Who Should do What to Whom? : Occupational Groups´Views on Special Needs

The overall aim of this thesis is to increase our knowledge of different occupational groups´ views on work with children in need of special support. This is explored in four separate studies. The first study investigates the views of occupational groups in preschools and schools in one municipality. A questionnaire was handed out to all personnel (N=1297) in the municipality in 2008 (72.5 % response rate). The second study explores the views of educational leaders (N=45) in the same municipality. Questionnaire # 2 was distributed in 2009. All the educational leaders responded to the questionnaire. The third study describes the views of different occupational groups concerning special educational needs coordinators´ (SENCOs) role and work. This was highlighted by comparing responses from questionnaire #1 and # 2. Responses concerning SENCOs´ work were also added using a third questionnaire. This questionnaire was handed out in 2006 to chief education officers (N=290) in all municipalities in Sweden. The response rate was 90.3%. Finally, the fourth study presents five head teachers´ descriptions of their work with special needs issues. Study four was a follow-up study of questionnaire # 2. These head teachers were selected because of their inclusive values and because they seemed to be effective according to certain criteria. They were interviewed in January 2012. The results reveal a number of interesting findings. For example, there are both similar and different views among the occupational groups concerning work with children in need of special support. A majority of the respondents in all groups state that children´s individual deficiencies is one common reason why children need special support in preschools/schools. Differences between the occupational groups become especially visible regarding their views of SENCOs‟ work. Critical pragmatism (Cherryholmes, 1988) is applied as a theoretical point of departure. Skrtic´s (1991) critical reading and analysis of special education relative to general education is specifically used to interpret and discuss the outcome of the studies. Additionally, Abbott´s (1988) reasoning concerning the “division of expert labor” is used to discuss the occupational groups´ replies concerning “who should do what to whom”. The findings in the studies are contextualized and theoretically interpreted in the separate articles. However in the first part of this thesis (in Swedish: Kappa), the theoretical interpretations of the empirical outcome are discussed in more detail and the results are further contextualized and synthesised. Inclusion and premises for inclusive education are also discussed in more depth in the first part of the present thesis.

Role of headmasters, teachers and supervisors in knowledge transfer about occupational health and safety to pupils in vocational education

Background Young people are at an increased risk for illness in working life. The authorities stipulate certain goals for training in occupational health and safety (OHS) in vocational schools. A previous study concluded that pupils in vocational education had limited knowledge in the prevention of health risks at work. The aim of the current study, therefore, was to study how OHS training is organized in school and in workplace-based learning (WPL).   Method The study design featured a qualitative approach, which included interviews with 12 headmasters, 20 teachers, and 20 supervisors at companies in which the pupils had their WPL. The study was conducted at 10 upper secondary schools, located in Central Sweden, that were graduating pupils in four vocational programs.   Result The interviews with headmasters, teachers, and supervisors indicate a staggered picture of how pupils are prepared for safe work. The headmasters generally give teachers the responsibility for how goals should be reached. Teaching is very much based on risk factors that are present in the workshops and on teachers’ own experiences and knowledge. The teaching during WPL also lacks the systematic training in OHS as well as in the traditional classroom environment.   Conclusion Teachers and supervisors did not plan the training in OHS in accordance with the provisions of systematic work environment management. Instead, the teachers based the training on their own experiences. Most of the supervisors did not get information from the schools as to what should be included when introducing OHS issues in WPL.

Young peoples’ entrance to the workplace : Introduction to occupational health and safety

Negative outcomes of a poor work environment are more frequent among young workers. The aim of the current study was to study former pupils’ conditions concerning occupational health and safety by investigating the workplaces’, safety climate, the degree of implementation of SWEM and the their introduction programs. Four branches were included in the study: Industrial, Restaurant, Transport and Handicraft, specialising in wood. Semi-structured dialogues were undertaken with 15 employers at companies in which former pupils were employed. They also answered a questionnaire about SWEM. Former pupils and experienced employees were upon the same occasion asked to fill in a questionnaire about safety climate at the workplace. Workplace introduction programs varied and were strongly linked to company size. Most of the former pupils and experienced employees rated the safety climate at their company as high, or good. Employers in three of the branches rated the SWEM implemented at their workplaces to be effective. The Industry companies, which had the largest workplaces, gave the most systematic and workplace introduction for new employees. There are no results from this study explaining the fact that young workers have a higher risk for workplace accidents.