3 research outputs found
Ensuring the right to education for Roma children : an Anglo-Swedish perspective
Access to public education systems has tended to be below normative levels where Roma children are concerned. Various long-standing social, cultural, and institutional factors lie behind the lower levels of engagement and achievement of Roma children in education, relative to many others, which is reflective of the general lack of integration of their families in mainstream society. The risks to Roma childrenâs educational interests are well recognized internationally, particularly at the European level. They have prompted a range of policy initiatives and legal instruments to protect rights and promote equality and inclusion, on top of the framework of international human rights and minority protections. Nevertheless, statesâ autonomy in tailoring educational arrangements to their budgets and national policy agendas has contributed to considerable international variation in specific provision for Roma children. As this article discusses, even between two socially liberal countries, the UK and Sweden, with their well-advanced welfare states and public systems of social support, there is a divergence in protection, one which underlines the need for a more consistent and positive approach to upholding the education rights and interests of children in this most marginalized and often discriminated against minority group
Omöjligt uppdrag. Om rÀttslig styrning och normkollisioner i skolans kompensatoriska uppdrag
The thesis aims to analyze how two ideological concepts, âthe individualâ and âthe collectiveâ,
impact the Swedish school system from a legal point of view. On basis of the theoretical groundwork drawn up by professor Anna Christensen I claim that one can observe two different normative patterns in the law relevant to the aim and delimitations of the study. The pattern that laid the foundation for the Swedish elementary school is collectivistic and relates to the idea about one school system for everyone, breaking down social barriers. Such a pattern is concerned with integrating students with different
capabilities, keeping the collective together as one. The other pattern, which has gradually
taken over as the dominant cluster of values, is concerned with the rights of the individual.
This second pattern primarily manifests in the legal setting as the right to special education
on the basis of the students' special needs, which might lead to the student being separated from the bigger group (collective) in order to meet those needs. The tension between these two patterns is a mirror of the tension between collective and individual values on an ideological level that can be observed in the legal rules, the legal principles and in the social norms dominating in âthe pedagogical landscapeâ. There is, therefore, a âcollision of normsâ, both within the legal system and between legal and pedagogical norms, which is determinantal to the expediency of the legal regulation. There are few, if any, rules or guidelines
to balance these collisions of norms, or to give teachers and headmasters directions
regarding which values that should be seen as hierarchically superior. As such it is difficult
to predict how the pedagogical profession will choose between integration for the benefit of
the collective or segregation to take into account the needs of the individual. No matter the choice, one normative pattern will be overlooked, in violation of the law. Because the legal logic surrounding the school system is largely based on ex-post supervision, the state will criticize the pedagogical choice, no matter what it is. Such an order lays the foundation for lack of effectiveness where it becomes more important to do what is legally correct than that which, from a pedagogical point of view, responds best to the students' respective needs. In order to overcome these shortcomings in legal governance, a choice must be made about if the collective or the individual shall be regarded as worthy of greatest protection, as well as changes in the legal set-up in order for different forms of governance not to counteract each other or the overall purpose of the school system
Den tvÄhövdade lagen. En undersökning av normerna som reglerar pÄföljden rÀttspsykiatrisk vÄrd
Antalet vÄldsbrott i Sverige ökar inte. Inte heller kan man pÄvisa att brotten blivit grövre. DÀremot pekar den mediala bilden pÄ att brottsligheten de senaste tio Ären prÀglats av idel vansinnesdÄd med psykotiska gÀrningsmÀn. Till följd av detta har opinionslÀget avseende straff och vÄrd förskjutits till att alltmer omfamna vedergÀllningsteorier och prioritera samhÀllsskyddande insatser. FÀngelsestraffen blir allt lÀngre och risken att dömas till fÀngelse har mer Àn tredubblats jÀmfört med 1970-talet trots att forskningen visar att hÄrdare straff Àr verkningslösa eller rent utav kontraproduktiva.
NĂ€r domstolarna konfronteras med misstĂ€nkt psykiskt störda lagövertrĂ€dare stĂ€lls de inför en ytterst komplex situation. Ăr gĂ€rningsmannen psykiskt störd i lagens hĂ€nseende skall denne primĂ€rt inte dömas till fĂ€ngelse utan ges pĂ„följden rĂ€ttspsykiatrisk vĂ„rd. Endast rĂ€ttsmedicinsk expertis anses ha kompetens att utreda huruvida en gĂ€rningsman lider av en sĂ„dan âallvarlig psykisk störningâ som lagstiftaren avsett, varför rĂ€tten kan sĂ€gas hamna i knĂ€et pĂ„ rĂ€ttspsykiatrikerna. Ăn mer komplicerat blir det nĂ€r olika expertgrupper kommer till olika slutsats avseende en och samma gĂ€rningsman. RĂ€tten förvĂ€ntas dĂ„ kunna ta stĂ€llning till vilket utlĂ„tande som bĂ€st stĂ€mmer överens med verkligheten varefter de kan göra ett adekvat val avseende pĂ„följd.
I normala fall kan rĂ€tten i fall dĂ€r lagen Ă€r oklar â vad innebĂ€r egentligen allvarlig psykisk störning och hur skyddsvĂ€rda Ă€r de olika intressena? â vĂ€nda sig till förarbetena för att utröna lagstiftarens avsikter. De normer som ligger till grund för lagstiftningen hör hemma i ett större sammanhang och hĂ„ller samman de olika rĂ€ttsomrĂ„dena, samtidigt som de ofta speglar den rĂ„dande moraluppfattningen. NĂ€r dessa normer stĂ„r i konflikt med varandra fĂ„r domstolarna ingen vĂ€gledning, varför de tvingas döma mer efter det rĂ„dande rĂ€tts- och opinionslĂ€get Ă€n efter vad lagstiftaren egentligen avsett.
Genom historien har samhÀllet valt att hantera psykiskt sjuka pÄ olika sÀtt under olika epoker, men genomgÄende har retoriken kretsat kring tvÄ motstÄende poler: Ä ena sidan föresprÄkas straffrihet och vÄrdande insatser och Ä andra sidan föresprÄkas samhÀllsskydd. Pendelrörelsen mellan de bÄda normerna har motiverats pÄ olika ideologiska, politiska och filosofiska grundvalar och Äterfinns Àven i vÄr nuvarande lagstiftning och i dess förarbeten