The issue in this paper is the organization of special needs education (SNE) for pupils with an individual education plan (IEP) in Finland and Norway with a certain focus on inclusion and teacher competence.

Inclusive education has been a guiding principle in the Nordic countries since the 1990s. Even though there is still no common agreement on what inclusive education means, the effort to shut down special schools and to minimize the amount of pupils receiving education in segregated educational environments has been a mutual trend (Ferguson, 2008; Reindal, 2016). Norway is often mentioned as a country with success in this kind of physical integration, while the amount of pupils who are placed in special groups is considered as low. Finland, on the other hand, is known as a country with educational success when it comes to pupils´ performance in international tests, but also as a country where pupils often are offered SNE in different kinds of segregated educational settings (Haustätter & Takala, 2011; Statistics Finland, 2017; Pesonen et al. 2016; Wendelborg & Tøssebro, 2010).

Integration of pupils in regular educational settings should not be considered as inclusive education, since it does not mean that they automatically receive efficient SNE (Ferguson, 2008). Inclusive education focuses on the well-being of all pupils and aims at developing a classroom where all pupils can learn and participate together (Armstrong, Armstrong and Burton, 2016; Haug, 2017).

In Norway 7,8 percentage of the pupils receive SNE and have an IEP (The Norwegian Directorate of Education and Training, 2017). Wendelborg and Tøssebro (2010) claim that even though these pupils receive their SNE in mainstream schools, they are at risk of being marginalized during the school day, since the general teachers often hand over the responsibility for these children to teacher´s assistants or to special teachers. In Finland, the amount of pupils having an IEP and receiving SNE is approximately at the same level as in Norway, namely 7,5 percentage. However, in Finland, these students often receive their SNE either full- or part-time in special groups (Statistics Finland, 2017).

The above mentioned facts indicate that Finland and Norway organize SNE and meet the vision of inclusive education by different approaches. The two countries also have different approaches when it comes to the requirements regarding teacher competence in SNE. Finnish schools have a certain profession for teachers with a master degree in SNE. These special education teachers have a certain responsibility for educating pupils with special educational needs. This is not the case in Norway, where the SNE has been criticized for an extensive use of teacher’s assistants (Bele, 2010; Haustätter & Takala, 2008; Hannås 2018, Sundqvist, Ahlefeld Nisser & Ström, 2014). Researchers claim that teacher competence have a strong impact on pupils learning, development and achievements (Baumert et al. 2010; Glass, 2000), and for example Glass (2000) claims that not only the degree, but also the content, of the teacher education, so as SNE studies, does have a strong impact on students´ achievements.

In this paper the organization of the special needs education and teacher competence in Norway and Finland are described, compared, and analyzed in light of inclusion. The aim is to deepen the understanding of how special needs education for pupils with an IEP is organized in Finland and Norway, and to investigate what kind of teacher competence the persons who carry out the special needs education have. The research questions are: 

1. How is the special needs education for pupils with an IEP organized?
2. What kind of competence do those who implement the special needs education in practice have?

The focus in this study is SNE in the compulsory school, that means pupils in the age from 6-16 years. Educational policy documents and available educational statistics concerning SNE in Finland and Norway will be scrutinized.Results from earlier research concerning the implementation of SNE in Norway and Finland will be investigated and described. Finally, we will also analyze and compare the data from two different empirical studies from the countries. The data from Norway is based on an empirical qualitative study of 65 official documents, which enlighten the proses that preceded the final decision, and thereby influence on how the SNE are being implemented in practice. The data from Finland is based on a quantitative survey among SNE teachers (N=158), from 2017. The survey contains of questions regarding how and by whom the SNE is implemented. Thus, the two empirical sets of data are not completely comparable, they can still shed valuable light on the two research questions. The data from Norway consists of official documents from the Educational and Counselling Service (PPT), containing experts’ assessments and statements, which are otherwise being withheld from public access. They are, however, of great importance and interest, because according to the Norwegian Law on Education, the schools, in one way or another, are obliged to fulfill the advices provided by the experts in these documents. Scrutinizing these documents, we will use content analyses. The quantitative data from Finland will be analyzed by using descriptive statistics concerning the organization and implementation of special ducation for students with IEP (the use of special classes, small groups, individual education, teacher´s assistants).

The rationale of comparing the implementation of SNE in Finland and Norway is based on the idea that these two countries share the same vision of inclusive education and a school for all, and have about the same amount of pupils receiving SNE when looking at pupils having an IEP. However, the countries have different approaches concerning the organization of the support, and also when it comes to how to handle similar challenges regarding teacher competence. The outcomes presented in this paper can shed light on how the two countries have met the vision of an equal and inclusive school. In the long run a deeper analysis of differences and similarities as well as of strengths and weaknesses can discern circumstances that support or undermine pupils right to qualitative and equal education in an inclusive way. SNE in Norway and Finland have been compared earlier by Haustätter and Takala (2008, 2010), but not with the focus on teacher competence and the practical organization of special educational support concerning pupils with an IEP.

Armstrong, F.; Armstrong, D. & Barton,L. (2016). Inclusive education: Policy, contexts and comparative perspectives. (2nd ed). London. Routledge. Baumert, J., Kunter, M., Blum, W., Brunner, M., Voss, T., Jordan, A., Klausman, U., Krauss, S., Neubrand, M. and Tsai, Y.-M. (2010): Teachers’ Mathematical Knowledge, Cognitive Actimation in the Classroom, and Student Progress, American Educational Research Journal, Vol. 47, No. 1, pp 133-180. DOI: 103102/0002831209345157 Bele, I., V. (2010): Lærernes egenvurdering av spesialpedagogisk kompetanse – og viktige kilder for kompetanseutvikling. Norsk pedagogisk tidsskrift 6/2010, Årgang 94, s. 476-491. Ferguson, D.L. (2008). International trends in inclusive education: the continuing challenge to teach each one and everyone. Euoropean Journal of Special Needs Educatiom, 23 (2), 109-120. Glass, G.V. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement, A review of state policy evidence. Education Policy Analaysis Archives, 8 (1), 1-44. Hannås, B., M. (2018): Hvordan sikre kvalitet i spesialundervisningen? En empirisk undersøkelse av Pedagogisk-psykologisk tjenestes sakkyndige vurdering. Psykologi i kommunen, 53 (1) (in press). Haug, P. (2017): Spesialundervisning, læringsmiljø og inkludering, FOU I PRAKSIS, 27 sider, publisert 04.05.2017, https://utdanningsforskning.no/artikler/spesialundervisning-laringsmiljo-og-inkludering/ Hautsätter, R.S. & Takala, M. (2008). The core of special teacher education: a comparison of Finland and Norway. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 23 (2), 121–134 Hautsätter, R.S. & Takala, M. (2011) Can special education make a difference? Exploring the differences between special educational systems between Finland and Norway in relation to the PISA-results, Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research, 13 (4), 271-281. Pesonen, H.; Itkonen, T., Jahnukainen, M.; Kontu, E.; Kokko; t.; Ojala, T.; Pirttimaa, R. (2015). The implementation of a new special education legislation in Finland. Educational Policy, 29 (1), 162-178. Reindal, S.M. (2015). Discussing inclusive education: an inquiry into different interpretations and a search for ethical aspects of inclusion using the capabilities approach. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 31 (1), 1-12. Statistics Finland (2017). Special Education. http://www.stat.fi/til/erop/2016/erop_2016_2017-06-13_tie_001_en.html Sundqvist, C., Ahlefeld Nisser, D. & Ström, K. (2010). Consultation in SNEin Sweden and Finland: a comparative approach. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 29 (3), 297-312. The Norwegian Directorate of Education and Training (2017): The Education Mirror. Facts and analysis of kindergarten, primary and secondary education in Norway, http://utdanningsspeilet.udir.no/2017/innhold/del-2/2-3-tilpassa-opplaering-og-spesialundervisning/ Wendelborg, C. & Tøssebo, J. (2010). Marginalisation processes in inclusive education in Norway: a longitudinal study of classroom participation. Disability and Society, 25 (6), 701-714.