In 1994, the UNESCO Salamanca Declaration stated that inclusion should be an issue of concern for all countries, and in 2015, the UN Sustainable Development Goals also marked inclusive and equitable quality education for all children in one of the 18 sustainability goals (goal no. 4 Quality Education) as a prerequisite to realise a sustainable development of the society. Despite political agreements, legislation and great effort in research and practices, the realisation of inclusive education (IE) has continued to prove challenging (Nilholm 2021). Among several explanations, a lack of a unified understanding of IE (ibid.) and a clash between IE values and values aimed at  students’ academic achievements (Ainscow & Messiou 2018) are suggested to be two main obstacle. In order to advance the field of IE, researchers have explored inclusion as a multifaceted phenomenon that requires contemporaneous analysis on macro, meso, and micro levels (Schuelka &Engsig 2022, 449). Macro aspects such as ideologies, policy and laws, meso aspects such as school contexts and teachers’ practices and micro aspects such as psychological and learning dimensions must be considered and understood by focusing on their mutual interaction (A. Qvortrup and Qvortrup 2018; Messiou 2006). Qvortrup & Qvortrup (2018) further argue that we should avoid thinking about IE in an either-or-perspective, and they develop ‘…a framework for understanding and working with inclusion in schools that take into account the dynamic relationship between inclusion and exclusion and the fact that inclusive work will never reach a stable state of total inclusion’ (810). The framework relates to the broader trend of viewing the concept of special educational needs (SEN) from a perspective focusing on individual factors (the individual approach) but also focusing on the school’s failure to accommodate human diversity, which in turn necessitates a focus on the school context and its conditions for inclusion (social-contextual approach) (Skidmore, 1996). To meet these requests, holistic approaches have emerged, in which the shortcomings of previous approaches are highlighted, as they ‘[…] share common limitations of reductionism’ (Skidmore 1996, 33). As also suggested in Amartya Sen’s capability approach (2009), attention caused should be placed on both human diversity (we are all different), impairment and disability (as specific variablesof human diversity) and barriers and inequalities by the social environment (see e.g. Reindal, 2009). In this way the contradictions and practical dilemmas of IE become visible: While on the one hand, IE involves identifying students’ differences to meet their individual needs, on the other, it is also about maintaining a sense of normality and treating all the same (Norwich 2002). Additionally, an enrichment approach arose, arguing that experiences with human diversity as crucial for students’ understanding and respect for others and themselves. Thus, this approach is about preparing for a future life in heterogeneous society (Befring 1997, 184).

In line with Kiuppis (2014) the development of different and apparently conflicting perspectives in the field of IE reflects ambiguities about the values of inclusion in the Salamanca Declaration (UNESCO 1994).  Thus, this paper aims to contribute to the advancement of the field by providing a deeper understanding of the complexities surrounding the implementation of IE from the ideological/political level, to the practical and individual one (inclusionary outcome for the student). The following research question was formulated to guide our study:

How should one understand the phenomenon of IE when analysing the dynamic interaction between the ideological value of IE, inclusive practices, and students’ inclusionary outcomes in schools?

The study is based on analyses of the connections between inclusive education, student diversity and the concept of special educational needs, and the current state of the field. Additionally, Norway has been chosen as case, since it has been shown that the so-called ‘PISA-shock’ and the following ‘Knowledge Promotion Reform’ have challenged the realisation of IE (Imsen, Blossing, &Moos 2017). There was a noticeable increase in students who received special education and who were moved to segregated settings during this period (Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training 2022-23). In an interview study with 12 special educators, it became clear that they often found themselves isolated with the responsibility for students receiving SE (Uthus 2020). They reported that despite the students’ legal entitlement to receive SE as part of what is called adapted education in regular classrooms, the students were placed in segregated groups alongside peers with widely varying needs. The special educators associated the situation with the growing attention on educational efficacy, economic stresses, and teacher accountability. Additionally, they raised concerns with the principal about the undignified situation of students with SEN. Then they were met with the argument that striving for inclusion meant minimising SE as much as possible, aligned with guidelines rooted in the social-contextual approach and a complementary theory (Bachmann & Haug 2006).

By analysing existing approaches to IE we show how they are not sensitive to the distinction between inclusion as an educational value and inclusion at the practical and individual (inclusionary outcome) level. Schools face the complexity of managing multiple educational values and other codes like law, economics, and ethics, but do not have sufficient concepts to describe this complexity. The Norwegian case exemplifies how the value of IE understood in terms of the social-contextual approach to SEN, undermined students’ legal entitlements to SE. Additionally, when economic considerations in terms of ‘knowledge promotion’ are prioritised over IE, and this is subtly legitimised by the same social-contextual approach, ethical issues are involved as well. At the practice (meso) level and the individual (mikro) level inclusion refers to completely different codes than at the other levels. To provide a deeper understanding of the complexities surrounding the implementation of IE, we delve into inclusion as an educational or ideological value, as articulated in the Salamanca Declaration (UNESCO 1994). We suggest operationalising the three core values of inclusion articulated in the Salamanca Declaration: welcoming communities, combating discriminatory attitudes, and education for all into the following institutional practice principles: participation, human diversity, and differentiation. The values and their alignment with the principles of practice are explored. We discuss the interplay among these values and their corresponding practice principle, emphasising the need for awareness when prioritising one over others. In line with Qvortrup & Qvortrup (2018), we suggest that ‘how do we make inclusion happen’ is a professional task, relying on organisational conditions as well as on teacher-student interactions and student experiences of inclusion/exclusion in local schools with diverse populations (micro level) (Qvortrup &Qvortrup 2018). Without a sufficient concept for the complexity they experience, there is a risk of reductionism and stagnation in the field of IE.

Ainscow, Mel, and Kyriaki Messiou. 2018. "Engaging with the views of students to promote inclusion in education." Journal of Educational Change 19 (1): 1-17. Bachmann, Kari, and Peder Haug. 2006. "Forskning om tilpasset opplæring." Høgskulen i Volda. Befring, Edvard. 1997. "The enrichment perspective: A special educational approach to an inclusive school." Remedial and special education 18 (3): 182-187. Imsen, Gunn, Ulf Blossing, and Lejf Moos. 2017. "Reshaping the Nordic education model in an era of efficiency. Changes in the comprehensive school project in Denmark, Norway, and Sweden since the millennium." Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research 61 (5): 568-583. Kiuppis, Florian. 2014. "Why (not) associate the principle of inclusion with disability? Tracing connections from the start of the ‘Salamanca Process’." International Journal of Inclusive Education 18 (7): 746-761. Luhmann, Niklas. 1995. Social systems. Stanford University Press. Messiou, Kyriaki. 2006. "Understanding marginalisation in education: The voice of children." European Journal of Psychology of Education 21 (3): 305-318.. Nilholm, Claes. 2021. "Research about inclusive education in 2020 – How can we improve our theories in order to change practice?" European Journal of Special Needs education 36 (3): 358-370. Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training. 2022-23. GSI statistics. Information from primary and lower secondary school. Norwich, Brahm. 2002. "Education, Inclusion and Individual Differences: Recognising and Resolving Dilemmas." British Journal of Educational Studies 50 (4): 482-502. Qvortrup, Ane, and Lars Qvortrup. 2018. "Inclusion: Dimensions of inclusion in education." International Journal of Inclusive Education 22 (7): 803-817. Reindal, Solveig M. 2009. "Disability, capability, and special education: towards a capability‐based theory." European Journal of Special Needs Education 24 (2): 155-168 Schuelka, Matthew J., and Thomas Thyrring Engsig. 2022. "On the question of educational purpose: complex educational systems analysis for inclusion." International Journal of Inclusive Education 26 (5): 448-465. Sen, Amartya. 2009. "Capability: reach and limits." In Debating global society: Reach and limits of the capability approach, edited by Cortona Colloquium, Enrica Chiappero M. and Amartya Sen, 15-28. Milan: Fondazione Giangiacomo Feltrinelli. Skidmore, David. 1996. "Towards an integrated theoretical framework for research into special educational needs." European Journal of special needs education 11 (1): 33-47. UNESCO. 1994. The Salamanca statement and framework for action on special needs education. Paris. Uthus, Marit. 2020. "'Det har sine omkostninger'. Spesialpedagogens trivsel og belastninger i arbeidet i en inkluderende skole: En intervjustudie " Nordisk tidsskrift for pedagogikk og kritikk 6 (0): 14.