The paper reports on teacher and pupil interviews from a case study of a primary school in a highly diverse Swedish urban neighbourhood. It discusses some of the consequences of dividing the school subject Swedish into two separate syllabi (Swedish and Swedish as a Second Language, respectively), both with respect to inclusion and language development opportunities. Implications for teacher training programmes are considered.
The study examines how primary school teachers teaching Swedish as a Second Language (SSL) and/or Swedish differentiate between these subjects. It looks at how they express their understanding of differences or similarities between aims, methods and teaching approaches, with respect to the needs of their pupils. Tensions and paradoxes are considered, between the ambition to provide equally valid instruction to all pupils, on the one hand, and the segregating mechanisms of distinct subject tracks, on the other. The discussion is placed in the wider theoretical framework of inclusive education (Persson, 2012), and intercultural school development (Lahdenperä, 1998, 2008), as well as drawing on research on Swedish language teaching for immigrants (Fridlund, 2011; Torpsten, 2008; Stroud, 2004).
In a European perspective, improving education provisions for students with a migrant background is a central concern, aiming to support integration and ensure social cohesion (OECD, 2010; Sirius Literature Review). Migrants are far from being a homogenous group, however. Immigrant communities comprise second or third generation immigrants as well as newly arrived families and refugees, with a very wide range of socio-economic backgrounds and educational needs.
Several European studies stress that language support is a strategic aspect which impacts migrants’ access to education and the effects of language proficiency on school performance are often underlined. Sweden has been mentioned as a positive example with respect to language support, for providing SSL classes (Sirius Literature Review). Other language-oriented support measures in Sweden include mother tongue instruction and study guidance in the mother tongue (OECD, 2009; Bunar, 2010).
SSL is taught to newly arrived immigrant students, but also offered as a school subject in mainstream school. The intention of placing newly arrived students in mainstream classes at a relatively early stage is to allow them to benefit from contact with native speakers of Swedish. At same time it is thought that Swedish classes adapted for second language learners will better support their language development.
In practice, there are numerous problems connected to SSL teaching in mainstream classes (Fridlund, 2011; Skolverket, 2008; Torpsten, 2008). Parents and students are reluctant to choose this option, since it is perceived to provide inferior teaching and is felt to not be equally valuable as a qualification. Officially, the two subjects are supposed to be equivalent, and there are only minimal differences the learning objectives and assessment criteria for exams.
Not just new arrivals, but all students with some form of migrant background and/or all ’multilingual’ students (speaking other home languages besides Swedish) are categorised as non-native speakers of Swedish. Consequently, such students are often directed to SSL. The final decision of whether a student takes Swedish or SSL rests with the school, not the parents.
Since December 2013, year 1-6 teachers teachers are required to have at least some qualification in Swedish or Swedish as a Second Language in order to teach SSL (www.andrasprak.su.se). Nevertheless, these requirements are minimal (half a term’s training for years 1-3 and one term for years 3-6) and hardly provide an adequate base, considering the challenges involved.