Inclusive education aims at the social inclusion of all students, that is, their equal access and right be involved in a mainstream school (UNCRPD Art 24 2008) and to contribute to all classroom activities (Bates & Davis 2004). Although also Finland has committed to the neighborhood schools as the first educational option for all children (Basic Education Act 2010; Basics of the National Core Curriculum 2014), merely sharing placement in the same classroom environment does not automatically result in all students’ social inclusion (Petry 2018; Vetoniemi and Kärnä 2021).

This paper comes to grips with the topic of inclusive education by focusing on how the aims and principles of inclusive education appear in the learning and individual education plans (IEP) documents. These documents are a key to promote inclusive education in practice, since they define and justify students’ learning aims and contents as well as the need for necessary support measures, and modifications of the classroom environment the student will need to succeed.

The quality of IEPs has not been found to vary by students’ educational placement whether in inclusive or separate learning environments (Kurth et al. 2022), but teachers in inclusive classrooms seem to emphasize social IEP objectives more than teachers in segregated classrooms (Kwon, Elicker & Kontos, 2011). However, earlier research has showed that the general quality of pedagogical documents such as IEPs is often poor. This appears in vague or even missing descriptions of learning aims or pedagogical solutions in the documents (Boavida et al. 2010; La Salle et al., 2013; Ruble et al.; Räty et al. 2019) as well as in the lack of coherent continuity when describing the support measures or pedagogical solutions in the sequential pedagogical documents over the years (Heiskanen et al. 2019). In addition, the documents typically focus on describing children’s challenges rather than planning ways to eliminate barriers in learning environment or planning appropriate support measures for all students (Andreasson et al. 2013; Heiskanen et al. 2018; Isaksson et al. 2007; 2010; Kurth et al., 2022).

There is also a risk that IEPs do not provide concrete guidance for mainstream teachers on how to meet the individual learning needs of students in inclusive classrooms (Bray & Lin Russell, 2018). Therefore, it is of great importance to examine how the aims of inclusive education are advocated in learning and individual education plans and how the transparency in support provision appear in the documents. The research questions are the following: 1) What kinds of meanings of inclusive education are constructed in the learning and individual education learning plans? and 2) How are the aims of inclusive education justified in these documents?

The research data consisted of 140 learning plans and individual education plans (IEP) drawn up in the Finnish pre-primary and basic education. In Finland, providing educational support is based on the three-tier support model. The learning plans had been drawn up for students receiving intensified support, and IEPs for students receiving special support. Part of the students studied most of the time in a general education group, whereas part of them studied in special education group. Written informed consent to the use of the documents was received from principals, teachers, and parents. The analysis of the data will be based on discourse analysis (see e.g. Wetherell, Taylor & Yates 2001a, 2001b). The analysis has been started by identifying all the mentions of inclusive education from the data whether they were related to integrative or segregated school placements, aims of social inclusion, or pedagogical solutions meant for supporting students’ participation in inclusive classroom. The analysis focused on two sections of the documents: goals and pedagogical solutions/support measures.

The preliminary results show that students’ need for support and school placement either in inclusive or segregated class settings were justified in four different ways in the documents. The most dominant way in which to justify or oppose the placement of students in general education was to lean on their developmental results or learning outcomes. Then, the critical point was whether students deserve admission to school on the basis of their progress and for what kind of school they are eligible. The other ways in which the school placements were justified were by assessing the efficiency of previous support measures, by describing the financial resources, or by considering students’ or their parents’ own perspectives. The classroom observations, different test results or the views of specialists were also used as evidence for the justifications. What is noteworthy was that social inclusion as a goal was only seldom mentioned in the documents. However, learning and individual education plans contained several mentions of differentiation as an academically responsive instruction and as a means to promote inclusive education in practice by adapting instruction to individual differences in heterogeneous classrooms. The quality of the learning and individual education plan documents will be discussed from the viewpoint of inclusive education.

Andreasson, I. etc. 2013. Lessons Learned from Research on Individual Educational Plans in Sweden: Obstacles, Opportunities and Future Challenges. European Journal of Special Needs Education 28 (4), 413–426. Bates, P. & Davis, F. A. 2004. Social Capital, Social Inclusion and Services for People with Learning Disabilities. Disability & Society 19 (3): 195–207. Bray, L. & Lin Russell, J. 2018. The dynamic interaction between institutional pressures and activity: an examination of the implementation of IEPs in secondary inclusive settings. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 40 (2), 243-266. Heiskanen, N. etc. 2018. Positioning children with special educational needs in early childhood education and care documents. British Journal of Sociology of Education 39 (6), 827-843. Heiskanen, N. etc. 2019. Recording Support Measures in the Sequential Pedagogical Documents of Children with Special Education Needs. Journal of Early Intervention 41 (4), 321-339. Isaksson, J. etc. 2010. ‘Pupils with special educational needs’: as study of the assessments and categorising process regarding pupils’ school difficulties in Sweden. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 14(2), 133–151. Kurth, J. etc. 2022. An investigation of IEP quality associated with special education placement for students with complex support needs. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities 47 (3). Kwon, K-A. etc. 2011. Social IEP objectives, teacher talk, and peer interaction in inclusive and segregated preschool settings. Early Childhood Education Journal 39, 267–277. La Salle T. etc. 2013. The relationship of IEP quality to curricular access and academic achievement for students with disabilities. International Journal of Special Education 28 (1), 135-144. Petry, K. 2018. The Relationship Between Class Attitudes towards Peers with a Disability and Peer Acceptance, Friendships and Peer Interactions of Students with a Disability in Regular Secondary Schools. European Journal of Special Needs Education 33 (2): 254–268. Ruble, L. etc. 2010. Examining the quality of IEPs for young children with autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 40(12), 1459–1470. Räty, L. etc. 2019. Documenting pedagogical support measures in Finnish IEPs for students with intellectual disability. European Journal of Special Needs Education 34 (1), 35-49. Wetherell, M. etc. 2001a. Discourse as data. A guide for analysis. Sage. Wetherell, M. etc. 2001b. Discourse theory and practice: A reader. Sage. Vetoniemi, J. & Kärnä, E. 2021. Being Included – Experiences of Social Participation of Pupils with Special Educational Needs in Mainstream Schools. International Journal of Inclusive Education 25 (10): 1190–1204.