Inge M. Bryderup
The Center for Research of Social Work Practice
Department of Educational Sociology
The Danish University of Education
July 2002
Educational thinking in social and special education
concerning children and youngsters in care
In Denmark, parliament lays down the overall guidelines and aims for the placement of children and
youngsters into care. It is up to the counties to provide the required number of places and approve
the institutions involved, while local authorities fund and manage actual placements.
Local authorities have three different placement options when a child or a youngster is to be placed
outside the home: foster care, residential care centres and private residential care centres. In
addition, children and youngsters with special needs can be placed into day care while living with
their families.
In the year 2000, 13,610 children and youngsters were placed outside the home, corresponding to
just over 1% of all children and youngsters. About half of these, mainly children, were placed in
private foster care. About a quarter were placed in state-run or semi-private residential care centres
catering for all age groups. About 15%, mainly young boys, were placed in private residential care
centres. The remaining children and youngsters were placed in boarding schools and continuation
schools. Over a thousand children and youngsters were placed into various forms of state-run or
private residential day care.
Since 1998, residential care centres, private residential care centres and day-care centres have been
authorised to establish schools for children and youngsters. About half the children and youngsters
of compulsory education age in care receive their education in the institutions1.
In 2000-2001, we (Bent Madsen, Anette Sejer Perthou and the undersigned) carried out a
quantitative survey. It was the first Danish survey to present a total overview of the conditions in
residential care centres, private residential care centres and day-care centres all over the country.
The survey was conducted on the basis of a questionnaire sent to Danish counties, local authorities,
residential care centres, private residential care centres and day-care centres. The survey addressed
a number of aspects concerning these three types of institutions, including conditions for children
and youngsters in care, the educational approach of the institutions as well as their organisational
affiliation and size, the organisation and planning of special educational provisions and supervision
and counselling in connection with special education (Bryderup et al. 2001).
1
The word institution includes residential care centres, private residential care centres and day-care centres.
In 2001/2002, we carried out a qualitative study based on the previously gathered insights. The
study took the form of interviews, including descriptions and analyses of the educational processes
and the organisation of special educational provisions and social intervention in selected
institutions, i.e. residential care centres, private residential care centres and day-care centres
(Bryderup et al. 2002).
Nine institutions (three residential care centres, three private residential care centres and three daycare centres) were selected for interviews. In each of the nine institutions interviews were
conducted with the head of the institution, the individual in charge of instruction, the students, the
teachers, the educators assigned to individual children, the parents of the students and external
partners from the public sector. 53 interviews with over 150 individuals were conducted in total.
The surveys were commissioned by the Ministry of Education following legislative changes. To
ensure that children and youngsters in care receive an education that fulfils the requirements stated
in the ‘Folkeskole Act’ (the act on primary and lower secondary education), Danish parliament
decided to amend the act in 1998 to facilitate the establishment of schools in residential care
centres, private residential care centres and day-care centres. The type of instruction offered in these
institutions is defined as special educational provision and as such it is subject to the rules of the
‘Folkeskole Act’.
At the same time, it was decided to evaluate the effects of the act by commissioning studies of its
implementation and administration as well as its influence on the children affected by it. This would
provide the grounds for an assessment of whether the new act had the desired effect and achieved
intended aims. This evaluation has been published in two reports (Bryderup et al. 2001, 2002).
At the same time, the questionnaires and interviews have provided data that can profitably be used
to reflect more broadly on educational thinking in relation to children and youngsters in care.
This paper will offer analyses of two central tendencies: compensatory thinking, an educational
approach addressing the ‘problems’ and troubled backgrounds of the children and youngsters in
question; and comprehensive thinking which provides an overview of the total efforts in this area –
social education and special educational provisions.
Compensatory educational thinking
The interviews explored children’s and youngsters’ special needs as well as the educational
approaches and aims of the institutions in relation to the intervention. In analysing the results of the
survey, two perspectives can be adopted in order to shed light on the relation between needs and
intervention.
One perspective addresses the ways in which views of children and youngsters’ needs primarily
focus on their problems and difficulties and/or their resources and potentials as well as
consequences resulting from this view.
The ideas expressed in current legislation relate to individuals whose needs require special
provisions. Children and youngsters in care are viewed as individuals with needs that must be met
in order for them to function effectively in social and educational contexts. Thus the special
2
provisions are intended to compensate for troubled backgrounds and inadequate learning conditions
in such a way as to afford these children and youngsters the same opportunities for personal
development and growth as their peers.
Special needs are thus viewed as various forms of “deficiency” that must be compensated by means
of special provisions. School legislation and social legislation specify the requirements for these
special provisions, namely that they must be based on individual assessment and planning. This
bears witness to a conception of the individual as a bearer of needs or characteristics that are more
or less static.
The same view pervades the literature on this issue. Kari Killen, for instance, writes that, “[…]
effective help requires an overall evaluation and a psychosocial examination and diagnosis of the
child and family’s situation. A merely descriptive diagnosis cannot form the basis of understanding
or action, but would merely label the phenomenon. What we need, instead, is to understand a
process – what happens and has happened in the family” (Killen 1993).
Again, focus is on the child as bearer of problems in the form of psychic defects. This is the result
of a diagnostic description of the problem the causes of which can be traced back to the family. But
what are the consequences of this view and what difference does it make to think in terms of
potentials and resources?
Personal development is characterised by increased choice and possibilities for action determined
by individuals’ participation in specific social and cultural contexts. Development cannot be
reduced to a question of upbringing or personal traits. Instead, development must be related to
concepts such as competencies and potentials, thus facilitating the identification of two processes
linked with development.2 If a planned development process solely rests on children and
youngster’s (usually troubled) background, learning is not likely to take place. If, on the other hand,
the development process takes its point of departure in children and youngster’s potentials, they will
develop new competencies as a result of social interaction that makes room for the actual
possibilities contained in their potential. This potential can be realised through communication and
cooperation. Thus potential is a socially determined developmental phenomenon that can only be
recognized and described through nurturing and communicative processes (Rabøl Hansen et al.
1998). Yet the will to find this potential must already lie at the heart of a view of the target group’s
situation, background and reactions and as such at the heart of the educational approach.
If children and youngsters are described only in terms of diagnostic categories, and if their special
needs are defined as merely clinical and viewed in socially isolated contexts, the real view of the
child’s potentials may be obscured. As a result of such conceptions the potentials and resources of
2
The interviews distinguish between three types of competence that are developed through social interaction:
Personal competence essentially equals self-esteem, self-perception and confidence in one’s own possibilities,
including the possibility for renewal and the ability to learn, be creative, reflective and constructive.
Social competence is the ability to function in social situations, i.e. function socially in a given culture with its specific
characteristics, involve oneself in situations and with other people in the process of interaction. Linguistic and
communicative abilities are part of this form of “social awareness”.
Professional competence covers basic skills, i.e. practical know-how and insight: the ability to acquire knowledge and
process, interpret and relate to knowledge (Bryderup et al. 2002).
3
these children and youngsters will be neglected in the process of competence development intended
to increase their current and future options and possibilities for action.
Data gathered from the interviews illustrates that the institutions’ view of the target group focuses
on the personal, social and learning difficulties of the children and youngsters in their care. In fact,
focus is usually placed on individual and personal problems that are often described in psychiatric
terms. Furthermore, all institutions focus on the children and youngsters’ lack of social skills, which
are viewed as the result of their personal and emotional problems or ascribed directly to their
troubled background. Few institutions focus on learning difficulties and, when they do, these are
ascribed to conditions that transcend the individual, i.e. poor schooling, change of school and the
general lack of inclusiveness in primary and lower secondary education. All institutions ascribe the
difficulties these children and youngsters experience to their troubled backgrounds to which various
labels are attached: concepts such as “neglect” and “early trauma” are common. However, in
educational reflection and the formulation of aims, focus tends to be on individual problems rather
than on troubled backgrounds.
Thus we have established that there is a widespread tendency to focus on the problems and
deficiencies of individuals, who as result of these special needs require special provisions.
The other perspective concerns the correlation between conception of the target group, educational
approach and aim.
An understanding of children and youngsters’ special needs usually corresponds to the descriptions
of the target group in relation to which individual institutions define their task. Concrete
descriptions of this task are often defined in terms of the needs of the target group as well as in
terms of the actual aim of the intervention – or in terms of both. The task is defined as educational
and includes method, content and setting.
This relation can be illustrated as follows:
EDUCATIONAL APPROACH
– method, content, setting
TARGET GROUP
AIM
CHILDREN AND YOUNGSTERS’
PERSONAL AND COGNITIVE DEVELOPMENT
The figure above illustrates a process that links the conception of the target group and the aim in the
educational approach which in turn evolves simultaneously and in accordance with the personal and
4
cognitive development of children and youngsters. Thus the educational approach is conceived as
that which synthesises an understanding of the target group’s needs with the aim of the intervention.
As a result, past and future perspectives form part of the current educational intervention.
Educational thinking and practice can emphasise an understanding of the target group’s needs and
thus view education as a compensatory device for deficiencies. This is the result of a focus on the
past, where shortcomings in children and youngsters’ backgrounds become the subject of education.
Here, focus may be placed on individual deficiencies and troubled backgrounds. One example of a
compensatory educational approach might be to afford the child in question the opportunity of
experiencing success to compensate for low self-esteem. An example of compensatory educational
thinking targeted at remedying a child’s previous life experience might be to describe the child’s
background in terms of adult neglect. The educational solution would then be defined as the need
for stable adult relationships.
Such approaches may be termed compensatory as they focus on individual deficiencies and/or
troubled backgrounds in their view of the target group.
If focus is placed on the aim of the educational intervention, the result will be a prospective
orientation that mainly relates to requirements for children’s personal and cognitive development.3
An example of this might be the focus in special educational provisions on a return to primary and
lower secondary education as the key to academic learning. A broader perspective on this issue
might focus on empowering children and youngsters to achieve autonomy and/or enjoy a high
quality of life as adults.
The educational answer to such aims will often be normative4, based on a preconceived notion of
what might constitute a high quality of life for these children and youngsters. Is it the ability to
enjoy a trip to the cinema or learn to prepare a healthy meal? Is it earning vast amounts of money
and having wild parties every weekend? Or is it starting a nuclear family, where the child or
youngster first needs to acquire the mannerisms of ‘normal’ family life in Denmark today?
3
In the interviews, the following concepts relating to the correlation between types of learning and competence
development were applied:
Upbringing may be defined as influence with the intention to educate, from parents, educators, teachers, etc., who shape
children’s lives and to whom they must relate in social contexts. Upbringing is a part of both personal and cognitive
development that mainly addresses the development of personal and social competence.
Instruction is a special form of social relation with the explicit aim of facilitating direct knowledge acquisition.
Instructional learning mainly contributes to the development of professional competence. However, it has secondary
consequences in the form of the development of personal and social competence.
As mentioned above, instruction is not the only source of learning, and indirect learning will often occur in various
forms of social contexts. This type of learning will facilitate the development of professional, personal and social
competence.
Unintentional learning is by definition difficult to observe and categorise. Yet this type of learning is crucial for the
development of personal and social competence as well as for the means of developing professional competence. A lack
of unintentional learning will often be expressed negatively as a need for education and instruction (Bryderup et al.
2002).
4
Normative here means that norms and values form part of the formulation of the aim of the educational intervention.
This may occur either at institutional level, where a certain educational approach is chosen, or it may occur at individual
staff level, where educators more or less consciously impose their own norms and values on the children or youngsters.
The concept of relational education is fundamentally based on individual educators’ normative conceptions (Bryderup
1999a and b).
5
The formulation of these aims may be more or less concrete, and they may either form part of an
understanding of the special needs of children and youngsters or they may be characterised by a
lack of belief in the possibility of their attainment. For instance, learning to enjoy a trip to the
cinema and preparing a healthy meal can be difficult if you are unable to read subtitles and recipes.
In this case, learning to read must be part of the educational intervention. In other words, education
synthesises an understanding of the target group with the aims of the intervention.
Compensatory educational thinking may result in a state of affairs where the aim of the intervention
itself becomes compensatory, i.e. where only present and past are taken into consideration. One
example might be a view of children and youngsters as having had an upbringing characterized by
adult neglect. The educational solution to this problem would be the provision of stable adult
relationships. The content of the educational approach can become an aim in itself – namely for
children and youngsters to feel safe and learn to trust adults. Neglecting to formulate aims that are
prospective in orientation may obstruct a process where the current developmental needs of children
and youngster can find concrete expression in relation to their future options.
The educational intervention may thus be clarified by: formulating future goals in collaboration
with children and youngsters, and formulating the educational approach in such a way as to
connect past and future.
Different methods or schools of thought are based on implicit views of the target group. Some
examples are outlined below:
In the literature on the subject, environmental therapy is described as a form of treatment that
encompasses all aspects of children and youngsters’ life in the institution, since both planned and
informal situations form part of treatment. This form of treatment proposes a number of established
methods, all of which build on an implicit instrumental rationality (Kvaran 1996). This type of
educational approach focuses on the personality/psychology/emotional life of the target group, all
of which are traced back to certain aspects of their upbringing.
The same kind of instrumental rationality to a large extent characterises structured education. It
emanates from the notion that the inner life of a child who has been damaged early in life is
characterised by psychic chaos and fundamental psychological damage to such a degree as to make
it dependent on external control in the form of clear rules, structures and adult presence (Schwartz
2000). This educational school of thought focuses both on the background of the target group and
their personality/psychology/emotional life, but in its educational practice, it focuses on aspects
relating to behaviour, that is to say rules, structures and adult control.
Relational education focuses on the relationship between child and educator. Here, the educational
approach is founded on an individual and differentiated view of individual children and youngsters’
background and difficulties and seeks to compensate for these by means of the relationship
(Bryderup 1999a). Such an approach is explicitly based on both the background of the target group
and their personality/psychology/emotional life, and the educational “solution” is the establishment
of relationships with educational professionals.
The special needs of the target group can thus be viewed in various ways and on different levels.
This has a bearing on both the educational “solutions” and asserted aims – perhaps even in opposite
6
sequence, where the choice of educational approach fundamentally affects the view of the special
needs of the target group.
In the questionnaires, institutions were asked to describe their target group in open categories. As
mentioned above, these descriptions build on certain notions of the special needs of children and
youngsters. They are often related to their troubled backgrounds (neglect) and are described as
problems that manifest themselves in social relations (behavioural problems), problems related to
personality (psychological disorders) or problems occurring in relation to instruction (learning
difficulties).
The questionnaires show that the majority of institutions think of their target group as children and
youngsters suffering from neglect or early trauma. This is a significant common feature of the three
types of institutions. More elaborate descriptions of neglect characteristically stress the fact that the
children and youngsters in question also suffer from social, psychological and emotional problems.
Attachment problems and relational difficulties often receive mention, and the main causes cited are
various forms of physical and psychological assault, such as incest.
The questionnaires show that residential care centres have the largest share of children and
youngsters with psychological disorders. This category is made up of children and youngsters
described as suffering from severe and persistent personality disorders, and a psychiatric diagnosis
has often been made. The children and youngsters in question are often described as
psychologically vulnerable, and many have been in contact with the psychiatric system. Residential
care centres thus differ from the two other kinds of institutions in that the children and youngsters in
their care are considered to suffer from psychological disorders.
The defining characteristic of the target group of private residential care centres is that a large part
of the group suffers from/exhibits behavioural problems. Institutions stress children and youngsters’
behaviour as the main problem. They are often described as maladjusted, acting out and
behaviourally challenged, and as exhibiting violent and criminal behaviour and drug addiction.
Target group descriptions by the private residential centres themselves focus less on psychological
and emotional problems and instead stress social problems.
Day-care centres are characterised by having the largest group of children and youngsters with
learning difficulties. Problems relating to instruction are considered the defining characteristic of
the target group. This is hardly surprising as many day-care centres are established as school
projects.
The differences in the target groups of the various institutions reflect the differences in the
educational interventions for children and youngsters. Yet the questionnaires show that the
predominant educational method in residential care centres with internal teaching provisions is
environmental therapy. The second most commonly used educational method is structured
education, which indicates that the special needs are addressed through structured settings,
consistent rules and adult presence.
The questionnaires show that almost half of the private residential care centres describe their
educational approach as structured. This is no doubt related to the relatively large group of children
and youngsters with behavioural problems, where structured education is viewed as the answer to
the children’s lack of social competence.
7
Day-care centres with internal teaching provisions mainly rely on relational education in
conjunction with structured education.
While questionnaires do not tell us anything about causes and contexts, interviews provide insights
into the ways in which the definition of the target group’s special needs is closely related to the
choice of educational approach and the asserted aim of the intervention.
The interviews show that compensatory thinking dominates in these institutions. The educational
approach is thought of as the solution to children and youngster’s problems and/or troubled
backgrounds. Institutional thinking on educational approaches thus tends to focus on children and
youngster’s backgrounds and difficulties - that is, on the past - rather than on the competencies they
need to develop to function successfully in the future.
The interviews also show that the institutions describe the aim of the intervention mainly on an
individual level, and the aim focuses on the development of personal and social skills. Attempts at
integration are often described in general and rather abstract terms such as “normal and ordinary”,
“citizenship” or “the ability to lead an autonomous existence”. A further characteristic is that the
aims are rarely integrated with the educational approach and the view of the target group. The
children’s past tends to be accorded prime importance in conceptions of the educational task at the
expense of a prospective orientation.
Integration endeavours to create conditions conducive to the development of marginalized groups
by integrating them into normal contexts of life. Integration has been associated with normalizing
the living conditions of marginalized groups and giving them access to the resources characterising
ordinary life. It is the task of the institutions to provide normal conditions for learning and
development – in spite of individual difficulties. Successful integration means that the individual is
enabled to lead an ordinary life.
However, this conception is based on a predominantly individualistic view of development and a
lack of attention to normal contexts of life. The focus has been placed on individuals rather than
integrating contexts. As a result, the concept of integration draws exclusively on an already
established segregation (Wadel 1991). The concept of inclusion may shed light on previous
conceptions of integration (Bryderup 2000, Tetler 2000b). This concept entails a shift of focus from
the need for individual integration or normalization to a demand for increased inclusiveness in
institutions, thus affording a new frame of reference for defining special needs in relation to the
institution as space for personal and cognitive development.
Such a shift in perspective gives rise to a relational view of children and youngsters’ difficulties or
special needs. The interplay between children and youngsters’ idiosyncrasies and the learning
environment provided in the institution is decisive for the importance that is attached to their
difficulties in the educational process. It also facilitates collective, nurturing and communicative
processes that can help shift focus onto the children’s resources and potentials with the aim of
increasing their current and future possibilities for development and action through competence
development.
8
Comprehensive thinking in special education
The interviews illustrate that special education includes a group of students who are considered of
normal intelligence, but who due to social and psychological difficulties exhibit behaviour that
results in an inability to function socially in a mainstream class or take part in mainstream teaching.
Institutions themselves report that a number of provisions for these students are initiated and tested;
still, several students are either expelled or more or less abandoned by mainstream primary and
lower secondary educational institutions. Thus we are here dealing with a group of weak students
for whom the special educational provisions of these institutions constitute the only real alternative.
The institutions view the target group for special educational provisions as children and youngsters
with special needs and seek to cater for these needs by means of teaching adjusted to individual
requirements. These special needs cannot be defined solely in terms of students’ lack of academic
proficiency for their age but also in terms of their social and personal problems. This lends a strong
orientation towards the ‘here-and-now’ and an explicit compensatory aim to instruction. It is a
conspicuous tendency that special educational provisions are primarily oriented towards students’
personal difficulties and social behaviour, and as a result the academic perspective is obscured or
weakened. Yet this approach succeeds in keeping the students in school and motivates school
attendance: the students can function in the special educational setting offered by these institutions.
However, this compensatory approach is retrospective in its orientation towards the students’
troubled past. This has a number of consequences for the aims formulated in the legislation seeking
to prepare the students for an autonomous existence in the educational system and the labour
market. This prospective orientation also forms part of the institutions’ own educational aims, but it
is of a principle rather than a real nature. These perspectives are obviously present at the same time
as teaching has to be adapted to real conditions. These conditions impose themselves on the
formulated aims. The institutions predict that very few students will be able to return to mainstream
educational provisions, and several institutions consider this perspective to be unrealistic for all of
their students.
The same views apply in relation to the aim of passing school-leaving examinations. Some students
may well succeed, but for the majority this aim is unrealistic. As a result, aims are adapted to
realistic qualifications, often meaning academic attainment at a functional level, i.e. basic skills and
elementary literacy and numeracy that enables students to function in everyday life. This
corresponds to the academic level at 5th to 6th grade and is described as the highest possible level
of attainment.
Teaching is planned individually in all institutions and results in many forms of differentiated
teaching. This individualised approach to teaching is based on students’ individual needs –
academic, social and personal. This results in increased flexibility and a form of teaching that can
be adjusted to the needs of individual students. Structure and predictability are prevalent principles
and together with teacher control they constitute the prerequisites for effective instruction. At the
same time, individually oriented instruction furthers individual relationships between teachers and
students, and this is the dominant relation, ordinary classroom teaching being the exception. Thus
individual contact is the distinctive relation in special education, and this may weaken the
significance of students’ mutual relations and the possibilities inherent in the classroom as a
collective learning environment. This pronounced individualization of the teaching relation
weakens the development of social skills which are the preconditions for future integration. This
circumstance is amplified by the fact that teachers and educators ascribe their role an
9
identificational function, where the teacher-student relation becomes the normative paradigm of
community and communication at the same time as the social skills that could be developed in the
students’ mutual relations are correspondingly weakened.
Two distinct conceptions of instruction can be observed, and these are intimately related to
individualised instruction.
This narrowly defined concept of instruction is based on a view of teaching as the training of basic
skills, methods and forms of knowledge aimed at alleviating students’ lack of academic knowledge
and skills. It becomes a question of making up for a lack of skills and acquiring elementary rules of
behaviour in the learning situation. This form of instruction is adapted to the institutions’ view of
realistic expectations.
A broadly defined concept of instruction is based on a view where social and personal goals rank as
highly as or higher than academic achievement. Here, teaching includes a significant or dominant
element of social activities with the aim of producing conditions conducive to teaching. The social
element of instruction is termed, for instance, education, treatment and social education.
Both the narrow and the broad conception of instruction are directed towards the students’ special
needs in the concrete teaching situation. And both have consequences for students’ personal and
cognitive development. Teaching methods are often based on the training and acquisition of
techniques that may be difficult for students to apply in other social contexts. Furthermore, taking
account of students’ social and personal problems in the teaching situation may obscure academic
aims.
The conceptions of teaching reflect the institutions’ intention of unifying special and social
education. This unification is considered particularly conducive to the needs of the target group.
The formulated aims reflect two differing conceptions of unification. In one view, unification is the
result of a view in which instruction and social education share an aim and further social, academic
and personal development. This is often the case in institutions that do not distinguish between the
two types of intervention. In the other view, the unified approach expresses a common
understanding of the task at hand, where the two types of intervention each contribute to students’
development in their own way. This results in a complementary relation between the two types of
intervention.
There is also a will towards synthesis on the level of method. However, here matters are more
diffuse as method covers rules, structures as well as attitudes towards roles. The methodical level is
often stressed, where converging views of students’ social behaviour are considered particularly
significant.
As far as content is concerned, the unified approach expresses the aim of a common focal point on
problems in relation to individual students. This means that students’ personal problems and
difficulties form the content of instruction and social education.
As educational intervention, social education contributes to students’ social and personal
development through instruction, and this is especially true of residential care centres. Social
education forms a part of instruction in all institutions, and in some institutions social education is
10
considered identical with treatment. Social education in individual institutions tends to borrow
terms from teaching, psychology and psychiatry. These terms are invested with various meanings.
As a result, the relation between aim and method becomes ambiguous and the individual relation
risks becoming an aim in itself.
If the two types of intervention are combined with the intention of making teaching subjects into
therapeutic tools or if social intervention and instruction are confused student’s personal and
cognitive development may be compromised. This confusion would result in a state of affairs where
students’ opportunities for testing themselves and confronting various demands and challenges are
reduced. An organisation of the different types of intervention based on their own aims, methods
and content would provide students with increased opportunities for development and action. This
would result in, among other things, the students acquiring skills that enable them to function in a
variety of social contexts. As a result, children and youngsters would become acquainted with a
variety of values and norms at the same time as they would learn to handle contradictions.
The most fruitful conditions for personal and cognitive development are found in institutions where
the combination of the two types of intervention on the one hand provide stable conditions in
students’ everyday lives while at the same time maintaining a distinction that makes room for the
different aspects of students’ development.
The overall aim of primary and lower secondary education is to prepare students for active
citizenship. The realisation of this aim requires a normalization of the conditions for personal and
cognitive development. Instruction is often a consequence of students being placed into care, and
thus instruction and care form part of a synthetic whole. This conceptual synthesis entails that
students’ spare time and institutionalised existence are subject to an overall social educational aim,
where, in principle, students would be susceptible to modification and transformation 24 hours a
day. These structural conditions may have unintended effects that may work against the institutions’
asserted aim of encouraging children and youngsters’ independence and their ability to make
decisions. The interviews reveal that the acquisition of particular institutions’ set of rules of
behaviour tends to become an aim in itself and this may in fact pose an obstacle to integration.
Although some institutions try to preserve what they call a space for independence in students’
everyday lives, it is far from certain that the social and personal skills acquired in an institutional
setting can be easily transferred onto social contexts outside the institution. This is particularly true
of social skills which are developed through association with peers.
Possibilities for students’ future integration must be viewed in relation to their placement into care
and subsequent residence in institutions. The interviews illustrate that placement often precedes
mainstream educational provisions and that social and personal development are often assigned
greater importance than academic progress. This might be a consequence of institutions’ assertion
that this group of students lacks the necessary social skills to function in a mainstream school
setting with their peers. In spite of the explicit social aim of special education and as a result of
institutionalisation, the transition to mainstream school is achieved in the fewest cases. Thus we
may ask whether instruction in institutional care can be normalised, and if so, how?
Educational research has addressed the problematic nature of comprehensive thinking and its
consequences for the cognitive and personal development of children and youngsters. While public
authorities and institutions assert that the unified conceptual approach offers positive opportunities
11
for developing personal and social skills, research in the field has revealed a number of negative
consequences for instruction – or rather, for the development of academic skills.
Ziehe & Stubenrauch (1983) have made a substantial contribution to a broader understanding of the
concept of learning, where learning is viewed as a process that is deeply embedded in social
modernisation processes. Growing up in modern society involves subjective exploratory processes
characterised by diversity and ambivalence. These conditions have a bearing on all learning
processes. According to Ziehe & Stubenrauch, learning is an exploratory process in which
opportunities for action and epistemic alternatives are explored and various lifestyles are tested.
Being subject to the conditions of modernity, every new generation relates to social reality by
means of collective exploratory processes. This exploratory process is at the core of Ziehe &
Stubenrauch’s concept of “unconventional learning processes.” These learning processes are
unconventional in the sense that they encompass a whole generation’s processing of modern
conditions of life and occur in all contexts of life. Furthermore, they are unconventional in the sense
that they draw on modernity’s ambivalent nature: the clash with established tradition and
predetermined relations on the one hand, and, on the other, a reluctance to forge new traditions,
identities and relations that perpetuate dependency (Ziehe & Stubenrauch 1983). This collective
orientation creates new learning conditions in school and Ziehe offers a critique of current forms of
learning in school.
To create meaning and subjective experiential opportunities, Ziehe describes how schools to a great
extent have tried to draw on everyday life and students’ everyday experiences in various teaching
contexts. According to Ziehe, these efforts to reduce teaching to the level of everyday experience
are counterproductive. School can only become a significant space for the construction of new
identities and forms of living if instruction is perceived as different or strange compared to students’
everyday experiences. The difference between instruction and everyday life must be maintained; in
order to create constructive learning conditions, school must administer a suitable dose of
strangeness (Ziehe 1998).
According to Ziehe, the problem of the modern school is that it has lost the special intensity
associated with rituals, symbols and values. Everyday life has usurped the place of instruction as a
privileged space for development and learning. In this context, the privilege consists in this nonobvious quality which is opposed to the commonplaces of everyday life. The syllabus must not be a
copy of students’ everyday experiences but offer “symbolic elements of another cognitively
constructed world in the students’ minds” (Ziehe 1998).
Ziehe sees an analogous obliteration of differences in the social structures of instruction. He
outlines a contemporary analysis of the modern school that aims to abolish the differences between
the school’s social space and roles. When school seeks to involve students in a meaningful relation,
the significance of the roles of teacher and student as well as the social space of the school itself is
undermined. Form and content are confused, and as a result irrelevant elements encroach on
particular situations. This trivialization of the school’s social structures is a result of the unified
contemporary view of students’ educational situation in school. Modern schools work with whole
human beings and attempt to incorporate all aspects of life, and this, according to Ziehe, deprives
students of the possibility of drawing on differences in various contexts as well as differences in
roles and meanings. Ziehe considers these differences to be crucial for students’ construction of an
identity. At the same time, he insists on students’ right to withdraw from teachers’ and educators’
12
attention. He speaks of the right to assessment-free zones in everyday life at school. “It is precisely
not the whole human being that can be shaped. Students have democratic rights with regard to
having a say, they have also the civil right to withdraw“ (Ziehe 1998, p. 87).
Based on this contemporary analysis of the inner life of the school, Ziehe argues that school must be
interpreted as a public space. That is to say that school should not be a private space for intimacy
involving whole human beings, nor should it be a bureaucratic system that objectifies students. A
public space must be created in the space between students’ subjective world and claims to intimacy
and the administrative system: an educational space where special rules, rituals and symbols apply
that can contribute to students’ production of meaning. School must find a balance between
objectification and psychologisation through the establishment of a special space that is different
from other everyday spaces. This will enable schools to nurture collective as well as individual
learning processes through instruction (Ziehe 1991).
Ziehe proposes a view of education where the special potential inherent in instruction can only
come to fruition through the adherence to the rules, content and symbols peculiar to it. Thus
instruction requires an independent space, free of psychologising or bureaucratic relations.
Instruction requires its own distinctive content to distinguish it from everyday trivialities since its
potential rests precisely on the possibility of confronting students with strangeness in relation to
their own lives. Therefore a comprehensive approach that insists on subjecting the whole person to
educational intervention is counterproductive to instruction.
This view maintains that instruction is characterised by particular social forms, content and roles
that constitute the prerequisites for developing academic skills. These skills are regarded as
indispensable to the organization of collective as well as individual learning processes. The teacher
is responsible for instruction, while students are active subjects who organise their own learning
processes based on instruction.
Ziehe & Stubenrauch argue that the confusion of different forms of intervention robs instruction of
its peculiar scope for competence development. Ziehe & Stubenrauch insist that rigorous
professionalism and formalised social relations are prerequisites for realizing the potentials of
instruction in modern life.
Herman Giesecke (1998) has another view of comprehensive thinking. His analysis of the problem
is based on the modern conditions for socialization that are determined by a number of societal
socialization factors. He asserts that knowledge and rules of behaviour in various social contexts are
not transferable.
According to Giesecke, all children and youngsters in the Western world grow up in a pluralistic
society. The socialisation of children and youngsters does not exclusively occur in the home but
also in other institutional contexts such as day-care institutions and school, as well as through the
influence of mass media, consumer society and peers. According to Giesecke, the world is divided
into distinct arenas, each with distinctive values. What children need to learn in their present and
future lives cannot be learned in one place. The various spheres of socialization the child is part of
have, according to Giesecke, distinct aims and quality criteria; knowledge and rules of behaviour
can simply not be transferred from one sphere to another. The pluralistic principles of socialization
form the basis of individuation – without this pluralism, individuation would lack social scope and
space for action, and even meaning, in Giesecke’s formulation. Furthermore, he stresses that the
13
respective spheres of socialization educate first and foremost for their own sake. At home, children
are raised to become family members, and at school they are raised to become students. According
to Giesecke, there is no longer a unified educational practice that addresses the whole person.
Thus, for Giesecke, there is no intrinsic connection between the values and norms that are mediated
and acquired in the various spheres of socialization. As a result of these pluralistic conditions of
socialization the responsibility for developing values and norms becomes an individual project,
where it is up to the individual to synthesise the messages communicated in the various spheres of
socialization. According to Giesecke, the only form of synthesis possible is the one constructed by
the individual on the basis of participation in the various spheres of socialization.
The question is thus whether we can join Giesecke in the claim that the institution is just one sphere
of socialization constituting a coherent arena with unambiguous norms and values. Alternatively,
we might view the institution as a social system made up of several parallel spheres, i.e. the sphere
of instruction, the sphere of the peer group and leisure, the sphere of contact and activities with
social educators, etc. This issue is crucial for an understanding of children and youngsters’
possibilities for acquiring modern competence.
Following Giesecke, if the institution is viewed as a coherent sphere, it will socialize for its own
sake. This means that children and youngsters will acquire skills peculiar to institutional life that
will not be of use later in life. If, on the other hand, the educational practice of the institution is
viewed as made up of several spheres of socialization, each representing independent arenas,
various learning conditions will apply thus enabling students to autonomously engage with
conflicting norms and values. Children and youngsters would be equipped to handle conflicting
norms and values and develop the skills to shift between them, thus more accurately reflecting the
conditions of modern life outside the institution.
Thus both Ziehe & Stubenrauch and Giesecke offer critical reflections on comprehensive thinking
and advocate the separation of different types of intervention to afford improved possibilities for
integration.
Based on the above, we propose an approach to educational thinking in collective environments for
personal and cognitive development that to a greater extent addresses children and youngsters’ need
for competence development that is in tune with the demands of modern society.
14
Litteratur
Amtsrådsforeningen (1999, oktober). Nøgletal på børne- og ungeområdet.
Amtsrådsforeningen (2001). Vidtgående specialundervisning i folkeskolen 1985-1999. Amtsrådsforeningens statistikdatabase.
Amtsrådsforeningen (2001, februar). Udviklingstendenser i den vidtgående specialundervisning
2000-2002.
Andersen, F. (1998). Pædagogarbejde er relationsarbejde! Pædagogidentitet & Profession. VERA, 2.
Andersen, L. (1999). Facader og Facetter. Modernisering og læreprocesser i socialpædagogik og
forvaltning. Roskilde Universitets Forlag.
Bauer, M. & Borg, K. (1976). Den skjulte læreplan. Unge Pædagoger.
Boolsen, M. W., Mehlbye J. & Sparre, L. (1986). Børns opvækst uden for hjemmet. En undersøgelse af døgnanbringelser i Københavns kommune. København: AKF og Københavns kommunes
social- og sundhedsforvaltning.
Bouchet, D. (1999). Det knuste spejl. Livskræfter – et metodeudviklingsprojekt i forhold til de
socialt og personligt mest udsatte større børn og unge. “Odense Rapporten”. Odense Kommune/Odense Universitet.
Breumlund, A. & Hansen, I. B. (1998). Undervisning af sindslidende. Undervisningens særlige
væsen. København: Danmarks Pædagogiske Institut.
Breumlund, A. & Hansen, I. B. (2001a). Læring gennem livsforløb belyst ved voksne sindslidendes
livshistorier. Aalborg: Videnscenter for Læreprocesser, Aalborg Universitet.VCL-serien; 22.
Undervisning og sindslidende; 3.del.
Breumlund, A. & Hansen, I. B. (2001b). Sindslidendes udvikling gennem læring og erindring.
Aarhus: Klim.
Bryderup, I. M. (1985). Tiden æder sine egne børn... Nordisk Forum; 45.
Bryderup, I. M., Carlsen M. & Christiansen J. (1988). Vold mod pædagoger. Pædagogik og
arbejdsmiljø på døgninstitutioner for børn og unge. København: Socialpædagogisk Højskole.
(Socialpædagogiske Tekster; 4)
Bryderup, I. M. (1990). Udbrændthed og varme. I: I.M. Bryderup & S. Langager
15
(Red.). Følelseseksperter? – om etik og engagement i socialpædagogisk arbejde. København:
Socialpædagogisk Højskole. (Socialpædagogiske Tekster; 6)
Bryderup, I. M. et al.(1991). Læreprocesser: socialpædagogisk arbejde med unge på Hjulmagerstien. Hørsholm: Pædagogisk Psykologisk Forlag.
Bryderup, I. M. (1994). Ord som vurderer: Kursus- og selvevalueringsforløb for 8 SIND-projekter
under 15-M. København: Socialministeriet og Socialt Udviklingscenter.
Bryderup, I. M. et al. (1998). Pædagogisk faglighed i daginstitutioner. København: Danmarks
Pædagogiske Institut.
Bryderup, I. M. (1999a). Drop afmagten – socialpædagogisk arbejde: De Unges Hus, Roskilde Amt.
København: Danmarks Pædagogiske Institut.
Bryderup, I. M. (1999b). Forskning i socialpædagogisk arbejde med unge. Tidsskrift for Socialpædagogik; 3.
Bryderup, I. M. (2000). Socialpædagogikken – et forskningstyndt området. I: Danmarks Pædagogiske Institut 2000. København: Danmarks Pædagogiske Institut.
Bryderup, I. M., Madsen, B. & Perthou, A. S. (2001). Specialundervisning på anbringelsessteder og
i dagbehandlingstilbud. København: Danmarks Pædagogiske Universitet.
Bryderup, I. M., Madsen, B. & Perthou, A. S. (2002). Specialundervisning på anbringelsessteder og
i dagbehandlingstilbud - en undersøgelse af pædagogiske processer og samarbejdsformer. København: Danmarks Pædagogiske Universitet.
Cecchin, D. (Red.). (2000). Børns kompetencer: Oplæg til debat. København: BUPL. Rapport.
Christensen, E. (1998). Anbringelser af børn. En kvalitativ analyse af processen. København:
Socialforskningsinstituttet; (98), 2.
Christoffersen, M. N. (1993). Anbragte børns livsforløb. København: Socialforskningsinstituttet.
Clausen, H. & Kirkebæk, B. (1996). Hvad er specialpædagogik? Specialpædagogik; 6.
Clausen, H. & Kirkebæk, B. (1996). Specialpædagogikkens grundlag – om
definitionsmagt i specialpædagogikken. Kognition & Pædagogik; 21.
Dale, E. L. (1980). Hva er oppdragelse?: en studie i sosialpedagogikk. Oslo: Gyldendal.
16
Dale, E. L. (1991). Pædagogisk profesjonalitet: Om pædagogikkens identitet og anvendelse.
København: Gyldendal.
Danmarks Statistik (1999). Sociale forhold, sundhed og retsvæsen. København: Danmarks Statistik;
20.
Den Sociale Ankestyrelse (2000). Sociale Danmarkskort 2000. København: Den Sociale Ankestyrelse.
Direktoratet for børne- og ungdomsforsorg (1967). Vejledning vedr. det opdragende arbejde i
anerkendte børne- og ungdomshjem. Vejledning af 3.11.1967. København: Direktoratet for børneog ungdomsforsorg.
Egelund, M. (1997). En forskel, der gør en forskel. København: Hans Reitzels Forlag.
Egelund, N. & Hansen, K. F. (1997). Urolige børn i folkeskolens almindelige klasser. København:
Undervisningsministeriet.
Egelund, T. (1997). Beskyttelse af barndommen. Socialforvaltningers risikovurdering og indgreb.
København: Hans Reitzels Forlag.
Ertmann, B. (1994). Tvangsfjernelser. København: Kroghs Forlag A/S.
Giesecke, H. (1981). Indføring i pædagogik. København: Nyt Nordisk Forlag.
Giesecke, H. (1985). Das Ende der Erziehung. Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta.
Giesecke, H. (1998). Socialpædagogik og skolen. Tidsskrift for Socialpædagogik; 1.
Goffman, E. (1967). Anstalt og menneske. København: Jørgen Paludans Forlag.
Hansen, F. K. (2000) . Kortlægning af anbringelsessager: børn og unge i kommuner i Vestsjællands
Amt. København: CASA.
Hansen, K. G. (1998). Er læring mere end situeret praksis? Dansk Pædagogisk Tidsskrift, 2.
Hansen, M. & Pagaard, P. E. (Red.). (1999). Specialundervisningshåndbogen.
København: Gyldendal uddannelse.
Hansen, V. R., Andersen, M. W. & Robenhagen, O. (1998). Læreprocesser, potentialer og undervisningsdifferentiering. København: Danmarks Pædagogiske Institut.
Hegland, T. J. (1983). Arbejds- og levemiljøer med socialpædagogisk sigte. Ålborg: Alfuff.
17
Hermansen, M. (1996). Læringens univers. Aarhus: Klim.
Hestbæk, A-D. (1997). Når børn og unge anbringes: en undersøgelse af kommunernes praksis i
anbringelsessager. København: Socialforskningsinstituttet, (97); 6.
Hestbæk, A-D. (1998). Tvangsanbringelser i Norden. En komparativ beskrivelse af de nordiske
landes lovgivning. København: Socialforskningsinstituttet, (98);15.
Holst, J. (1978). Normalitet. København: Christian Ejlers’ Forlag.
Holst, J. (1985). Nye synspunkter på socialpædagogikken og konsekvenser for den socialpædagogiske uddannelse. SLF-nyt.
Holst, J. (1998). Normalitetsbegrebet i dag. Dansk Pædagogisk Tidsskrift; 6.
Holst, J. & Madsen, B. (1998). Socialpædagogik og det senmoderne. Tidsskrift for Socialpædagogik; 2.
Holst, J., Langager, S. & Tetler, S. (Red.). (2000). Specialpædagogik i en brydningstid. Systime.
Håndbog om bistandsloven. (1981). København: AOF’s Forlag.
Illeris, K. (1999). Læring: aktuel læringsteori i spændingsfeltet mellem Piaget, Freud og Marx.
Roskilde: Roskilde Universitetsforlag.
Illeris, K. (Red.) (2000). Tekster om læring. Roskilde: Roskilde Universitetsforlag.
Jensen, B. (1999). Kompetence og sociale processer. København: Danmarks Lærerhøjskole.
Jensen, B. & Schultz, P. J. (1999a). Social arv og kompetence: bidrag til en model. København:
Socialforskningsinstituttet. Arbejdspapir 5 om social arv.
Jensen, B. & Schultz, P. J. (1999b). Kompetence i en social kontekst – om social arv og magt og
afmagt i uddannelsessystemet. I: Social Forskning. København: Socialforskningsinstituttet.
(Temanummer: Social arv)
Jensen, M. K. (1979). Børn og døgninstitutioner. København: Socialforskningsinstituttet. Publikation; 93
Jørgensen, P. S. et al. (1993). Risikobørn. Hvem er de – hvad gør vi? København: Socialministeriet
og Det Tværministerielle Børneudvalg.
18
Kildedal, K. (2000). Det anbragte barn. Frederikshavn: Dafolo Forlag.
Killen, K. (1993). Omsorgssvigt er alles ansvar. København: Hans Reitzels Forlag.
Kjærgaard, J. et al. & Hunnerup Kollektivet (1998). Dagligliv og læring i et socialpædagogisk
opholdssted. VERA; 3.
Knudsen, F. (1998). De uanbringelige unge. Tidsskrift for Socialpædagogik; 2.
Kvaran, I. (1996). Miljøterapi: institutionsarbeid med barn og ungdom. Kristianssand: Hoyskoleforlaget.
Kyrstein, J. & Vestergaard, E. (2001). Undervisning og Læring. København: Rosinante.
Langager, S. (1997). Specialpædagogik, Specialundervisning og Socialpædagogik. Specialpædagogik; 1.
Langager, S. (2001). Vilde læreprocesser: partnerskaber og logebrødre. København: Danmarks
Pædagogiske Universitet.
Lave, J. (1988). Formidling eller praktisk forståelse. Udkast; 2.
Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Lihme, B. & Palsvig, K. (1977). Effekten af behandling på børne- og ungdomshjem. København:
Socialforskningsinstituttet. Publikation; 78.
Lihme, B. (1988). Socialpædagogik for børn og unge: et debatoplæg med særligt henblik på
døgninstitutionen. Holte: SOCPOL.
Lihme, B. (1999). Det er så fucking træls: Solhaven og de unge. København: Børn og
Unge.
Lieth, von der, L. (1997). Specialpædagogikkens grundlag og fremtidige udvikling. Kognition &
Pædagogik; 24.
Liljenberg, A. & Vesterbirk, M. (2000, marts). Anbringelse af børn og unge: aktuel praksis –
fremtidige udfordringer. København: Socialministeriet, Børn, unge og familie. Bilag til: Rapport
om anbringelsessteder for børn og unge.
Lützen, K. (1998). Byen tæmmes: kernefamilie, sociale reformer og velgørenhed i 1800-tallets
København. København: Hans Reitzels Forlag.
19
Madsen, B. (1993). Socialpædagogik og samfundsforvandling: en grundbog. København: Munksgaard. Socialpædagogisk Bibliotek.
Madsen, B. et al. (Red.). (1998). Tæt på relationen: betydningsdannelse i pædagogisk arbejde.
København: Munksgaard. Socialpædagogisk Bibliotek.
Malmborg, E. & Nielsen, J.G. (1999). Projekt De Vilde Unge. København: Københavns Kommune
og Udviklings- og Formidlingscenter for Socialt Arbejde med Unge.
Mathiesen, R. (1998). Fokus på socialpedagogikkens teoretiske grunnlag. Tidsskrift for Socialpædagogik; 2.
Nielsen, B. G. (1986). Anstaltbørn og børneanstalter gennem 400 år. Holte: SOCPOL.
Nygaard, M. C. (1993). Anbragte børns livsforløb. København: Socialforskningsinstituttet, (93);11.
Pedersen, K. E. (1999). Drop afmagten – skab kontakten til usædvanlige unge: teori og metode i
projektarbejdet med de mest marginaliserede unge. København: Socialministeriet.
Rasmussen, H. (1974). Socialpædagogik. København: Munksgaard.
Ravnkjær, M-M. (1999). Drop afmagten, skab kontakten. Tidsskrift for Socialpædagogik; 4.
Schmidt, L-H. (1998). Socialpædagogikkens genkomst. Tidsskrift for Socialpædagogik; 1.
Schwartz, I. (2000). Indre kaos hos børn kræver ydre styring – eller gør det? Social kritik; 70.
Schwartz, I. (2001). Socialpædagogik og anbragte børn. København: Socialpædagogisk Bibliotek.
Schnack, K. (1993). Fagdidaktik og almendidaktik. København: Danmarks Lærerhøjskole.
Socialpolitisk Forening og Center for Alternativ samfundsanalyse (CASA) (2000). Social Årsrapport 2000. København: Center for Alternativ Samfundsanalyse (CASA).
Social- og Sundhedspolitisk Gruppe (1986). Gadens børn – en høring og nogle perspektiver. Holte:
SOCPOL.
Socialministeriet (1985). Socialpædagogiske funktioner. København: Socialministeriet.
Socialministeriet (1997, februar). Vejledning om økonomisk støtte til lokale udviklingsprojekter i
indsatsen over for de svagest stillede børn, unge og børnefamilier. København: Socialministeriet.
Socialministeriet (1998). Bekendtgørelse af lov om social service. Lovbekendtgørelse nr. 581 af
06.08.1998 om social service. København: Socialministeriet.
20
Socialministeriet (1998). Vejledning om servicelovens regler om særlig støtte til børn og unge.
Vejledning nr. 57 af 05.03.1998 (Gældende). København: Socialministeriet.
Socialministeriet (2000). Bekendtgørelse af lov om social service. Lovbekendtgørelse nr. 26 af
17.01.2000 om social service. København: Socialministeriet.
Socialministeriet (2000, maj). Rapport om anbringelsessteder for børn og unge. Socialministeriets
udvalg om anbringelsessteder for børn og unge (Anbringelsesudvalget). København: Socialministeriet.
Socialpædagogernes Landsforbund (2000). Det socialpædagogiske område i tal: status 2000.
København: Socialpædagogernes Landsforbund; 1.
Socialstyrelsen (1984). Døgnophold for børn og unge: et debatoplæg. København: Socialstyrelsen.
Søder, M. (1982). Om usynliggörande af funktionshämmades behov. Nordisk Pædagogik; 3.
Søder, M. (1997). Integrering: Utopi, forskning, praktik. I: J. Tøssebro (Red.) Den vanskeligen
integreringen. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
Tetler, S. (2000a). Den inkluderende skole: fra vision til virkelighed. København: Socialpædagogisk
Bibliotek.
Tetler, S. (2000b). Grænser for rummelighed. Specialpædagogik; 5.
Undervisningsministeriet (1973). Sociale uddannelser. Betænkning nr. 670. København: Undervisningsministeriet, Uddannelseskommissionen for det sociale område.
Undervisningsministeriet (1981). Undervisning i en social sammenhæng. København: Undervisningsministeriet.
Undervisningsministeriet (1995). Projektet vedr. opfyldelse af undervisningspligten på de sociale
døgninstitutioner for børn og unge: 1. del af projektet. København: Undervisningsministeriet,
Folkeskoleafdelingen.
Undervisningsministeriet (1996). Skolen og specialundervisning – om at lave individuelle undervisningsplaner. København: Undervisningsministeriet. (Temahæfte nr. 16)
Undervisningsministeriet (1997). Udvalget vedrørende undervisningspligtens opfyldelse på sociale
o.a. institutioner m.v. : redegørelse og indstilling. København: Undervisningsministeriet, Folkeskoleafdelingen.
Undervisningsministeriet (1997). Salamanca-erklæringen og handlingsprogrammet for specialundervisning. København: Undervisningsministeriet, Folkeskoleafdelingen.
21
Undervisningsministeriet (1998, marts). Forslag til Lov om ændring af lov om folkeskolen (Specialundervisning i dagbehandlingstilbud og anbringelsessteder). København: Folketinget, 1997-98 (2.
samling).
Undervisningsministeriet (1998, juni). Forslag til Lov om ændring af lov om folkeskolen
(Specialundervisning i dagbehandlingstilbud og anbringelsessteder). København: Folketinget,
1997-98 (2. samling).
Undervisningsministeriet (1999). Vejledning om folkeskolens indsats over for elever, hvis udvikling
kræver en særlig hensyntagen eller støtte. Vejledning nr. 82 af 10.06.1999. København: Undervisningsministeriet.
Undervisningsministeriet (1999). Bekendtgørelse om folkeskolens specialundervisning og anden
specialpædagogisk bistand. Bekendtgørelse nr. 448 af 10.06.1999. København: Undervisningsministeriet.
Undervisningsministeriet (1999). Bekendtgørelse af lov om Folkeskolen. Lovbekendtgørelse nr. 714
af 06.09.1999. København: Undervisningsministeriet.
Undervisningsministeriet (1999). Vejledning om indgåelse af overenskomst om undervisning
mellem kommuner/amtskommuner og dagbehandlingstilbud/anbringelsessteder. Vejledning nr. 83
af 10. juni 1999. København: Undervisningsministeriet.
Undervisningsministeriet (2000). Bekendtgørelse af lov om folkeskolen. Lovbekendtgørelse nr. 730
af 21.07.2000. København: Undervisningsministeriet.
Undervisningsministeriet (2000). Bekendtgørelse om lov om folkeskolens specialundervisning og
anden socialpædagogisk bistand. Bekendtgørelse nr. 896 af 22.9.2000. København: Undervisningsministeriet.
Undervisningsministeriet (2000). Vision 2010 – en udviklingssamtale med skolen. København:
Undervisningsministeriet, Folkeskolerådet.
Undervisningsministeriet (2000). Vejledning om PPR: Pædagogisk-psykologisk Rådgivning.
København: Undervisningsministeriet.
Ungdomskommissionen (1952). Den tilpasningsvanskelige ungdom. Betænkning. København:
Schultz.
Vera (2000). Anbringelser. Temanummer; 13.
Wadel, C. (1991). Feltarbeid i egen kultur. Flekkefjord: Seek A/S.
22
Wegler, B.& Warming, H. (1996). Barnet mellem to familier. Frederikshavn: Dafolo.
Willer, H. (1985). Døgnanbringelsespolitik. København: Kultursociologi. (Upubliceret magisterafhandling)
Willis, P. (1977). Learning to labour. Aldershot: Gower.
Ziehe, T. & Stubenrauch, H. (1983). Ny ungdom og usædvanlige læreprocesser. København:
Politisk Revy.
Ziehe, T. (1989). Ambivalenser og Mangfoldighed. København: Politisk Revy.
Ziehe, T. (1991). Intensitet og nærhed. Dansk Pædagogisk Tidsskrift; 4.
Ziehe, T. (1997). Om prisen på selv-rationel viden: afmystificeringseffekter for pædagogik, skole
og identitetsdannelse, I: J. C. Jacobsen (Red.), Refleksive Læreprocesser. København: Politisk
Revy.
Ziehe, T. (1998). Adieu til halvfjerdserne. I: J. Bjerg (Red.), Pædagogik: en grundbog til et fag.
København: Hans Reitzel.
Ziehe, T. (1999). God anderledeshed. I: A. Knudsen & C. N. Jensen (Red.), Ungdomsliv og læreprocesser i det moderne samfund. København: Billesø og Baltzer.
Öhlund, T. (1997). Normaliseringspraktiker i det moderne samhället. Finland: Skriftserien.
(Avhandling 24)
23