Over the last decades, sign language has received increased recognition both as a language in its own right as well as a linguistic tool in education of deaf and hard-of-hearing (DHH) students. (Swanwick et al. 2014, Knoors & Marschark 2012). In Norway, the Education Act, section 2-6, “Sign language instruction in primary and lower secondary education” (KUF 1998), gave deaf students who have acquired sign language as their first language the right to instruction “both in the use of sign language and through the medium of sign language” (KUF, 1998). The introduction of policies on sign bilingual education took place together with the introduction of inclusive education as an overall value in education. Further, the National Curriculum for the 10-year compulsory education (KUF 1996) introduced four curricula for students educated according to s.2-6: Norwegian Sign Language (NSL), Norwegian for deaf students, English for deaf students, and Drama and Rhythmics for deaf students.

While education of DHH students has a legacy of special schools and special education, a core idea connected to the introduction of curricula for deaf students was to repeal the connection between education of deaf students and special education. As such, education according to s.2-6 is considered regular education based on curricula for deaf students. Further, the Ministry of Education stated that the right to instruction in the use of and through the medium of sign language (s.2-6) should strengthen the responsibility of the municipality with regard to providing adapted education to DHH students.

Today, two decades after the implementation of curricula for deaf students, the policy documents connected to sign language and curricula for deaf students are mainly unchanged. National statistics (GSI, 2016) show that in 2015/16 there were 254 students in primary and lower secondary education who have an individual decision regarding education based on s.2-6. The equivalent number in 2001/02 was 350 (Ohna & Vonen, 2007). However, while the number of students educated according to s.2-6 have slightly decreased over the period, there are indications on a significant turn towards using special education (s.5-1) as an overall frame for education of deaf students (Hendar, 2012 and Eikli 2014).

The increased use of special education as a frame for sign language instruction for deaf students is remarkable. While policy documents the last two decades has emphasized that education according to curricula for deaf students are not special education, there seems to be an increased practice at municipality level to connect the use of curriculum in Norwegian Sign Language (NSL) to special education. The following research questions is formulated: What are the challenges when the use of subject curriculum in Norwegian Sign Language is based on the right to special education?

Eikli, G. (2014). CI - og hva så? Rapport fra tverrfaglig utvalg for en samordnet pedagogisk oppfølging av barn med cochleaiomplanat. [CI – and what then? Report from an interdisciplinary committee for a coordinated pedagogical support to children with a cochlear implant]. Retrieved from Hentet fra: http://www.statped.no/globalassets/fagomrader/horsel/horsel-2/dokumenter/ci---og-hva-sa---rapport-5-2-14.pdf (Downloaded 29.12-2016). Hendar, O. (2012). Elever med hørselshemming i skolen: En kartleggingsundersøkelse om læringsutbytte. Retrieved from http://www.udir.no/Upload/Rapporter/2012/horsel.pdf. (Downloaded 02.01.2017). Hjulstad, J., Maugen, G. M., Wik, S. E., Holkesvik, A. H., & Kermit, P. (2015). Kunnskapsoversikt over forskningsfunn om læring hos barn og unge med hørselshemming. Trondheim: NTNU Samfunnsforskning. Kirkehei, H., Myrhaug, H. T., Garm, N., Simonsen, E., & Wie, O. B. (2011). Kommunikasjonsformer for barn med cochleaimplanat. Retrieved from http://www.kunnskapssenteret.no/publikasjoner/kommunikasjonsformer-for-barn-med-cochleaimplantat (downloaded 29.12-2016). Knoors, H., & Marschark, M. (2012). Language Planning for the 21st Century: Revisiting Bilingual Language Policy for Deaf Children. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 17(3), 291-305. KUF. (1996). Læreplanverket for den 10-årige grunnskolen. Oslo: Det kongelige kirke-, utdannings- og forskningsdepartement. KUF. (1998). Lov om grunnskolen og den vidaregåande opplæringa. [Act of Education] Retrieved from: http://www.lovdata.no/all/hl-19980717-061.html (nedlastet 13.05.14). Ohna, S. E., & Vonen, A. M. (2007). Sign Bilingual Education: Policy and Practice. Norway. . In R. Swanwick & S. Gregory (Eds.), Sign Bilingual Education: Policy and Practice. (pp. 63-66). Coleford, Gloucestershire: Douglas McLean Publishing. Ohna, S. E., Hjulstad, O., Vonen, A. M., Grønlie, S., Hjelmervik, E., & Høie, G. (2003). På vei mot en ny grunnskoleopplæring for døve [Towards a new compulsory education for deaf pupils] (Vol. 20). Oslo: Skådalen Resource Centre. Swanwick, R., Hendar, O., Dammeyer, J., Kristoffersen, A.-E., Salter, J., & Simonsen, E. (2014). Shifting Contexts and Practices in Sign Bilingual Education in Northern Europe: Implications for Professional Development and Training. In M. Marschark, G. Tang, & H. Knoors (Eds.), Bilingualism and Bilingual Deaf Education. New York: Oxford University Press. UDIR. (2016). Opplæring i og på tegnspråk - hørselshemmede i grunnskolen. [Instruction in the use of and through the medium of sign language] Retrieved from http://www.udir.no/laring-og-trivsel/sarskilte-behov/horselshemmede/grunnskole/opplaring-i-og-pa-tegnsprak/ (downloaded 28.12.16). UNESCO and Ministry of Education and Science Spain. (1994). The Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action on special needs education. Spain: UNESCO.