Background, research question and purpose In an international context, ideas about inclusive education have been firmly anchored in an explicit social justice agenda, emphasising that inclusive education is anchored in a rights discourse that aims to expand students’ access to valued resources (Artiles & Kozleski, 2016). However, even though rights and access are crucial, it is imperative that inclusive education “broaden its justice agenda” to what happens after access is attained (Artiles & Kozleski, 2016, p. 15). Although the link between inclusion and social justice is thematised in research it is to a lesser degree elaborated on (Artiles, Harris-Murri, & Rostenberg, 2006), and research attention to equality and equity dilemmas has been limited (Artiles, 2012).

Notwithstanding the commitment to socially just education, school systems, also in the Norwegian context, produce and reproduce inequalities (Knudsen, 2021). A factor less addressed than school systems reproducing inequalities, however, is that the mechanisms of inequality change over time (Connell, 2012). Whereas inequalities in previous times were related to institutional segregation, newer forms of educational inequalities are induced by a global, neo-liberal turn in education; The change is characterised by market-oriented and competitive mechanisms, emphasising meritocratic norms and values, advantaging privileged groups (Connell, 2012; Smeyers, 2009). These tendencies coincide with questions concerning students leaving upper-secondary school with no formal qualification, a problem which has been on the political agendas throughout the Western world in the past few decades.

In comparison with other countries in Europe, Norway has a high level of youths aged 25-34 who have not received a qualification from upper secondary education; This lack of qualification applies primarily to former students in vocational education and training (Ministry of Education, 2019). The Norwegian welfare state’s priority of equal rights and opportunities to secure collective interests through equal rights in a common education system has gradually given way to a neo-liberal focus on educational outcomes, which has opened the gate towards a plethora of compensatory solutions (Thuen & Volckmar, 2020). In an attempt to counteract drop-out from upper-secondary education, the Norwegian government has developed various alternative trajectories for students who do not benefit from the regular programmes. The aim of the study is to explore how alternative programmes in upper-secondary vocational education and training relate to issues of social justice. The study is based on a critical re-analysis of results from two previous Norwegian studies that explored alternative programmes in upper-secondary vocational education and training. 

Theoretical framework In exploring how alternative programmes in upper-secondary vocational education and training relate to issues of social justice, the analytical lens used is based on Gewirtz (2006), Young (1990), Fraser (2000) and Connell (2012, 2013), with perspectives on Rawls’ (1971) Theory of justice as a theoretical underpinning. The re-analysis aims to discuss justice in the intersection of an increasingly market-oriented neoliberal educational system on the one hand and the vision of equal opportunities in inclusive and socially just education on the other hand.

In this critical re-analysis of how alternative educational trajectories relate to issues of social justice, we use the experiences with the Norwegian programme "Alternative course with extended workplace practice" as they come forward in two studies in which we, the authors, have taken part: 1) Nevøy, Rasmussen, Ohna and Barow (2014), and 2) Bruin and Ohna (2013). The research was conducted between 2009 and 2012. Data consisted of interviews with school administrators, teachers, and students, as well as register data and policy documents. The experiences with the alternative courses are presented from an institutional perspective, as well as from a student perspective. Analytical framework: Dewey’s legacy (1932) reminds us that social justice is multi-faceted, based on moral principles that provide tools for analysing, clarifying, and illuminating special situations. On justice Dewey remarks, “Taken as a principle, not as a rule, justice signifies the will to examine specific institutions and measures so as to find out how they operate with the view of introducing greater impartiality and equity into the consequences they produce” (Dewey, 1932, p. 338). In developing a contextualized analysis of social justice, Gewirtz (2006) echoes Dewey’s notion. She argues that “social justice in education has to be understood in relation to particular contexts of enactment” (p. 69). When exploring justice in education, a contextualised approach is necessary that can support a reflective discourse about justice, an “analytical lens for helping us to read and evaluate claims about justice in education” (p. 79). According to Young (1990, p. 5), this involves “clarifying the meaning of concepts and issues, describing and explaining social relations, and articulating and defending ideals and principles”. Gewirtz (2006) states that what counts as socially just is a composite and multifaceted conundrum that is not possible to answer at a purely abstract level. She proposes an analytical approach involving four dimensions: taking into account 1) the multi-dimensional nature of justice, 2) the tensions between different dimensions of justice, 3) the mediated nature of just practices and 4) differences in the contexts and levels within which justice is enacted (Gewirtz, 2006, p. 79). Similarly, Young (1990) holds that issues of social justice need to be considered in light of experience, because without experience, “normative reflection is abstract, empty, and unable to guide criticism with a practical interest in emancipation” (p. 5). Our re-analysis of experiences with alternative courses with extended workplace practice draws on this contextualised approach.

The analysis shows that the alternative course had a substantial impact on the students’ lives. The experiences reflect patterns of unfulfilled promises and hopes, indicating issues of social injustice, involving the political policy context underlying the alternative course, as well as the course’s curricular and pedagogical design, its content and purpose. Consequently, a series of principles involving social justice claims for redistribution and recognition, and curricular justice, become pertinent, which is discussed in three parts, 1) A right to education or just an educational impasse? 2) The construction of students, and 3) Education in what, and what for – “What did you learn in school today?”. Connell (2012) emphasises that social justice in education is concerned with multiple issues: Not only does it concern equal access to an educational service, but social justice also concerns the nature of the service itself, as well as the consequences that follow over time, for society and the individual. The study concludes that developing alternative trajectories in upper secondary education does not solve a problem but rather calls attention to institutionalised constructions of student diversity as deviance, not affording them “equality opportunity and respect” (Young, 2006, p. 97), hence sustaining patterns of inequality and social injustice. In the spirit of Dewey, it seems time for our generation to acknowledge the situated nature of social justice and to overhaul our inherited stock of moral principles, which may call for reconsidering normalising practices in education, as well as the ongoing conditions that produce and reproduce inequalities. As Young (2006, p. 97) states, “This is a tall order, to be sure, but we should not trim our ideals of justice just because we find the task of measuring up to them too large”.

(For some reason, the conference tool would not apply the cursive formatting, our apologies for this). Artiles, A. J. (2012). After inclusion: Notes on the future of a (tranformative?) idea. Birmingham, UK. Artiles, A. J., Harris-Murri, N., & Rostenberg, D. (2006). Inclusion as Social Justice: Critical Notes on Discourses, Assumptions, and the Road Ahead. Theory into Practice, 45(3), 260-268. Artiles, A. J., & Kozleski, E. B. (2016). Inclusive Education's Promises and Trajectories: Critical Notes about Future Research on a Venerable Idea. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 24(43). https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.5212/PraxEduc.v.14n3.001 Bruin, M., & Ohna, S. E. (2013). Alternative courses in upper secondary vocational education and training: Students’ narratives on hopes and failures. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 17(10), 1089-1105. Connell, R. (2012). Just Education. Journal of Education Policy, 27(5), 681-683. Connell, R. (2013). Why do market ‘reforms’ persistently increase inequality? Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 34(2), 279-285. Dewey, J. (1932). Moral Judgment and Knowledge. In L. A. Hickman & T. M. Alexander (Eds.), The essential Dewey Volume 2. Ethics, Logic, Psychology (pp. 328-340). Indiana University Press. Fraser, N. (2000). Rethinking Recognition. New Left Review, 3 (May/June), 107-120. Gewirtz, S. (2006). Towards a contextualized analysis of social justice in education. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 38(1), 69-81. Knudsen, K. (2021). Utdanning og ulikhet [Education and difference]. In s. Grønmo, A. Nilsen, & K. Christensen (Eds.), Ulikhet. Sosiologiske perspektiv og analyser [Difference. Sociological perspectives and analyses] (pp. 129-150). Fagbokforlaget. Ministry of Education. (2019). NOU 2019:2 Fremtidige kompetansebehov II - Utfordringer for kompetansepolitikken [Future Competence Requirements II - Challenges for educational policies]. Retrieved from https://www.regjeringen.no/no/dokumenter/nou-2019-2/id2627309/?ch=9 Nevøy, A., Rasmussen, A., Ohna, S. E., & Barow, T. (2014). Nordic Upper Secondary School: Regular and Irregular Programmes - Or Just One Irregular School for All? In U. Blossing, G. Imsen, & L. Moos (Eds.), The Nordic Education Model. ‘A School for All’ Encounters Neo-Liberal Policy (pp. 191-210). Springer. Rawls, J. (1971). A Theory of Justice. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. Smeyers, P. (2009). Afterword. In P. Smyers & M. Depaepe (Eds.), Educational Research: The Educationalization of Social Problems (pp. 227-238). Springer. Thuen, H., & Volckmar, N. (2020). Postwar School Reforms in Norway. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.013.1456 Young, I. M. (1990). Justice and the Politics of Difference. Princeton University Press. Young, I. M. (2006). Education in the Context of Structural Injustice: A symposium response. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 38(1), 93-103. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-5812.2006.00177.x