We can identify two substantial approaches to special education (Kavale, 2007). One is that special education requires distinctive teaching strategies, adapted to each child, and dependent upon what constitutes the learning difficulties in the first place. The other is that there is no need for distinctive disability-specific special education strategies. What is needed, is good teaching (Mitchell, 2008). The two different understandings of the challenges also represent two distinct solutions when it comes to who should teach special education. The first alternative is an argument and a legitimation for specially educated teachers. Well-qualified ordinary teachers will satisfy the second alternative.

A Norwegian questionnaire-based study, invited teachers to answer what characterized special education (Bele, 2012). The result was that a waste majority of the teachers meant that special education has different content, teaching/working methods, teaching material and objectives than ordinary teaching. This is most surely an acceptance of the first of the two alternatives above. There is however, no formulations in legislation when it comes to formal qualifications for giving special education in Norway. The national education statistics shows that more than half of the teachers in special education have no formal competence in special education. The question raised here then, is if the variation in formal competence makes any difference in teaching the students.

Recent research underlines the importance of teacher competences. Teachers seem in general to be the most important element in school to explain student achievements (Hattie, 2009). This also goes for inclusive education and special education (Egelund og Tetler, 2009).

The question of teacher competence and teaching is as an important part of inclusive education. Norway signed the Salamanca Declaration in 1994. In 1997 the National Curriculum introduced inclusion as the educational ideal for all students. Until then and since 1975, integration had been the main ideological basis for Norwegian schools. There is no general accepted definition of inclusive education (Mitchell, 2005). This also seems to be the case when it comes to the Norwegian conditions (Strømstad, 2004). That is, on an ideological and political level state documents are clear about two issues concerning inclusion and special education, while the practicing of these issues varies a lot.

The two issues in inclusion deal with participation and benefit. Ideas concerning social justice explain this (Haug, 1999). Participation is to give special education whenever possible within the frame of the student’s ordinary class (Utdanningsdirektoratet, 2009). The national data about the organization of special education indicate that inclusion occurs only in about 25 percent of the cases. The rest occurs outside ordinary class, given individually (about 25 %) or in smaller groups (about 50 %). Benefit is that all students have progress according to personal resources in their learning efforts. In Norwegian legislation, there is only one criteria for receiving special education, lack of benefit from ordinary teaching in class. Research cannot finally conclude on the benefit from special education, but there are several reports indicating that special education does not lead to expected learning effects (Giota, Lundborg og Emanuelsson, 2009; Kavale og Forness, 1999; Nordahl og Hausstätter, 2009). It is a very delicate and complex research issue.

Bele, I. (2012). Hva er spesielt med spesialundervisning - slik lærere ser det? I P. Haug (red.), Kvalitet i opplæringa (s. 223-241). Oslo: Det Norske Samlaget. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. New York: Psychology Press, Taylor & Francic Group. Egelund, N. og Tetler, S. (red.). (2009). Effekter af specialundervisningen:Pædagogiske vilkår i komplicerede læringssituationer og elevernes faglige, sociale og personlige resultater. København: Danmarks Pædagogiske Universitetsforl. Giota, J., Lundborg, O. og Emanuelsson, I. (2009). Special Education in Comprehensive Schools: Extent, Forms and Effects. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 53(6), 557-578. Hattie, J. (2009). Visible Learning. A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. London: Routledge. Haug, P. (1999). Formulation and realization of social justice: The compulsory school for all in Sweden and Norway. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 14(3), 231-239. Kavale, K. A. (2007). Quantitative Research Synthesis: Meta-Analysis of Research on Meeting Special Educational Needs. I L. Florian (red.), Handbook of Special Education (s. 207-221). London: Sage Publications. Kavale, K. A. og Forness, S. R. (1999). Efficacy of Special Education and Related Services. Washington: American Association of Mental Retardation. Klette, K. (red.). (2003). Klasserommets praksisformer etter Reform 97. Oslo: Universitetet i Oslo, Det utdanningsvitenskapelige fakultetet og Norges forskningsråd. Künzli, R. (1998). The Common Frame and the Places of Didaktik. I B. B. Gundem og S. Hopmann (red.), Didaktik and/or Curriculum. An International Dialogue. (s. 29-45). New York: Peter Lang. Mitchell, D. (2005). Sixteen propositions on the contexts of inclusive education. I D. Mitchell (red.), Contextualizing Inclusive Education. Evaluating old and new international perspectives. (s. 1-21). London: Routledge. Mitchell, D. (2008). What really works in special and inclusive education using evidence-based teaching strategies. London: Routledge. Nordahl, T. og Hausstätter, R. S. (2009). Spesialundervisningens forutsetninger, innsatser og resultater. Hamar: Høgskolen i Hedmark. Powell, J., Martindale, A. og Kulp, S. (1975). An Evaluation of Time-Sample Measures of Behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 8(4 (Winter)), 463-469. Strømstad, M. (2004). Inkluderende skole - hva er det? I K. J. Solstad og T. O. Engen (red.), En likeverdig skole for alle? Om enhet og mangfold i grunnskolen. (s. 115-134). Oslo: Universitetsforlaget. Utdanningsdirektoratet. (2009). Spesialundervisning. Veileder til opplæringsloven om spesialpedagogisk hjelp og spesialundervisning. Oslo: Utdanningsdirektoratet.