Begrepp som värdegrund och barnperspektiv används idag flitigt i retoriken kring vad skolan bör vara. Samtidigt ges många exempel - både från vardagserfarenheter och forskning - på det ambivalenta förhållande som råder mellan intentioner och praktik när det gäller frågor om normer och värden. För att förstå dessa förhållanden och för att utveckla skolan i värdeskapande riktning behövs en vändning mot den pedagogiska filosofin och frågor om innehåll/arbetssätt i skolan, menar författaren.
When I was born, in 1949, teachers in Sweden were not allowed to teach religion if they did not belong to the Swedish Lutheran Church.1 The name of the subject in school was ‘Christianity’ and religious education was also mainly about Christianity. Religion was in fact seen as a guarantee for security and stability. The society at that time, about fifty years ago, had changed from an agricultural society to an industrial one. This required a disciplined, specialized and rational worker. But during the last fifty years the economy and working life have gone through extensive changes. Nowadays only about 15% are employed in the manufacturing industry in Sweden and there is an increasing demand for a reflective, enterprising human being with power of initiative and personal accountability. As a logical consequence the society sometimes designates as a ‘K-society’ with knowledge, competence, competition, communication and creativity in focus (all words in Swedish being spelled with‘k’ as the first letter)
The article addresses the issue of the tolerance of intolerance in an educational context. It concerns a real case in a Swedish upper secondary school some years ago, when a student was suspended from school owing to his sympathies with Nazi ideas. One hundred and twenty student teachers’ responses to this decision were analysed in respect of the idea of toleration as a crucial value and tolerance as a virtue in a liberal democratic society. The main findings show that the suspended student is seen as a democratic risk factor by a majority of the student teachers. On the other hand, those who disagree, maintain that the school’s handling of the situation and the attitude towards Sven, the suspended student, could be a democratic risk factor. The findings are discussed in the light of different views of democracy and humans rights, and of ‘the ethos of the teacher’. The article considers the idea of zero tolerance and maintains that the findings are in line with the related tendency to consider youth as a risk, instead of being at risk.