23. Policy Studies and Politics of Education
Paper
From 64 sections to 900 in the Education Act – on juridification of Swedish education
Andreas Bergh1, Lotta Lerwall1, Emma Arneback2
1Uppsala University, Sweden; 2Göteborg University, Sweden
Presenting Author: Bergh, Andreas;
Lerwall, Lotta
In 1963, when the first Swedish Education Act came into force, the act contained 64 sections. Today, the Education Act (SFS 2010:800) consists of approximately 900 sections divided in 31 chapters. This is only a quantitative number, but it indicates that the legal governing over Swedish education has increased dramatically. In the rather limited research available so far, these changes are discussed of in terms of juridification, which in a broad meaning refers to that a situation or an issue that takes on a legal or a changed legal character (Brännström 2009, cf. Habermas 1987; Teubner 1987). What this research shows, is that juridification opens up a variety of tensions and has major impacts that can both enable and hinder educational activities (Bergh & Arneback 2016; Carlbaum 2016; Lindgren et al 2020). One part of the juridification is the increased emphasis on individual rights, which may be described as a general trend in Swedish society. The incorporation of the UN Convention on the rights of the child (CRC) into Swedish national law in 2020 (SFS 2018:1197) is a further step in this direction as it confirms children as right holders. The CRC inspires us to ask important questions on qualitative changes, with a focus on for example content, power and changes in distribution of responsibility between different actors in the education system.
With juridification as the overriding interest of knowledge, the aim with this paper is to identify how the rights of the child have been formulated in national school legislations over the last three decades and to contextualize these in relation to the way the governing of Swedish education has changed during the same time. To fulfill this aim, Curriculum theory provides an overriding theoretical framework as it enables analysis of how different interpretations of rights are interpreted and take shape within and between different educational arenas (Bergh 2010; Englund, Forsberg & Sundberg 2012). However, to fulfill the aim Curriculum theory is complemented with a conceptual framework specifically developed to analyse juridification of and in education (Rosén, Arneback & Bergh 2020).
The empirical time period of interest is from 1990 to present. There are two reasons for this choice. First, Sweden ratified the CRC already in 1990 and incorporated it into national law in 2020. Hence, Sweden has committed to children’s rights during the whole period of time, but the shift from transformation into incorporation took place as late as 2020. Second, since the 1990s, the Swedish school system has been thoroughly reformed, which in previous research has been characterized as a shift from decentralization to recentralization (Bergh & Arneback, 2016). This development entails a reformation of the way the governing is organized, changes of the content of school regulations and the pace in which these changes are decided. .
Two research questions operationalize the aim:
1) How are the rights of the child regulated in the school legislation between 1990-2023, both with regard to its content and the mandate to decide how this is to be interpreted?
2) What dimensions of juridification can be distinguished when children’s rights are enacted and how do these relate to general changes in the governing of Swedish education?
The Swedish case and the chosen approach provide an important example with high international relevance. The interest for the complex relation between education and juridification has so far primarily come from Swedish and Norwegian educational researchers (Andenæs & Møller 2016; Bergh & Arneback 2016; Lindgren et al 2020; Novak 2018), but also from some other countries, such as England and the USA (Gibson 2013, Murphy 2020).
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedTo study the relation between education and juridification is methodologically challenging. Previous research has pointed at the necessity to find good empirical examples (Rosén et al 2020). The Swedish parliament’s decision to turn the full CRC into national law provides such an example. Moreover, it is also important to recognize that the legal governing is closely intertwined with other aspects of the governing. A search for a better understanding on the complex relation between juridification and education therefore places demand on openness and the necessity of bring a plurality of perspectives together.
To meet these demands, we have found it necessary to bring the two fields of law and education together, which so far has been rare in critical studies of education (Murphy 2020). More concretely, this means that we, researchers in pedagogy and jurisprudence work together and, as a consequence, bring different question to the table. Also the identification and comparison of different aspects of governing the Swedish schools over time require both legal and educational competence. This combination of researchers in a joined research task is unique in the Swedish context. Altogether, the composition of the research group and an understanding of diversity as embedded in dominating discourses and structures that govern education, closely connects this paper to the theme of the conference.
The two-step analysis was supported by the theories described above and guided by the two research questions. To fulfill the aim of the study, educational and legal methods were combined. The legal method, used to answer the first research question, requires legal sources, which include the Education Act, the curriculum manifested in government ordinances, preparatory works, case law and different policy documents. To analyse these documents, some delimitations were made. Focus was mainly placed on rights expressed in the CRC, such as the best interest of the child and the right to be heard, but also rights closely connected to the right to education have been relevant, such as the right to support and protection against discrimination and degrading treatment. The legal sources just mentioned were also used to answer the second research question, but then complemented with earlier research and additional policy texts in order to place the interpretations of children’s rights identified in the first analytical step into a broader policy context.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThe result of the analysis demonstrates that the emphasis on the rights of the child has increased during the studied period. In 1990 hardly any children’s rights were expressed in Swedish school legislations. Subsequently, children’s rights have gradually been enacted into legislation. This development aligns with a general emphasis in society on individual’s rights. The main starting point was the Child and Student Protection Act (SFS 2006:67) prohibiting discrimination and degrading treatment. This act empowered children by giving them enforceable rights in court. The next milestone is the 2010 Education Act, which apart from transforming the best interest of the child and the right to be heard into Swedish law, holds a number of rights enforceable in courts or similar judicial organs.
The decentralization and recentralization of the legal governing of the Swedish school system has oscillated back and forth over time. Prior 1990, there was a high degree of detailed regulation through national school authorities, while the NPM-ideas from the 1990s and onwards, meant a shift to a framework legislation where the details were left to the school providers to decide. Through the 2010 Education Act we are once again facing a detailed way of regulating, but this time mainly in the Education Act, i.e. legislation enacted by the parliament.
With a broader perspective on governing, it can be concluded that the identified legal changes are closely intertwined with a number of other trends, such as individualization, marketization and accountability. All these changes, together open up for that the juridification of and in education can lead to a spread of a legal culture and behaviour, even around issues where there, in a strict legal sense, are no regulations. Altogether, the result of this study indicates that further research is needed on the complex relation between juridification and education.
ReferencesAndenæs, K. & Møller, J. Eds. (2016). Retten i skolen. Mellom Pedagogikk, juss og politikk [Law in Education. Between Pedagogy, Law and Politics]. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
Bergh, A. & Arneback, E. (2016). Hur villkorar juridifieringen lärarprofessionens arbete med skolans kunskaper och värden? [How does the juridification condition the teaching profession's work with the school's knowledge and values?]. Utbildning & Demokrati 25(1), 11–31.
Brännström, L. (2009). Förrättsligande: En studie av rättens risker och möjligheter med fokus på patientens ställning. [Juridification: A Study of the Hazards and Potentials of Law, Focusing on the Legal Position of the Patient in Health Care]. PhD diss. Lund: Lund University.
Carlbaum, S. (2016). Do you have a complaint? Promoting individual rights in education. Scandinavian Journal of Public Administration 20(4), 3–2.
Englund, T., Forsberg, E. & Sundberg, D. red. (2012). Vad räknas som kunskap? Läroplansteoretiska utsikter och inblickar i lärarutbildning och skola [What Counts as Knowledge? Curriculum Theoretical Prospects and Insights into Teacher Education and School]. Stockholm: Liber.
Gibson, H. (2013). Home–school agreements: explaining the growth of ‘juridification’ and contractualism in schools. Oxford Review of Education, 39(6), 780–796.
Habermas, J. (1987). The Theory of Communicative Action. Vol. 2, Lifeworld and System: A Critique of Functionalist Reason. Translated by McCarthy. Boston: Beacon Press.
Lindgren, J., Carlbaum, S., Hult, A. & Segerholm, C. (2020). Skolans arbete mot kränkningar – juridifieringens konsekvenser [The school's work against violations – consequences of juridification]. Malmö: Gleerups.
Murphy, M. (2020). Taking education to account? The limits of law in institutional and professional practice. Journal of Education Policy, https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939. 2020.1770337
Novak, J. (2018). Juridification of Educational Spheres. The Case of School Inspection. Uppsala: Faculty of Educational Sciences, 13.
Rosén, M., Arneback, A. & Bergh, A. (2020). A conceptual framework for understanding juridification of and in education. Journal of Education Policy, DOI:10.1080/02680939. 2020.1777466
Teubner, G. (1987). Juridification. Concepts, aspects, limits, solutions. In G. Teubner, ed. Juridification of Social Spheres: A Comparative Analysis in the Areas of Labor, Corporate, Antitrust and Social Welfare Law, 3–48. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter.
SFS 2006:67. Lag om förbud mot diskriminering och annan kränkande behandling av barn och elever [Act on prohibition of discrimination and other abusive treatment of children and students].
SFS 2010:800. Skollagen [Education Act].
SFS 2018:1197. Lag om Förenta nationernas konvention om barnets rättigheter [Law on the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child].
23. Policy Studies and Politics of Education
Paper
Juridification as Democratization – On the Ambivalences of the Swedish Legislation on Discrimination and Degrading Treatment
Maria Rosén
Stockholm University, Sweden
Presenting Author: Rosén, Maria
In Sweden, as in many modern European and international democracies, ways of governing have shifted in several ways, with profound implications for education policy and practice (cf. Lindgren et al, 2020; Murphy, 2022). Among changes such as comprehensive marketization, juridification, as a mode of welfare regulation, is a central feature (e.g. Novak, 2018; Rosén et al., 2021). The juridification of education is visible by a shift from collective social rights to individual and legally assured rights, with a growth of legal complaint systems (e.g. Carlbaum, 2016; Novak, 2018). In Swedish education, this shift has been specifically evident regarding issues of equality and diversity.
Intertwined with a development of expansion of EU-law on discrimination and equal treatment, Sweden in 2006 introduced a legal policy forbidding discrimination, harassment[1] and other kinds of degrading treatment. This policy includes possibilities to report incidents to the Child and School Student Representative and the Equality Ombudsman who can represent students in national courts (SFS 2008:567; SFS 2010:800). Such endeavors – in the name of democracy and of meeting needs related to diversity in societies – are difficult to question (cf. Rosén, 2023). However, as has been discussed by Teubner (1987) and Habermas (1987), juridification as means of democratization may challenge ethical and political qualities of social spheres, such as in education (cf. Habermas, 1987; Teubner, 1987). In similar ways, Wendy Brown (2000) has pointed to the paradox inherent in rights, as both enabling and challenging emancipation and equity. These dilemmas and tensions have also been discussed in the growing body of, so far mainly Nordic, empirical research on juridification of education (cf. Karseth och Møller, 2018; Lindgren et al 2020; Murphy, 2022; Novak, 2018; Rosén et al 2021; Rosén and Arneback, 2021; Stefkovich, 2014).
As both the theoretical and empirical literature suggests, juridification is an ambivalent phenomenon. However, rather than repeatedly pointing this out, or simply adding to the discussion of the challenges of juridification, I argue there is a need for a better understanding of these ambivalences, inherent in juridification as a process of democratization. In contrast to earlier research, this study therefore aims at exploring and conceptualizing ambivalences of juridification in relation to education, by using the Swedish case of equal treatment as an empirical case.
In this study juridification is understood as a multidimensional phenomenon, including different kinds of empirical processes; such as expansion and differentiation of law, increasing use of legal experts, legal framing of subjects and relations, increasing conflict-solving by using law (Rosén et al, 2021; Blichner & Molander, 2008). Altogether, these processes increase the prominence of the legal system in the governance of education (Blichner & Molander, 20008). The study thus has an interest in how juridification takes place at different levels in the education system, as well as taking shape in different ways.
Furthermore, juridification is understood as a process (Blichner & Molander, 2008), which refers to an understanding of law and policy (Ball et al., 2012) as made by different actors at different levels, as well as having no certain direction in its enactment. Such an understanding relates to an understanding of juridification as potentially enabling processes of democratization, as well as potentially challenging processes, qualities and values in education (cf. Habermas, 1987; Teubner, 1987; also see Brown, 2000), which this study further explores, through an abductive exploration of ambivalences.
[1] Whereas discrimination concerns structural disadvantages, harassment concerns interpersonal degrading treatment – ones och repeatedly, discriminatory grounds of gender, transgender identity or expression, ethnicity, religion or other belief, disability, sexual orientation, or age” (Chap. 1, 4§, my translation)
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedAlthough ambivalence is often discussed in the literature, not least in research on juridification of education, it is rarely conceptualized. Specifically, it is discussed in fields such as psychology, sociology and philosophy, and conceptualized in relation to rationality, recognition, paradox and feelings (cf. Broogard & Gatzia, 2020). Ambivalence can thus take different forms.
Through the abductive exploration (Peirce, 1931) of ambivalences, three forms of ambivalence have successively developed and functioned as a direction in the analytical process. Those are:
1. ambivalence as contradictory feelings towards juridification
2. ambivalence as paradox in relation to juridification
3. ambivalence as discursive tensions, as a consequence of a shift towards juridification
These three forms of ambivalences work as analytical tools and are used to analyze how ambivalences are expressed in the empirical material. The empirical material consists of three articles on juridification of education, using the Swedish case of equal treatment (Rosén et al 2021, Rosén & Arneback, 2021 and Rosén, 2023). Each article builds on several references within the research fields of education policy, curriculum theory and democratic education. Altogether the articles capture different dimensions of juridification, at different levels in the education system, as well as implicitly and explicitly discuss ambivalence in a variety of ways. In this paper I present the second step of my dissertation study, which is a meta-analysis of the three articles, where I explore and conceptualize ambivalences of juridification, aiming at contributing to the research field juridification of education.
For Peirce (1931), who coined the concept of abduction, puzzlement is the very starting point for research and the development of new discoveries. For me as a researcher, the puzzlement has followed me during many years as a policy actor at a national level, working with the legislation on equal treatment, and later several years of researching it. An abductive process of inquiry is a creative research process without a given direction, driven by an interest in clarifying observations that appear puzzling (cf. Balldin, 2022). It is a movement between empirics and so-called 'sensitive concepts' that open the mind to new ways of understanding (Balldin, 2022), a knowledge production that highlights possible answers. In this way I have successively developed new concepts of ambivalence, which clarify some puzzling observations in the empirical material, and altogether offer a possible way of understanding ambivalences of juridification.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsAs a result three different ambivalences are suggested:
Ambivalence of differentiation: ambivalence in relation to differentiation of education policy
• Ambivalence as a discursive tension in the formation of law
• Ambivalence as a paradox, in the formation of legislation on equal treatment
• Ambivalence towards differentiation of education policy/grounds of discrimination
Ambivalence of juridification: ambivalence in relation to juridification of and in education
• Ambivalence as a discursive tension, as a consequence of a shift towards juridification
• Ambivalence towards juridification as a phenomenon
Ambivalence of risk reduction: ambivalence in relation to risk reduction in democratically challenging situations in education
• Ambivalence as a discursive tension, as a consequence of a shift towards risk reduction
• Ambivalence as a paradox, as an ontological condition for action, where the sides of the paradox opens up a world of action
• Ambivalence towards risk reduction
All together, the three ambivalences make visible different aspects of juridification as an ambivalent phenomenon, as well as how the three forms of ambivalence relate to each other. The empirical material contributes to conceptualizing ambivalences at different levels within the education system, and capturing different kinds of juridification processes in and of education.
All in all, the ambivalences contribute to developing the complexity of juridification as a process of democratization further, and raise questions about what law can enable as well as challenge in relation to education. The ambivalences thus contribute to placing ourselves to think both with and against – as well as beyond – juridification of education.
ReferencesBall, S.J., Maguire, M., Braun, A., 2012. How Schools Do Policy: Policy Enactments in Secondary Schools. Taylor and Francis. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203153185
Balldin, J. 2022. Påtagligt rörligt – om abduktiva tankerörelser i pedagogisk forskning. Pedagogisk forskning i Sverige. 27, 4.
Blichner, L.Chr., Molander, A., 2008. Mapping Juridification. European Law Journal 14, 36–54. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0386.2007.00405.x
Brogaard, B., Gatzia, D.E. (Eds.), 2020. The Philosophy and Psychology of Ambivalence: Being of Two Minds. Routledge, New York. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429030246
Brown, W., 2000. Suffering Rights as Paradoxes. Constellations, 7, 208-229. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8675.00183
Carlbaum, S., 2016. Do You Have a Complaint?: Promoting Individual Rights in Education. Scandinavian Journal of Public Administration 20, 3.
Habermas, J., 1987. The theory of communicative action: Vol. 2 Lifeworld and system : a critique of functionalist reason. Polity, Cambridge.
Karseth, B., Møller, J., 2020. Legal Regulation and Professional Discretion in Schools. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research 64, 195–210. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2018.1531918
Lindgren, J., Hult, A., Carlbaum, S., Segerholm, C., 2020. To See or Not to See: Juridification and Challenges for Teachers in Enacting Policies on Degrading Treatment in Sweden. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research 0, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2020.1788150
Murphy, M., 2022. Taking education to account? The limits of law in institutional and professional practice. null 37, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2020.1770337
Novak, J., 2018. Juridification of Educational Spheres: The Case of Swedish School Inspection, PhD diss., Uppsala University.
Peirce, C.S., 1931. Collected papers V: Pragmatism and pragmaticism.
Rosén, M., 2023. Hur diskrimineringslagstiftning blir till en lösning för skolan – en policyanalys av barn- och elevskyddslagens framväxt. [How anti-discrimination legislation becomes a solution for education – a policy analysis of the development of the Child and School Student Protection Act] Pedagogisk forskning i Sverige, ahead of print.
Rosén, M., Arneback, E., 2021. Living the Paradox of Risk: An Approach for Teachers in Democratically Challenging Situations in Education. Philosophical Inquiry of Education 28, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.7202/1079430ar
Rosén, M., Arneback, E., Bergh, A., 2021. A conceptual framework for understanding juridification of and in education. Journal of Education Policy 36, 822–842. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2020.1777466
SFS 2008:567, Diskrimineringslag. [The Discrimination Act].
SFS 2010:800, Skollag. [The Education Act].
Stefkovich, J. A. 2014. Best Interests of the Students: Applying Ethical Constructs to Legal Cases in Education. 2nd ed. New York: Routledge.
Teubner, G., 1987. Juridification. Concepts, aspects, limits, solutions, in: Teubner, G. (Ed.), Juridification of Social Spheres: A Comparative Analysis in the Areas of Labor, Corporate, Antitrust and Social Welfare Law. De Gruyter, Berlin, pp. 3–48.
23. Policy Studies and Politics of Education
Paper
Enacting the Convention on the Rights of the Child - in times of juridification
Emma Arneback1, Tomas Englund2, Andreas Bergh3, Lotta Lerwall3
1University of Gothenburg, Sweden; 2Örebro University; 3Uppsala University
Presenting Author: Arneback, Emma;
Bergh, Andreas
This paper takes its starting point in the fact that the Convention on the rights of the child (CRC) became national law in Sweden 2020. At the same time, focusing on rights in education is nothing new, and must be understood in the light of a political development over time. After the Second World War the idea of education as a citizenship right became a critical issue in the restructuring of Western democratic school systems. The growing tendency to view and discuss education through a perspective of rights has, however, led to tensions between different perspectives on rights (cf. Bobbio 1996). Focusing on children’s rights, it has for example been demonstrated that there are tensions between different views on children’s rights and parents’ rights (cf. Englund 2010, Quennerstedt 2009). That there are tensions within and between different discourses on rights is a central starting point for this paper.
In Sweden, the Convention on the rights of the child was ratified in 1990 and has since then been an acknowledged perspective in education. However, in 2020 the status of the CRC changed, as it was incorporated into national law (SFS 2018:1197). In the debate preceding the decision, there were those arguing both for and against this change. What is clear, however, is that we still know far too little about how the CRC is enacted as national law. In a wider perspective, the increase and changed character in the use of juridical regulations has, in Swedish education as well as in other countries and areas, been termed as juridification (Rosén et al, 2021; also see Blichner & Molander 2008; Murphy, 2021; Novak, 2017). The rather limited research available so far has demonstrated that juridification has led to changes in the descriptions of teachers’ roles (Bergh & Arneback, 2016) and uncertainty for headmasters and teachers’ on how to act (Lindgren et al 2021). But what in addition has been reported, is that the use of legislation also can work as a support for teachers in their professional work (Karseth & Møller, 2020).
A central starting point for this paper is that juridification of and in education (Rosén et al, 2021) cannot be seen as good or bad per se. Instead, we need to study the processes that follow from different laws, to contribute knowledge of importance for further actions on different levels (in legalisation and enactments of laws). As several sociologist of laws has argued (Habermas, 1987; Honneth 2015), there is on one hand a need of laws to regulate a fair democratic society, but on the other hand a risk that an overuse of laws can lead to instrumentalized actions and processes.
With juridification as an overriding knowledge interest, the aim of this paper is to analyse how the CRC is enacted by civil servants at three Swedish national school authorities after it became national law, and to discuss some implications that follow with different interpretations. This is done by answering the following research questions:
a) What different discourses about the Convention on the Rights of the Child are enacted by civil servants at national school authorities?
b) What tensions appear within and between these discourses and what possible consequences can follow with different interpretations and usages?
This paper is a part of a research project studying what happens with education in Sweden when the Convention on the rights of the child has become national law. In line with the theme of ECER-conference, the project group is aiming for diversity in perspectives. By establishing a collaboration between researchers in pedagogy and jurisprudence (called JURED) we study relationships between juridification and education.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThe paper is based on interviews with fourteen civil servants working at three national school authorities in Sweden (National Agency for Education, National Agency for Special Needs Education and Swedish Schools Inspectorate), information at their websites and text document given to us by the informants. At each authority we have interviewed four-six people working with CRC as leaders or civil servants, with expertise in either law or education. The semi-structured interviews lasted between 60-120 minutes and were conducted by two researchers, one scholar in pedagogy and one scholar in jurisprudence, to ensure a broad competence in the collection of data.
When the interviewed civil servants talked about the new juridical framing of CRC in Sweden, it became clear that they relate to different discourses. We therefore turned to discourse analysis, and more specifically to neo-pragmatism (Cherryholmes, 1988), to further analyse the different ways that the new legalisation is enacted (Ball et al. 2012) This methodological approach has enabled analysis on how different uses of language are related to past experiences, expectations on the future and actions in the present. The relation within and between different discourses is not neutral since they occur in a society with power structures and framed by rules. Consequently, the societal conditions that constitute a discursive practice nominate those who can speak with authority and create conditions for what that can be said or not be said.
The analysis is done in three steps: 1) In the first step we focus on the language used in our data, by informants and in texts, on how to enact the CRC as national law, 2) secondly, we focus on bridges and tensions that appear within and between different discourses, 3) finally, we discuss possible consequences that follow from these bridges and tensions. In the process of analysis, earlier research and political discussions on children’s rights have been used abductively, with the purpose to relate our collected data to a broader context and thus tensions within and between different discourses on a societal level.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThe empirical result is presented as three discourses:
CRC as political agenda-setting where the new law has led to increased attention of the CRC at the school authorities, but without problematizing tensions within this political discourse. The CRC is primarily handled as a practical question, more of a given agenda that needs to be followed.
CRC as juridical implication of the law, for examples, has led to that decisions at school authorities are done based on the best interest of the child, and that there is a need to implement children’s right to be heard. In this juridical discourse the incorporation of the CRC is often welcomed as important and at the same time declared not to bring any legal novelties.
CRC as educational practices where the law has led to new writings in the curriculum and support materials. There are few examples of tension within the educational discourse, with expectations of discussions on what kind of support that are needed from national school authorities to schools on this matter.
At a societal level there are several tensions in the discourses, for examples, between different rights, on how to incorporation CRC as national law, and how to enact CRC in education. An important result is that these tensions become quite invisible when the CRC is enacted by civil servants. Rather, the tensions are more between the discourses than within them. Some informants describe that it is hard to understand each other between different professional roles. However, some collaboration between both the authorities and civil servants, trying to bridge different discourses, does take place. Altogether our results points at the importance on further studies on the complex relation between juridification and education, as possible conflicts that if not handled at the national level, eventually will erupt in local authorities and schools.
ReferencesBall, S. J., M. Maguire, and A. Braun (2012). How Schools Do Policy: Policy Enactments in Secondary Schools. Routledge.
Bergh, A., and E. Arneback (2019). “Juridification of Swedish Education – Changing Conditions for Teachers’ Professional Work.” In Policing Schools: School Violence and the Juridification of Youth. Young People and Learning Processes in School and Everyday Life, edited by J. Lunneblad, (pp. 53-70). Springer.
Blichner, L. C., and A. Molander (2008). “Mapping Juridification.” European Law Journal 14 (1): 36–54.
Bobbio, N. (1996). The Age of Rights. Polity Press.
Cherryholmes, C. (1988). Power and Criticism: Poststructural Investigations in Education. Teachers College Press.
Englund, T. (2010). Questioning the parental right to educational authority - arguments for a pluralist public education system. Education Inquiry, 1(3), 235-258.
Habermas, J. (1987). The Theory of Communicative Action. Vol. 2, Lifeworld and System: A Critique of Functionalist Reason. Beacon Press.
Honneth, A. (2015). Freedom’s Right - the Social Foundations of Democratic Life. Columbia University Press.
Karseth, B. and J. Møller (2020). Legal Regulation and Professional Discretion in Schools, Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 64:2, 195-210.
Lindgren, J, A. Hult, S. Carlbaum and C. Segerholm (2021). To See or Not to See: Juridification and Challenges for Teachers in Enacting Policies on Degrading Treatment in Sweden, Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 65:6, 1052-1064,
Murphy M. (2022). Taking education to account? The limits of law in institutional and professional practice, Journal of Education Policy, 37:1, 1.16.
Novak, J. (2019) Juridification of educational spheres: The case of Sweden, Educational Philosophy and Theory, 51:12, 1262-1272
Rosén,M, E. Arneback and A. Bergh (2021) A conceptual framework for understanding juridification of and in education, Journal of Education Policy, 36:6, 822-842.
Quennerstedt A. (2009) Balancing the Rights of the Child and the Rights of Parents in the Convention on the Rights of the Child, Journal of Human Rights, 8:2, 162-176.
United Nation. (1989). Convention of the right of the child.
SFS 2018:1197: Lag om Förenta nationernas konvention om barnets rättigheter [Law on United Nation Convention of the right of the child].
|
