disabilities in independent schools also needs to be reviewed: under the current regulations independent schools have the option of rejecting a pupil with special educational needs. Issues of justice and rights in special education decisions are important for the whole community and it is urgent that models that contribute to making adequate judgements and taking just decisions determined not only by certain parents personal

Children with cognitive disabilities

651

resources, strength and influence are developed. This problem is emerging in the decentralized and deregulated Swedish system, but the risks of a struggle for resources have been described in other systems too (Sternberg & Gregorenko, 1999). A recently introduced (Svensk frfattnigssamling, SFS, Lag 2006:67) anti-discrimination in school law may eventually inspire correct decisions. This study also suggests that the presence of children with cognitive disabilities in a regular setting is still not considered an obvious occurrence to be supported in all cases. Experiments are continuing, but they may be discontinued whenever a problem arises. This suggests a picture of children with cognitive disabilities as temporary guests in the regular school whose presence can always be questioned, to the parents distress. The choices made by parents is not entirely respected, but is seen as negotiable. It would be more appropriate if the choices made by parents were instead accepted unconditionally and efforts were concentrated on adapting the school environment to the needs of the children, instead of on convincing the parents to move their child to another setting. The goal of a successful education in a regular setting should be pursued with conviction, being seen as an opportunity for development and adaptation of schools to a broader range of educational needs. Results from research on a large number of Swedish children with disabilities has suggested that the type and degree of disability are not good predictors of the level of participation that the child experiences (Almqvist & Granlund, 2005). These criteria (type and level of disability) should not, therefore, be used to determine a placement more or less automatically. Evidence from different studies and reviews also suggests that inclusive education, when implemented with high quality services, brings substantive benefits for both children with disabilities and those without (see, for example, Hunt & Goetz, 1997; Kennedy et al., 1997; Harrower, 1999; Rea et al., 2002; McDonnell et al., 2003; Cole et al.; 2004). Research on ability grouping and its effects on achievement and motivation has also dealt with the negative effects of organizational differentiation with the goal of group homogeneity (see, for example, Linchevski & Kutscher, 1998; Boaler et al., 2000; Van Houtte, 2004). The decentralization and deregulation of the school system effected in the 1990s has resulted in greater variation in results and in many aspects of performance between municipalities (Gustafsson, 2006), to such an extent as to question the principle of equity in education. In special education the differences in treatment and policies between municipalities and within the same municipality may be a threat to the equity principle. The emerging trend showing increasing organizational differentiation (e.g. forming groups or classes of children with the same kind of disability) can appear natural and very appropriate from a strictly management view. Yet it must be questioned on the basis of democratic educational principles and research results. Joint pressure for adaptation of the regular setting to the childrens varying needs and the related provision of the necessary resources and competencies must increase. This may require the educational system to give priority to the goals of an inclusive education in the whole school organization and its culture at the national

652 M. Westling Allodi level, independently of local management. In this way the child with disabilities is seen not as a cost but as a resource, helping the school to adapt and change, to achieve an educational system that can be fully considered as a right by all pupils and their parents. References
Almqvist, L. & Granlund, M. (2005) Participation in the school environment of children and youth with disabilities: a person-oriented approach, Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 46(3), 305314. Benedek, W. & Nikolova, M. (Eds) (2003) Understanding human rights. Manual on human rights education (Graz, Austria, Human Security Network). Boaler, J., William, D. & Brown, M. (2000) Students experiences of ability grouping: disaffection, polarisation and the construction of failure, British Educational Research Journal, 26(5), 631648. Cole, C., Waldron, N. & Massoumeh, M. (2004) Academic progress of students across inclusive and traditional settings, Mental Retardation, 42(2), 136144. Duncan, N. (2003) Awkward customers? Parents and provision for special educational needs, Disability & Society, 18(3), 341356. Gustafsson, J.-E. (2006) Lika rttigheter, likvrdig utbildning? (Stockholm, Save the Children Sweden). Available online at: http://shop.rb.se/Product/Product.aspx?ItemId=2967161 (accessed 8 August 2007). Harrower, J. K. (1999) Educational inclusion of children with severe disabilities, Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 1(4), 215230. Hunt, P. & Goetz, L. (1997) Research on inclusive educational programs, practices, and outcomes for students with severe disabilities, The Journal of Special Education, 31(1), 329. Kennedy, C. H., Shukla, S. & Fryxell, D. (1997) Comparing the effects of educational placement on the social relationships of intermediate schools students with severe disabilities, Exceptional Children, 64(1), 3147. Lake, J. & Billingsley, B.S. (2000). An analysis of factors that contribute to parent-school conflict in special education. Remedial and Special Education, 21(4), 240251. Linchevski, L. & Kutscher, B. (1998) Tell me whom youre learning, and Ill tell you how much youve learned: mixed ability versus same-ability grouping in mathematics, Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 29(5), 533555. McDonnell, J., Thorson, N., Disher, S., Mathot-Buckner, C., Mendel, J. & Ray L. (2003) The achievement of students with developmental disabilities and their peers without disabilities in inclusive settings: an exploratory study, Education and Treatment of Children, 26(3), 224236. National Agency for Education (2000) Hur srskild fr man vara? En analys av elevkningen i srskolan [How different are you allowed to be? An analysis of pupils increment in special units], Dnr 2000:2037. Available online at: http://www.skolverket.se/publikationer?id=762 (accessed 8 August 2007). National Agency for Education (2005a) The Swedish school system. Available online at: http:// www.skolverket.se/sb/d/374/a/1206 (accessed 8 August 2007). National Agency for Education (2005b) Education for pupils and adults with learning disabilities. Available online at: http://www.skolverket.se/sb/d/374/a/1222 (accessed 8 August 2007). National Agency for Education (2005c) Barn, elever, personal och utbildningsresultat. Kommunalniv, Rapport 259. Available online at: http://www.skolverket.se/publikationer?id=1437 (accessed 8 August 2007). Database available at: http://www.jmftal.artisan.se/frame_ex.htm (accessed 8 August 2007). Rea, P. J, McLaughlin, V. L. & Walther-Thomas, C. (2002) Outcomes for students with learning disabilities in inclusive and pullout programs, Exceptional Children, 68(2), 203222.

Children with cognitive disabilities

653

Roll Pettersson, L. (2001) Between open systems and closed doors. The needs and perceptions of parents of children with cognitive disabilities in educational settings, Studies in Educational Sciences 45 (Stockholm, Stockholm Institute of Education Press). Rowley, J. & Gersch, I. (2001) SEN conciliation: is there a pattern to referrals?, Educational Psychology in Practice, 17(4), 361374. Statens Offentliga Utredningar (SOU) (2003) Fr den jag r. Om utbildning och utvecklingsstrning [For what I am. About education and developmental/learning disability], National Official Inquiry, SOU 2003:35 (Stockholm, Fritzes). Sternberg, R. J. & Grigorenko, E. (1999) Our labeled children (Oxford, UK, Perseus). Svensk frfattnigssamling (SFS) (2006) Lag (2006:67) om frbud mot diskriminering och annan krnkande behandling av barn och elever [Act prohibiting discrimination and other degrading treatment of children and school students (2006:67)]. Available online at: http:// www.notisum.se/rnp/sls/lag/20060067.htm (accessed 8 August 2007). Van Houtte, M. (2004) Tracking effects on school achievement: a quantitative explanation in terms of the academic culture of school staff, American Journal of Education, 110(4), 354388. Westling Allodi, M. (2002) Support and resistance. Ambivalence in special education, Studies in Educational Science 61 (Stockholm, Stockholm Institute of Education Press). Westling Allodi, M. (2005). Specialpedagogik i en skola fr alla [Special education in a school for all], Individ, Omvrld och Lrande Forskning no. 27 (Stockholm, Stockholm Institute of Education,).