KOIIA/Reflections on Hjörne & Säljö

Hjörne, Eva & Säljö, Roger (2008): To qualify in a school for all. Student health and negotiation of normalcy in Swedish schools. (Chapter 8)
Eva Hjörnes and Roger Säljös  To qualify in a school for all  was published in 2008 with the aim to " highlight issues about how children's difficulties in finding their way around the school are understood and processed by the teachers and others who have daily contact with the children " ( 2008:9 ). The book's main focus is on the so-called. elevhålsoteamens work in selected schools, and presents the results of a study in which Hjörne and Säljö followed these groups and their everyday work for five years. Student Health teams' main task is to identify, define, explain and describe children's school problems , in short : create a forum for discussions on the difficulties created by some students in the school ( 2008:72 ). As a basis for this work is the notion of [ http://www.riksdagen.se/webbnav/index.aspx?nid=3281&dok_id=GOB319 student health ] Special for student health team meetings is that they offer a joint discussion forum for people with both professional knowledge and lekmannakunskap and that the decisions made there affect the school's use of resources to some degree, which has a direct impact on children's experiences of schooling.

 To qualify in a school for all  is basically a statement of an empirical study, but it also contains a description of the relevant theoretical background , with discussions ranging from the school's progress through the ages of children / pupils and adults / teachers' specific roles within the school and education to those roles. In the book's eighth chapter discusses the empirical results and their use. The text here is focused on this chapter, entitled "To qualify in one school for all".

Hjörne and Säljö is clear to note that in all times been and will be of such children in schools that do not "fit in ", as well as there have been children who easily found at home in the student role and able to adapt to the expectations of this role carries with it. The focus of the study reported in this book is directed towards how the school chooses to relate to children belonging to the former group, and how to try to " solve problems ". The perspective of the book is a social science and educational sociology, and the processes researched described by the authors as "a concrete illustration of how some of the social selection operates on a micro- plane " ( 2008:141 ). Here I see an interesting connection to a theme that is treated before at check those two, namely intersectionality. The authors state that it is hardly random to just some kids being marginalized and that it usually is easy to find links to factors such as class, ethnicity , language, etc. . when you look at the children who have been marginalized ( 2008:142 ).

The empirical work, the authors made ​​have largely focused on student health team meetings where conversations , sc. " Troubles talk" is the most common working method. The authors pay attention to several specific features at these talks and the rhetorical work done by them. A clear feature of the talks and the entire student health team work is that the discussions and actions that are inserted often leads to the child in question marginalized. This is paradoxical, especially considering that the official purpose of the effort is to try to "normalize " the child , such as Säljö and Hjörne describes it ( 2008:142 ).

Much of the discussion in the chapter devoted to concepts such as marginalization, personalization , categorization , known letter diagnoses and identity processes of the simple reason that these have become highly visible in the empirical material. One obvious feature of student health teams' calls is that the problems surrounding the pupil discussed from an individual point of view, that specific right for this student. This is done by including that describes the child's behavior in categorical terms, based on eg the child's intellectual ability, maturity , motivation, concentration, and so on. ( 2008:143 ) . This finding leads the authors to a conclusion that the reason why the children in the study become topic of student health teams is more about the difficulties of finding themselves in the student role than on regular learning difficulties. The problem that arises is consequently placed in this institutional practice almost always the individual, not the institution.

An interesting aspect that the authors raise is that their study, however, its results should be seen as a historical document. The results are a reflection of how you look at children in our day and how today trying to deal with problems that have always been present in the school. There are two distinct features in this : the individualization of difficulties, problems are placed primarily in the child, not the institution , and an attitude that Säljö and Hjörne call for diagnostic - technical : to find an explanation for the problem , one looks for a diagnosis. On page 144 presents a number of cases that exemplify both traits. In one of them discuss student health team of a child with terms such as  This might be some kind of ehh ... damp or letter or something  ( 2008:144 ). Säljös and Hjörnes reasoning about individualization and endeavor to diagnose as typical phenomena can I sign on, for similar reflections came unsought even to me when I read the book. It is very characteristic of modern man ( and to some degree even more characteristic also of Swedish society, I would argue ) to want a quick diagnosis or explanation for the problems originate for as soon as possible to "cure" or at least learn to deal with the problem - much like the medical diagnoses.

Another, both typical of the times and cultural characteristic feature that the reader pay attention to is the consensus -oriented culture of discussion that seems to prevail in student health advice meetings. Discussion at meetings is described as institutionalized conversations where participants are well aware of how to speak and how decisions are made ( 2008:146 ), which usually leads to speak with a " single voice " and rarely questions or are looking for alternative solutions. This despite the fact that student health teams is and should be multidisciplinary with representatives from several disciplines ( 2008:146-8 ). The collective effort to find an explanation and a solution seems interesting not only as a cultural expression, but even when set against the huge individualization that the child is exposed. One can not help but think in terms of David and Goliath, except that the child in this constellation have very few opportunities to try to assert their rights. It is also remarkable that despite the typical institutionalized feature of discussions, it is another feature that is conspicuous by its absence, namely documentation of conversations and decisions ( with pupil welfare exemption ) ( 2008:148 ).

In the current study further concludes two things that are more a reflection of the aspects mentioned above. One is the lack of explanations based on a pedagogical analysis of the children's difficulties in school and the other a lack of children 's perspective. The discussions, which are student health team's main working tool, it is no representative voice of the child. One of context inherent in the lack of educational analysis is that the teacher's role in the problem nor analyzed, but what happens in the classroom and in teaching, remain in the dimness. No concrete events are highlighted without discussion moves on a different level, a level which already jointly decided that it is the child who is / are the problem ( 2008:145 ) and where , from the outset focused on discussing possible explanations. The difference between describing and explaining is something that the authors emphasize, and for a discussion around. In their opinion, student health teams call culture is a strong emphasis on explanatory but explicit descriptions of what actually happened remains in the background. The verbal abstraction of real events is seen as problematic by the authors, especially if one agrees that the categories it uses to describe the world influences how you see it , something called loopingeffekter ( 2008:152-153 ). Then the explanations that self-fulfilling prophecies, especially when children are made aware of what categories they "belong " as adults. Hjörne and Säljö for a brief but interesting discussion of the impact this can have on children's own identity perceptions, then all those around them in school ( maybe even outside of school ) treat them with the starting point in the assigned identity (eg " ADHD child ", " dyslexic ", " weak pupil " ). Then the identity is not something that you have, but something you " get", or attributed to , and often lives up to ( 2008:155 ).

At the end of the chapter the authors list nine points for an improved and better developed work in student health team. Some of the points have already been discussed above, if not otherwise well in a reverse perspective , but for the sake of summary contrasted results and development proposals in the following table:

{ | Class = "wiki table" ! Student Health Team work today ! development Proposal ( 2008:156-158)
 * Generalising, consensus oriented , categorizing discourse
 * Emphasize concrete descriptions of explicit events, dare to call in question, utilizing the various skills of the team
 * The problems are placed in the individual
 * See the big picture, acquiring knowledge about the circumstances of the problems
 * Teachers and other authority figures are invisible
 * All actors should be made visible in the problem solution
 * The child's weak position, and none representing the child, the child becomes a subject of discussion , not involved
 * Emphasize children's rights and child perspective, making children aware of how their actions are perceived, including some representing only the interests of children
 * Insufficient documentation
 * Documentation should be developed, especially for greater legal certainty.
 * }
 * Emphasize children's rights and child perspective, making children aware of how their actions are perceived, including some representing only the interests of children
 * Insufficient documentation
 * Documentation should be developed, especially for greater legal certainty.
 * }
 * }

Finally, discuss Hjörne and Säljö ethics and epistemic responsibility in student health teamwork. Especially epistemic responsibility is emphasized as it is described as connected to the power that adults in the school in general and in student health teams especially exercises over the kids. The authors argue, quite reasonably , that the exercise of power must take responsibility for how you express yourself and that the terms used should be possible to use in public and introduces interested students and their parents ( 2008:159 ). Ethical issues are ever present in the student health team work and should be taken into account, especially when it involves children who are from the outset in a weaker position from a legal standpoint.

/ Some thoughts from Ingela /