Policy Futures in Education Volume 11 Number 4 2013 www.wwwords.co.uk/PFIE

From Bildung to Entrepreneurship: trends in education policy in Sweden JOHANNA RINGARP Department of History, Uppsala University, Sweden

ABSTRACT The European Union would like to improve its efforts to promote entrepreneurship within the Union. More new companies and more entrepreneurs are needed to increase the Union’s competitiveness. In order to achieve this goal, the education sectors of the member countries must be reformulated to include entrepreneurship in their education programmes. In the autumn of 2011, Sweden’s comprehensive schools received a new curriculum, in which entrepreneurship is one of the key elements. This article discusses the connection between the European Union’s goal to increase entrepreneurship and the creation of Sweden’s education policy. It also deals with the impact of the change on the previous focus of Sweden’s education policy – namely, ‘a school for all’.

European Expectations for a Standardised Education Policy This article problematises the way in which the European Union’s (EU’s) goal to introduce entrepreneurship into teaching has affected Swedish education, with the following questions as points of departure: What impact has the EU’s increased orientation towards entrepreneurship had on the national context? How far has Sweden come with regard to implementing ‘European policies’ in terms of education and to what degree is this perceived to be implementation? In this text, I will also refer to previous discussions on Swedish education and curricula, and the already existing goals related to the concept of Bildung (or bildning in Swedish [1]) in the context of education. In 2000, the EU decided that, by 2010 at the latest, it would have a programme in place that would make it a world leader in economic, social and environmental sustainability. If the three policy areas worked together, they would benefit growth, as well as living standards in the member countries (Lisbon Special European Council, 2000).[2] Four years later, when the progress that had been made within the framework of the Lisbon strategy was evaluated, the results were discouraging. In particular, the absence of resolute political measures and the inability to finalise the internal market were criticised. In order to achieve the goal, the European Commission proposed a new start – one that would focus on political priorities and, in particular, those questions that dealt with growth and employment (A New Start for the Lisbon Strategy, 2005). The EU needed to introduce entrepreneurship expertise as a common denominator, not least among the younger population. Traditionally, formal education has not focused on entrepreneurship; however, the European Commission wanted to change this, primarily through measures at the national and local levels (Official Journal of the European Union, 2006). A 2004 report from the European Commission, entitled ‘Education for Entrepreneurship’, clearly states that concrete measures and goals for including entrepreneurship in national curricula should be proposed to member countries. At the same time, the Commission stressed that the subject itself could not constitute the ultimate solution, but rather that additional measures would be required. For example, school administrations and teachers would need to be convinced of the importance of entrepreneurial knowledge as a school subject. Collaboration between the private and public 456

http://dx.doi.org/10.2304/pfie.2013.11.4.456

From Bildung to Entrepreneurship sectors also needed to be encouraged so that young people would be able to see practical examples of entrepreneurship in action and learn from these positive experiences (European Commission, 2004). Promoting the Spirit of Entrepreneurship Thus, the point of departure for the EU was to promote growth and stimulate the economy within the Union. However, in order to accomplish this, the education sector also needed to be revised. This became imminently clear in the two reports on education and entrepreneurship issued by the European Commission (2004, 2008). The second report, issued in 2008 and entitled ‘Entrepreneurship in Higher Education, Especially within Non-business Studies’, discusses the importance of introducing knowledge about entrepreneurship into all higher education courses, not just business courses. In the report, entrepreneurial knowledge is defined as ‘a key competence for all, helping young people to be more creative and self-confident in whatever they undertake’ (European Commission, 2008, p. 4). The main objective was to elucidate all the various opportunities and paths that countries themselves could adopt to achieve the EU’s desired goal. The Bologna process was viewed as one way of disseminating entrepreneurial knowledge within higher education and bringing about change. Another way was to establish working groups at the national level so that ministries of education would be able to collaborate with other departments – for example, departments of trade and industry, finance and labour – with a view to working together to find answers to the question of how to integrate entrepreneurship into education at all levels (European Commission, 2008). The 2004 report discusses the possibility of promoting entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial skills at the primary and secondary school levels. In this report, entrepreneurship is described as: ‘a general attitude that benefited and can still benefit daily life and all types of work. Therefore, it is important to lay a foundation that enables young people to adopt an entrepreneurial attitude’ (European Commission, 2004, p. 6). Both of the Commission’s reports were given similar guidelines and in both cases they deal primarily with compiling recommendations and providing positive examples for national and regional policy measures. It is patently clear that one of the Commission’s express goals was the introduction of entrepreneurship into the national curriculum, which explains why the point of departure for this article is a study of what has happened in Sweden, which adopted a new curriculum in the autumn of 2011 for elementary schools, preschools and day-care centres (Regeringens proposition 2010/11:20 [Government proposal], 2010). This is especially interesting because the non-socialist government in Sweden has made education one of its priorities, with a view to raising the level of knowledge in order to better prepare Sweden for future challenges (Nihlfors, 2008). However, it must be pointed out that matters of education have also been very powerful political issues in the past. This has related primarily to what type of school the country should have and what kind of knowledge and Bildung should be taught (see, for example, Ringarp, 2011). School Policy Reforms in Sweden What, then, does education mean in the Swedish context and how has the discussion about education, Bildung and knowledge been framed over the years? Bildung is a concept that has had different meanings throughout history depending on who has been talking about it. The concept has often been paired with education (Burman & Sundgren, 2010). The Swedish word bildning comes from the German word Bildung and, for a long time, the Humboldtian definition of Bildung was the point of departure. For Wilhelm von Humboldt, higher education and research were the core components of Bildung, and this ideal was unencumbered by ‘crass economic calculations’; instead, every student would be educated by reading classical languages and studying mathematics (Liedman, 2011; Nationalencyklopedin, 2011). The Humboldtian view of Bildung – institutionalised in the University of Berlin in 1810, which he founded – is usually referred to as ‘new humanism’. Bildung was considered to be part of an individual’s education, and the university’s task was to produce knowledge and not, as was the case in the past, to reproduce knowledge (Burman, 2007). The historian Johan Östling (2008) has demonstrated that as a result of the different experiences of 457

Johanna Ringarp Sweden and Germany, particularly during the Second World War, the countries’ education systems followed two separate paths after the war. In West Germany, new humanism, which occupied an important position in the Weimar Republic, came to stand for a return to something that the Nazi regime had destroyed (Hentig, 1998). In Sweden, on the other hand, it was the generation of cultural radicals who had the opportunity to make their mark on the school of the future through the national School Commission, which was established in 1946. New humanism, the German language and the belief in authority were rejected and replaced by increased confidence in the ability of all citizens to move society forward through critical thinking, scientificity and a democratic upbringing (1946 School Commission, 1948). According to Östling (2008): In general, the classical languages and knowledge of Christianity were considered less important than mathematics, science, and political science. Knowledge of history and literature were still valid subjects for study, but the perception of what literature and history should be included was different from that of the new humanistic approach. (p. 173)

The School Commission also made two new recommendations – namely, that social studies be introduced into the curriculum, as it would help students understand democratic values, and that English replace German as the first foreign language, which would be taught beginning in the fifth grade (1946 School Commission, 1948; Östling, 2008). The progressive pedagogy of John Dewey, the American educational reformer, shines through in the 1946 School Commission’s recommendations on how Swedish elementary schools should be configured (Linde, 2005). This progressive pedagogy is distinguished by the notion that the most important element in a student’s education is the process, not the end result. In direct opposition to this view of knowledge is communication pedagogy, where knowledge is given by science and is built into the cultural heritage. Facts are presented objectively, and it is the result, not the journey, that is most important (Gustafsson, 2002). The comprehensive school was introduced throughout Sweden in 1962 and, from a pedagogic point of view, it was the quest for knowledge that had long been prioritised in the Swedish school arena. The school and its relationship to society in general was at the centre of the learning process during the first two decades of the comprehensive school’s existence. These features assumed an even more prominent position in the 1980 comprehensive school curriculum (Skolöverstyrelsen [National Board of Education], 1980). More than previous curricula, this curriculum was aimed directly at students because it made room for more student input with regard to the content of the school day. Among other changes, students and teachers would have class councils, and students would be able to exert more influence over the design of the work environment and have a say in the structure of teaching. Furthermore, the curriculum was favourably inclined to allow older students to mentor younger ones; this process would help students develop a sense of social responsibility. Not only would students take on a more active role, but parents were also described as a vital resource in school, both for teaching and other activities. For example, schools were encouraged to take advantage of parents’ professional experiences and interests and apply them in different school situations (Ringarp, 2011). At about the same time as the 1980 national curriculum was introduced, criticism of schools from politicians both on the left and right of the Social Democrats increased. Historian and educator Gunnar Richardson has described a situation in which ideas about the comprehensive school were formulated in political harmony at a time when Swedish economic growth was good; however, the oil crisis and stagnation in the global economy during the aftershocks of the crisis brought with them increased opposition to what the right described as ‘a fuzzy school’, which represented progressive pedagogy’s influence on education. In public debates, a knowledge movement that was opposed to what was considered the decay of the school system emerged. It argued that the solution to the decline in education was a return to traditional ‘lectern teaching’, with the teacher as the transmitter of knowledge, and to more subject teaching in schools (Gustafsson, 2002; Richardson, 2004; Ringarp, 2011). In order to quash the powerful criticism of the Social Democrats’ school policy and demonstrate that, of course, the party deemed the transfer of knowledge to be important, in 1982, Olof Palme appointed Bengt Göransson as Minister for Education. For Göransson, who had a background in the Workers’ Educational Association and the People’s House, the school’s national mission and the notion of lifelong learning were pressing 458

From Bildung to Entrepreneurship issues: every child should have the opportunity to attend school. Furthermore, schools would adhere to the same standards, and students would receive an equivalent education, no matter where they lived in Sweden (Ringarp, 2011). Fourteen years after the 1980 national curriculum, the time had come for a new curriculum for the compulsory school system, and the 1994 national curriculum came into force. As opposed to the 1980 national curriculum with its emphasis on students’ motivation and the surrounding community, the 1994 national curriculum took as its starting point a more traditional communication pedagogy and emphasised that the Bildung question must once again be brought to the fore (SOU [Swedish Government Official Report] 1992:94). ‘A School for Bildung’, which was the name given to the curriculum, discussed both the concepts of Bildung and knowledge in depth. With regard to the concept of Bildung, the Government Official Report made special mention of the desire to return to the ideas of new humanism. According to the Curriculum Committee, a knowledge society requires schools to communicate knowledge ‘in a broader sense than before’ (SOU 1992:94, p. 30). Therefore, the concept of knowledge must be discussed on the basis of different concurrent aspects – namely, facts, understanding, skills and familiarity. These different forms of knowledge are also included in the new curriculum that was introduced in 2011 (Skolverket [Swedish National Agency for Education], 2011). In Bernt Gustafsson’s (2002) opinion, the return to new humanistic ideas was to do with the crisis of pedagogical progressivism at the beginning of the 1980s, and should be seen as an attempt to disengage from the pedagogical contradiction that existed between communication pedagogy and progressivism. The contradictions within pedagogy still existed at the beginning of the twenty-first century, at the same time as a greater emphasis was placed on vocational training. Several researchers have discussed the significance of the concept of equivalence for the Swedish education system. Political scientist Bo Lindensjö and educator Ulf P. Lundgren believe that, previously, education was discussed in terms of equality. This was to do with the Social Democrats’ idea of a standardised education for all citizens with a view to creating an egalitarian society. However, the concept has come to mean an equivalent school (Lindensjö & Lundgren, 2000). Educators Tomas Englund and Ann Quennerstedt (2008) follow the same reasoning; they believe that the economic dimensions of the concept of equivalence became much more distinct in the 1990s. The term ‘equivalent’ no longer meant ‘the same education everywhere’; rather, it was used to mean that all children had the right to an education that suited their needs (Ringarp, 2011). This shift in meaning can be linked to the increased goal- and result-oriented control that was introduced into the public sector in the 1980s, and which became more evident in the 1990s. The aim of the organisational changes was to increase efficiency and reduce operating costs. A number of researchers also view the increased economic control of the public sector as proof that the state abandoned its goal to use education policy to advance social equality in Sweden. Instead of centralised control, which was the same for everyone, the municipal budget has become conclusive for schools and, consequently, for all of society (see Ringarp, 2011). To an ever greater extent, education has come to be viewed as an economic function and not, as was previously the case, part of a democratic, humanistic project (Gustafsson, 2002). From Bildung to Entrepreneurship Now that a new national curriculum is in place – the first since 1994 – it is interesting to see whether any obvious trends are emerging. What traditions and social contexts stand out in the curriculum and in today’s debates on education policy? Are the concepts of equivalence, Bildung and education included? What does knowledge development look like in the 2011 national curriculum and to whom is it addressed? These questions lead us to my study of the new curriculum for comprehensive schools in Sweden. I began by searching the document for the Swedish word bildning, with poor results. Under the heading ‘The School’s Mission’, I read: ‘A harmonious development and bildning time includes opportunities to examine, explore, acquire and configure different skills and experiences’. Further down on the same page under the heading ‘A Good Environment for Development and Learning’, the text reads: ‘The ambition should be to create the best possible conditions for the students’ bildning, thinking and knowledge development’ (Skolverket, 2011, p. 10). Consequently, the term bildning appears twice in the curriculum; beyond 459

Johanna Ringarp that, it is conspicuous by its absence. Nor is it clear what the authors of the curriculum mean by the Bildung concept. On the other hand, ‘education’ is mentioned explicitly in several places in the curriculum. However, this bias towards education in the curriculum text does not have to mean that the Bildung concept is not central to the current curriculum, but rather that one needs to look for the answer to the question with regard to the significance of the Bildung concept in today’s schools in other formulations. For example, the 2011 national curriculum states that: ‘the aim of education in schools is to ensure that students acquire and develop skills and values. It should encourage development and learning in all students, along with a lifelong desire to learn’ (Skolverket, 2011, p. 4). Lifelong learning is also discussed in political parties’ educational policies. I offer the example of the Liberal Party, which at the current time is dominating the educational policy debate and whose leader is also Sweden’s Minister for Education. The first item in the Liberal Party’s educational policy states that lifelong learning should be encouraged with the aid of an individual learning account. People’s savings should benefit them from a taxation point of view so that they can pursue studies later in life. The Liberal Party also proposes the creation of vocational universities as an important element in future learning (Liberal Party, 2009). The reasoning behind this proposal is that society changes so quickly that the skills students learn when they are at school are almost obsolete by the time they leave compulsory comprehensive school or upper secondary school. Must lifelong learning always be about education that is administered by a school system? Educator Hartmut von Hentig (1998, p. 113) believes that education in schools should provide the foundation, but that continuing education can take place at other locations in a community: ‘Life educates people’. Bernt Gustafsson (2002), who also discusses lifelong learning, opines that a shift has occurred in two directions. First, learning has been individualised, but the goals have not; he asks the question: ‘What knowledge results are to be achieved?’ Second, talk of lifelong learning can be interpreted as informal learning – that is, knowledge acquisition that occurs outside of organised teaching will be increasingly formalised. Learning could be validated and accorded a formal value in order to be considered as knowledge. However, according to Gustafsson, this validation could be difficult to achieve, as not all knowledge can be formalised, and the knowledge process itself often occurs via circuitous routes. Is it not precisely in the encounter with the unknown that new knowledge can be discovered? The 2011 national curriculum also emphasises teaching that is adapted to each student’s requirements and needs, and goes on to say that equivalence is not the same as a similar education for everyone. I interpret this to mean that, in the future, individual needs will continue to drive the Swedish school system, in particular because the curriculum also asserts that individuals should have the opportunity to make their own choices in school (Skolverket, 2011). These formulations are also in agreement with what the non-socialist parties, in particular, write about education in their political programmes. The view of the Moderate Party (2007) is that because each student is different, education must be adapted to individual needs. The Centre Party (2011) believes that schools must be more flexible and oriented to the individual. The needs and wishes of students and parents must be met – for example, independent schools could offer flexible starting dates. In the view of the Christian Democrats (2011), freedom of choice and independent schools with the same economic conditions as public schools are important goals if the quality of Swedish compulsory comprehensive schools is to keep up with international standards. Even the Green Party (2013), which does not have a minister in the cabinet, stresses the importance of independent schools for the education system of the future. However, at the same time, it defends municipal schools, stating that they should be allowed to work more freely than before – for example, by developing their own courses and curricula. In no way is this consensus among the four non-socialist parties and the Green Party new within Swedish education policy. As far back as the end of the 1980s, when the municipalisation reform was first discussed, these parties were on the same side of the debate. In 1989, in particular, they were united on the issues of school vouchers and whether independent schools should be permitted (Ringarp, 2011).

460

From Bildung to Entrepreneurship A School for All? The 2011 national curriculum points out that students themselves should have a say in their education and take personal responsibility for their learning, in addition to working with teachers to plan and evaluate teaching (Skolverket, 2011). There is nothing new about these suggestions. Rather, they relate to educating students to become good citizens. However, a comparison between the 1980 national curriculum and the 2011 national curriculum reveals an obvious difference in terms of what is meant by equivalence within the school form. Today, equivalence is denoted via the national goal that: ‘Students must meet the national knowledge requirements laid out for each subject’ (Skolverket, 2011, p. 18). Thus, national testing will have an even greater presence in the future. Knowledge measurements – both national and international – are here to stay as a yardstick of what students know or should know. What also emerges from the 2011 national curriculum with regard to the individualisation trend is the emphasis on the wishes of parents and students. According to the statement that follows under the heading ‘Assessments and Grades’, teachers, ‘using the parents’ wishes as a starting point, must continually inform students and their parents of academic performance and educational needs’ (Skolverket, 2011, p. 18). This could be interpreted as a return to matters dealing with class – who gets a good education in Sweden – but the issue of creating teaching goals that always include all children, regardless of their ability, has been problematic. The common education system that Sweden has used as a yardstick since the introduction of the nine-year comprehensive school in the 1960s has made it next to impossible to talk about separating out students with different abilities at an early stage (Richardson, 2004; Waldow, 2005). What I would like to elucidate here is a development characterised by an explicit tendency to increase the knowledge-based separation of students. Nevertheless, it should be pointed out that Swedish schools have had, and continue to have, major problems, and that something needed to be done to overcome these problems. The Swedish school system went from being one of the developed world’s most centralised to one of the most decentralised in the 1990s; now, even private schools can be operated and make a profit with government grants (Lindblad et al, 2002; Ministry of Education and Research, 2007; Skolverket, 2009). According to an evaluation report published in 2009 by Skolverket, it is clear that this development amounted to segregation, both from a knowledge point of view and the fact that students from different backgrounds were separated out. The proximity principle – which applied previously and meant that all students, regardless of their socio-economic background, would go to the same school – was abolished in favour of an individualised, differentiated school (Arnesen & Lundahl, 2006; Skolverket, 2009). Another example of a change in this direction can be found in a 2006 statement of government policy by the non-socialist alliance. In one section, it states that the differences among and needs of all students must be respected. Even the most gifted students need to be stimulated, and one way of doing this is to introduce streaming in comprehensive schools (Swedish Government Offices, 2006). Entrepreneurship and Education The EU’s desire to promote entrepreneurship in its member countries is also obvious in the new Swedish curriculum. Included in the schools’ mission is a requirement that schools cultivate student behaviour which encourages entrepreneurship (Skolverket, 2011). How this will actually happen is yet to be determined. Precisely, as in the reports of the European Commission (2004, 2008), this mission includes concepts such as student creativity and the ability to act independently and take the initiative. A document on entrepreneurship in education, published by the Swedish Ministry of Education and Research and the Ministry of Enterprise, Energy and Communications, provides a small amount of information on what they define as entrepreneurship: Self-enterprise must be as natural a choice as employment ... Many young people could imagine starting their own company but hesitate because they don’t know how to do it or because they do not dare invest in their own ideas. Entrepreneurship education should help young people develop the skills that are required to start and manage a company. Entrepreneurship education

461

Johanna Ringarp can also help stimulate creativity and resourcefulness. (Swedish Government Offices, 2009, pp. 2-4)

The individual parties in the Swedish Parliament are also discussing the concept. For example, the Moderate Party (2007) believes that entrepreneurship is part of the schools’ mission to provide students with cultural roots. Entrepreneurial skills are necessary since many individuals in the culture sector support themselves as entrepreneurs in one way or another (see also Liberal Party, 2009). One can discern the same reasoning in the European Commission’s (2004, 2008) reports. Does Bildung Conflict with Entrepreneurship Models? The emphasis on entrepreneurship and, in particular, the scaled-down discussion of Bildung in education means that Sweden has strayed far from the Bildung ideal that dominated thinking when the comprehensive school was developed and established. At that time, Bildung was viewed as a way to improve all human beings – even those from the working class – in order to create a welfare state (Burman & Sundgren, 2010). Today, it is obvious that economic discussions dominate the education policy debate. Is it clear, then, what vision of learning owns the Swedish education policy discourse at the moment? If we proceed from Gustafsson’s (2002) argument with regard to knowledge’s different camps, it would seem that communication pedagogy is on the upswing. The emphasis on a formal structure in lifelong learning, as well as the growing influence of parents on their children’s schooling, is obvious in the texts that were analysed for this study. The democratic strains in education have also been toned down. What will be left of the previous goal – ‘a school for all’ – remains to be seen. It is clear, however, that Sweden has implemented several of the ideas contained in the EU reports. Entrepreneurship is now part of the national curriculum, and the Ministry of Education and Research and the Ministry of Enterprise, Energy and Communications have formulated a strategy for including entrepreneurship in the area of education. What the next step in the process will be is anybody’s guess. It is very likely that the ideas need a stronger foothold in the school system as a whole in order for the work on these issues to be truly practical. This was also emphasised by the EU (European Commission, 2004, 2008). Notes [1] The precise meaning of the Swedish term bildning is difficult to capture because it expresses so many different perspectives and interpretations. As there is no equivalent in English, it defies precise translation. The word comes from the German Bildung, which has its roots in the Greek paideia. The literature in English contains the terms ‘liberal education’, ‘general education’ and ‘popular education’, but none of these terms correspond to the Scandinavian word. For this reason, I have chosen to use the German Bildung throughout the text. [2] See also ‘Lissabonstrategin’ at http://www.europaportalen.se/tema/lissabonstrategin

References 1946 School Commission (1948) 1946 års skolkommissions betänkande med förslag till riktlinjer för det svenska skolväsendets utveckling. Stockholm. A New Start for the Lisbon Strategy (2005) http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/employment_and_social_policy/community_employment_p olicies/c11325_en.htm Arnesen, A.-L. & Lundahl, L. (2006) Still Social and Democratic? Inclusive Education Policies in the Nordic Welfare States, Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 50(3), 285-300. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00313830600743316 Burman, A. (2007) Är begreppet bildning meningsfullt? Svenska Dagbladet, 30 July. http://www.svd.se/kultur/understrecket/ar-begreppet-bildning-meningsfullt_249415.svd Burman, A. & Sundgren, P. (2010) Bildning: texter från Esaias Tegnér till Sven-Eric Liedman. Gothenburg: Daidalos.

462

From Bildung to Entrepreneurship Centre Party (2011) Grundskola. http://www.centerpartiet.se/Centerpolitik/Politikomraden/Skola-ochutbildning/Politik-A–O/Skola Christian Democrats (2011) Grundskola för kvalitet. http://www.kristdemokraterna.se/Global/Faktablad/Faktablad%20om%20grundskolan.pdf Englund, T. & Quennerstedt, A. (Eds) (2008) Vadå likvärdighet? En studie i utbildningspolitisk språkvändning. Gothenburg: Daidalos. European Commission (2004) ‘Utbildning för entreprenörskap’ [‘Education for entrepreneurship’]. http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/sme/files/support_measures/training_education/doc/entrepr eneurship_education_final_sv.pdf European Commission (2008) Entreprenörskap inom högre utbildning, särskilt inom andra områden än företagsekonomi [Entrepreneurship in higher education, especially within non-business studies]. http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/newsroom/cf/_getdocument.cfm?doc_id=3573 Green Party (2013) Skola och utbildning. http://www.mp.se/politik/skola-och-utbildning Gustafsson, B. (2002) Vad är kunskap? En diskussion om praktiskt och teoretisk kunskap. Stockholm: Skolverket. Hentig, H. von (1998) Bildning eller utbildning. Gothenburg: Daidalos. Liberal Party (2009) Dags att sikta ännu högre. Skolgruppens förslag till ny utbildningspolitik. http://www.folkpartiet.se/ImageVault/Images/id_5453/ImageVaultHandler.aspx Liedman, S.-L. (2011) Bildning, Nationalencyklopedin. http://www.ne.se/lang/bildning Lindblad, S., Lundahl, L., Lindgren, J. & Zackari, G. (2002) Educating for the New Sweden? Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 46(3), 283-303. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0031383022000005689 Linde, G. (2005) Historien om en radikal omdaning, in A. Forsell (Ed.) Boken om pedagogerna. Stockholm: Liber. Lindensjö, B. & Lundgren, U.P. (2000) Utbildningsreformer och politisk styrning. Stockholm: HLS Förlag. Lisbon Special European Council (March 2000) Towards a Europe of Innovation and Knowledge. http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/employment_and_social_policy/community_employment_p olicies/c10241_en.htm Ministry of Education and Research (2007) Lika villkor för offentliga och fristående skolor. Dir. 2007:33, 22 March. http://www.regeringen.se/content/1/c6/07/92/89/25abc150.pdf Moderate Party (2007) Vår tids arbetarparti. Handlingsprogram för nya moderaterna. http://www.moderat.se/web/Vart_handlingsprogram.aspx Nationalencyklopedin (2011) Wilhelm von Humboldt. http://www.ne.se/lang/wilhelm-von-humboldt Nihlfors, E. (2008) Kunskap vidgar världen – globaliseringens inverkan på skola och lärande. http://www.regeringen.se/content/1/c6/11/76/05/e595a251.pdf Official Journal of the European Union (2006) Yttrande från Europeiska ekonomiska och sociala kommittén. Meddelande från kommissionen till rådet, Europaparlamentet, Europeiska ekonomiska och sociala kommittén samt Regionkommittén. Genomförandet av gemenskapens Lissabonprogram: Främja entreprenörstänkande genom utbildning och lärande, 16 December, C 309/110-114. http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2006:309:0110:0114:SV:PDF Östling, J. (2008) Nazismens sensmoral: svenska erfarenheter i andra världskrigets efterdyning. Stockholm: Atlantis. Regeringens proposition 2010/11:20 [Government proposal] (2010) Legitimation för lärare och förskollärare. http://www.regeringen.se/content/1/c6/15/39/33/31b9e312.pdf Richardson, G. (2004) Svensk utbildningshistoria: skola och samhälle förr och nu. Lund: Studentlitteratur. Ringarp, J. (2011) Professionens problematik: lärarkårens kommunalisering och välfärdsstatens förvandling. Stockholm: Makadam. Skolverket [Swedish National Agency for Education] (2009) Vad påverkar resultaten i svensk grundskola? Kunskapsöversikt om betydelsen av olika faktorer. Stockholm: Skolverket. Skolverket [Swedish National Agency for Education] (2011) Läroplan för grundskolan, förskoleklassen och fritidshemmet 2011 [National curriculum 2011]. Stockholm: Skolverket. http://www.skolverket.se/publikationer?id=2575. Skolöverstyrelsen [National Board of Education] (1980) Läroplan för grundskolan. Allmänna del 1980. Stockholm: LiberFörlag & Allmänna Förlaget. SOU 1992: 94 [Swedish Government Official Report] (1994) Läroplanskommittén, Bildning och kunskap: särtryck ur Läroplanskommitténs betänkande Skola för bildning, Stockholm: Statens skolverk. http://www.skolverket.se/publikationer?id=135

463

Johanna Ringarp Swedish Government Offices (2006) Regeringsförklaring. Stockholm: Stadsrådsberedningen. http://www.regeringen.se/content/1/c6/07/02/32/bcc6951a.pdf Swedish Government Offices (2009) Strategier för entreprenörskap inom utbildningsområdet. Stockholm: Ministry of Education and Research & Ministry of Enterprise, Energy and Communications. http://www.regeringen.se/content/1/c6/12/69/09/22b6e680.pdf Waldow, F. (2005) Späte Sanktionierung: Formen und Funktionen der Leistungsmessung in Schweden, in H. Döbert & H.-W. Fuchs (Eds) Leistungsmessungen und Innovationsstrategien in Schulsystemen: ein internationaler Vergleich. Münster: Waxmann.

JOHANNA RINGARP is Doctor of Philosophy in the Department of History at Uppsala University, Sweden. Her research specialties include education policy and post-Second World War German history. Correspondence: [email protected]

464