It has been a change in the way we understand the pupils role in the school system in Norway, and in the recent years it has been a growing expectation that the schools should be able to meet the heterogeneity among the pupils through varying the way it is taught (Haug, 2012a). We find the same challenges in Europe. I.e. Sweden, the Netherlands and Greece also struggles to change from an individual pathological view at pupils with special educational needs (SEN-pupils) to a system perspective to explain the pupils difficulties (Emanuelsson, Haug, & Persson, 2005). Since the need for special education has been increasing, it shows that the schools comes short in this area - the diversity among the pupils are too big (Haug, 2012b). This generates questions around what special education is about, and what function it has.

In my presentation, I will discuss what characterizes the relation between special education and ordinary education, both differences and similarities. I question what function special education is supposed to have in order to make it possible for SEN-pupils to participate in a substantially fellowship within their class. According to David Mitchell (2014) the effect of teaching depends upon the way the pupils prerequisites are attended to, and the degree of independence they show in learning activities. In this perspective, the importance of enabling pupils to interact in their class is underlined. The distinctions between general adaptions of the curriculum and special measures will also be thematised.

Inclusion is an ideology in the Norwegian educational system. The agreement on the ideal is prevalent, but how we understand the term varies (Bachmann & Haug, 2006). It is, however, agreed that it emphasizes a participant perspective at the pupils (Nes & Strømstad, 2001). The discussion about inclusion also involves the consequences of quality in ordinary education, as a key element to reduce the need for special adaptions. Research indicates that high quality in ordinary education results in lesser need for special measures (Bachmann & Haug, 2006). Inclusion build upon the ideology that pupils have a right to be taught together within their class. One aspect is whether the special education enables the pupils to participate in class in subject matters. Do special education give the knowledge the pupil need to participate in discussions in the classroom?   

I use different theoretical perspectives, and one is curriculum theory. It is a large field with several ways to approach how schools meet the challenges of diversity in education. The curriculum shows what kind of knowledge is valued in the society; what kind of knowledge is valid in school. For SEN-pupils this can be challenging if academic aims suppresses social aims, and thereby takes away equal possibilities to interact with their class in learning activities. The curriculum is also about protecting social values and individual rights (Karseth & Sivesind, 2009), in which inclusion can be connected to.

Learning is not merely a cognitive process; it also depends on social aspects. Learning is a social activity, and emphasizes a relational interdependency among the participants. In this context, it is about having access to the learning potential in the group.  Lave & Wenger (1991) argue that “(…) learning, thinking, and knowing are relations among people in activity I, with, and arising from the socially and culturally structured world” (p. 51). Situated learning is important to reflect on, since a large amount of the special education is given outside class, alone or in small groups of pupils with similar difficulties. How can they gain both a social and academically outcome if they are excluded from the social fellowship in learning activities?

Bachmann, K., & Haug, P. (2006). Forskning om tilpasset opplæring. Volda: Høgskulen i Volda, Møreforsking Volda. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2011). Research methods in education. New York: Routledge Emanuelsson, I., Haug, P., & Persson, B. (2005). Inclusive education in some Western European countries. Different policy rhetorics and school realities. In D. Mitchell (Ed.), Contextualizing Inclusive Education. Evaluating old and new international perspectives (pp. 114 - 138). London and New York: Routledge Taylor & Francic Group. Haug, P. (2012a). Korleis er kvaliteten i opplæringa? In P. Haug (Ed.), Kvaliet i opplæringa (pp. 283 - 296). Oslo: Det Norske Samlaget. Haug, P. (2012b). Kvalitet i opplæringa. In P. Haug (Ed.), Kvalitet i opplæringa. Arbeid i grunnskulen observert og vurdert. (pp. 9 - 32). Oslo: Det Norske Samlaget. Karseth, B., & Sivesind, K. (2009). Læreplanstudier - perspektiver og posisjoner. In E. L. Dale (Ed.), Læreplan i et forskningsperspektiv (pp. 23 - 61). Oslo: Universitetsforlaget. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mitchell, D. (2014). What ReallyWworks in Special and Inclusive Education. Using evidence-based teaching strategies (2. ed.). London: Routledge. Nes, K., & Strømstad, M. (2001). Inkluderingshåndboka. Vallset: Oplandske Bokforlag. Yin, R. K. (2014). Case Study Research. Design and Methods. (5. ed.). California: SAGE Publications, Inc.