This presentation takes its departure in the intersection of policies for inclusive education and the marketized system of post-16 education/ upper secondary education (USE) in Sweden. To interpret our findings we draw on sociocultural theories, including thematic and discourse analysis with the aim to illuminate the relationship between policy discourses, institutional mediation and issues of identity and agency, pedagogy and structures (Lasky 2005; Lingard et.al. 2003). In Sweden and other western countries, post-war welfare state policies expanded public education (Jones, 2008; Forsey et al., 2008; Alexiadou, 2013).  In Sweden, since the early 1970s non-compulsory upper secondary education  including vocational and academic study paths, free of charge for all, has been directed to almost all 16-19 years olds within one system for all post-16 education (‘Gymnasieskola’) on the basis of state financing, central regulations and a national curriculum, including nationally valid syllabi for all programmes. In the early 1990s new education policies, including new forms of governance (Hudson, 2007) were introduced in education including other welfare sectors,  by a system of choice, vouchers and full public financing of new free-schools, headed by private actors (Gov bill 1992/93: 100; Björklund et al., 2005; Lundahl et al., 2010). In the last decade, the USE sector increasingly developed market-like conditions (expansion of new free-schools; buying and selling of free-schools; growth of for-profit free school actors, including international equity companies) (Beach & Dovemark, 2011; Erixon Arreman & Holm, 2011a; National Agency for Education, 2012a).  Parallel, growing proportions of student drop-outs and decreasing inequities in the provision of education were noted (SKL, 2012; National Agency for Education, 2012b). Trends of social segregation in compulsory education (Bunar, 2010) were paralleled with declining student performance in the international PISA and TIMMS assessments (National Agency for Education, 2013). Current education reform (valid from 2011) include stricter entrance demands for eligibility to USE and new differentiation between academic and vocational study paths. By the current policies, increased pressure is on teachers to raise student performance, along with increased demands on inclusive education practices parallel to continued policies for competition between schools for students, and funding of teachers’ employment by the student voucher (Lundström & Holm, 2011).

Alexiadou, N. (2002) Social inclusion and social exclusion in England: tensions in education policy, Journal of Education Policy, 17:1, 71-86 Beach, D., & Dovemark, M. (2011). Twelve years of upper-secondary education in Sweden: the beginnings of a neo-liberal policy hegemony? Educational Review, 63(3), 313-327. Björklund, A., Clark, M. A, Edin, P-A., Fredriksson, P., Krueger A. B. (2005). The Market comes to Education in Sweden. An Evaluation of Sweden’s Surprising School Reform. New York: Russell Sage. Bunar, N. (2010): Choosing for quality or inequality: current perspectives on the implementation of school choice policy in Sweden, Journal of Education Policy, 25:1, 1-18 Erixon Arreman, I, & Holm, A. S. (2011a). Privatisation of public education? The emergence of independent upper secondary schools in Sweden. Journal of education policy, 26(2), 225-243. Forsey, M., Davies, S., Walford, G. (2008). The Globalisation of School Choice? An Introduction to Key Issues and Concerns. In The Globalisation of School Choice? (Eds.) Oxford Studies in Comparative Education. Oxford: Symposium books, pp 9-25. Govt. bill 1992/93:100. Regeringens proposition med förslag till statsbudget för budgetåren 1993/94. Stockholm: Ministry of Education. Hudson, C. (2007). Governing the governance of education: The state strikes back? European Educational Research Journal, 6(3), 266-282. Jones, K., Cunchillos, C., Hatcher, R., Hirtt, N., Innes, R., Joshua, S., Klausenitzer, K. (2008). Schooling in Western Europe: the new order and its adversaries. Palgrave Macmillan. Lasky S. (2005) A sociocultural approach to understanding teacher identity, agency and professional vulnerability in a context of secondary school reform. Teaching and Teacher Education. 21(8), 899-916. Lingard B., Hayes D., Mills M. (2003) Teachers and productive pedagogies: Contextualising, conceptualising, utilising, Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 11(3), 399-424. Lundahl, L., Arreman, I. E., Lundström, U., & Rönnberg, L. (2010). Setting things right? Swedish upper secondary school reform in a 40‐year perspective. European Journal of Education, 45(1), 46-59. Lundahl, L., Erixon Arreman, I., Holm, A. S., & Lundström, U. (2013). Educational marketization the Swedish way. Education Inquiry, 4(3). Lundström, U., & Holm, A. S. (2011). Market competition in upper secondary education: Perceived effects on teachers’ work. Policy futures in education, 9(2), 193-205. National Agency for Education (2012a). Mapping the School Market. Stockholm: Skolverket. National Agency for Education (2012b) Sämre likvärdighet kräver kraftfulla insatser. National Agency for Education (2013). Kraftig försämring i PISA. Pressrelease 2013-12-03. SKL (2012). Att motverka studieavbrott i gymnasieskolan. SKL.