In this paper we define inclusive education as full participation and high quality learning for all learners. This definition is based on the one proposed by Booth and Ainscow in the Index for Inclusion (2011). It is a broad definition that focuses on diversity and inclusion of all learners and not on some specific groups. Furthermore, it is a definition that moves beyond the idea of inclusion as the simple placement in a mainstream setting: co-existence is only the starting point, but then involvement, sharing and quality of learning processes as well as participation are explicitly addressed (Booth & Ainscow 2011;Maxwell & Granlund (2011).

Italian and Norwegian education acts clearly establish the principle of an inclusive school for all, in the sense that only a very small number of pupils, almost none, should experience education in separate special schools. Both Italy and Norway have institutionalised and generalised the school for all, which was introduced by law in the 1970s and developed through successive legislation and reforms in the 1980s and 1990s up to the present day (Norway: ‘Integration Act ‘ 1975 and Education Act of 1998– Italy: Act 118/71, Act 517/77 and Act 104/92). The basic principle in both countries is that every individual should be provided with optimal learning conditions within mainstream learning contexts. Those who are at risk of exclusion because they are seen to have  special educational needs (SEN) should receive adequate assistance through approaches such as individual curricular adaptations, classroom support teachers and possible intervention by external experts. The same general principle applies to others in need of additional support. The result is that nearly all students, including those with disabilities, attend a general school for all.

Nevertheless, in both countries recent research data have shown the presence of pull-out and push-out phenomena, situations in which some pupil groups (e.g. pupils with disabilities) receive their education within the same school, but in a different place than their peers do. By using the term push-out as well as pull-out we haveunintentional exclusionary effects of school practices in mind.  In Italy a research project investigated the point of view of 3,230 teachers, using on-line questionnaires.  The most evident and consistent finding that emerged from this study was that 55% of students with disabilities spend part of lesson time out of the classroom, 40% are always in class and 6% are always out of class. Those students who spend part of their time studying elsewhere are out of the classroom, on average, for 30% of their lesson time (Ianes, Demo & Zambotti 2013). In Norway, most of the special education is part time, just a few hours (4 -6 hrs) per week, often mixed between support in class and outside class, but exact figures on pull-out and push-out practices do not exist in the reports. However, the majority of pupils (66%) seem to have most of their special education lessons in small groups out of class, while 14% are mostly alone with the teacher in the special education lessons (GSI, 2013; also cf. Nes & Demo 2014).  

The aim of the paper is to produce an overview of all available relevant data about these and related phenomena.

The meaning of pull-out and push-out phenomena for inclusive education has not been fully investigated. Authors who already explored some aspects of the phenomena in our two countries, interpret them as forms of exclusion using words such as exclusionary processes or micro-exclusion (D’Alessio 2011; Nes 2010). In this paper we will analyse these mechanisms in a more complex way differentiating different forms of pull-out and push-out phenomena.

Allan, J (2006): Failing to Make Progress? The Aporias of Responsible Inclusion. In E. Brantlinger (ed): Who Benefits From Special Education? Remediating (fixing) other peoples’s children. Manwah, New Jersey, London: Lawrence Erlbaum Ass. Publishers. Ch. 2. Booth T. & Ainscow M. (2011) Index for Inclusion, III ed., Brisol: CSIE D’Alessio S. (2011) Inclusive Education in Italy: A critical Analysis of the policy of integrazione scolastica. Rotterdam: Sense Publisher Ianes D., Demo H. and Zambotti F. (2013) Integration in Italian schools: Teachers’ perceptions regarding day-to-day practice and its effectiveness. International Journal of Inclusive Education, doi: 10.1080/13603116.2013.802030 Itkonen, T. & Jahnukainen , M. (2010). Disability or Learning Difficulty? Politicians or Educators? Constructing Special Education in Finland and the United States. Comparative Sociology 9, 182-201. Maxwell, G., & Granlund, M. (2011). How are conditions for participation expressed in education policy documents? A review of documents in Scotland and Sweden. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 26(2), 251-272 Nes, K. (2010): "The first decade of the 21st century: A backlash for inclusion in Norwegian schools?" In: Zeitschrift für Inklusion – online.net., no 2, ISSN 1862-5088. http://www.inklusion-online.net/index.php/inklusion/issue/view/10 Nes K., Demo H. (2014) Inclusion at risk? Paper, Nordic Educational Research Association (NERA) conference, Lillehammer, March 7th, 2014 GSI (2013) Grunnskolens informasjonssystem http://www.udir.no/Upload/Statistikk/GSI/GSI_2012_2013.pdf?epslanguage=no Slee, R. (2011): The irregular school - exclusion, schooling and inclusive education. Routledge. Slee, R. (2014). Inclusive Schooling as an Apprenticeship in Democracy? In L. Florian (Red.), The SAGE Handbook of Special Education (2nd utg., Vol. , p. 217-229). Los Angeles, London, New Dehli, Singapore, Washington DC: SAGE.