Elevdemokrati som mål och medel

Abstract Student democracy as an objective and as a means Essay in Political Science, D-level Author: Erik Lisshammar Tutor: Susan Marton Despite attitudes towards student democracy being generally positive, students have almost no influence over their position. This implementation study looks into whether or not students’ weak position of power results from something other than a democratising of schools taking priority when student influence is encouraged. With an aim of explaining what is hoped to be achieved and if these intentions are to be spread, the purpose is to investigate to what extent standards concerning student democracy are transferred between institutions. In order to find out, the question is posed of whether their aims for student democracy conform. This overriding question is coupled together with the following four defining research questions: 1. Why does the government seek student democracy/influence? 2. Why does parliament seek student democracy/influence? 3. Why does the National Agency for Education seek student democracy/influence? 4. Why does the high school board for Karlstad and Hammarö seek student democracy/influence? To answer all these questions, the theory of sociological institutionalisation is put into operation. It is then applied to documents that illustrate the institutions’ incentives and relations to one another. When the contents of the texts are analysed it is clear that all parties really want to increase student democracy/influence. Furthermore, all the institutions have an aim to improve students’ democratic power in society together with perceptions and behaviour in public life. The government and parliament are alone in striving after an improvement in students’ learning and making use of their competence, so the answer to the overriding question is actually no. Similarly, the National Agency for Education is also alone in its ambition to improve students’ knowledge as is the high school board in wanting to increase the freedom of choice for those concerned. These differences, as well as the similarities, have a clear connection with the inter-institutional exchanges. Differing objectives are caused by an unsuccessful transfer of standards, whilst identical standards arise as a consequence of successful transfers