Contribution                                                                

Like other Nordic countries, Norway has a culture and history of promoting politics that emphasise social equalisation and equal access to education for all (Keles et al., 2022). Education for all aims to support respect and acceptance for diversity and to promote learning in inclusive settings as well as learning from one another, thus creating spaces for social relations to enrich the understanding of what it means to be part of a democratic society (Hausstätter & Vik, 2021). The Nordic countries’ similarities and shared aims for education are defined as the ‘Nordic model’ of education (Frønes et al., 2020), which has traditionally further promoted the policy of inclusion through legal and legislative documents as well as principles for inclusive educational practices (Haug, 2017; Keles et al., 2022).

The situation seems to have hit a dead end, however, as the Nordic model concept is threatened by the forces of marketisation, efficiency, individualism and competition, challenging the traditional welfare values of education for all (Hanssen et al., 2021). This is particularly observed in Norway, where there is a persistent gap between national legal and legislative documents and the practices of inclusive education for students with special educational needs (SEN). This gap is linked to an increase in segregated educational spaces and a lack of special education expertise (Olsen, 2021), which may restrict learning and social participation for this group of students. Such barriers for inclusion can emerge in any context but especially in settings where legal and legislative documents lack a common understanding of the concept of inclusion and offer vague guidelines for promoting inclusive education practices (Olsen & Hanssen, 2021).

The current paper follows Kemmis et al.’s (2014) definition of practice as a socially established cooperative activity involving utterance and forms of understanding (sayings), modes of action and activity (doings) and the ways in which people relate to one another and the world (relatings). Inclusive education practices for students with SEN are thus understood as the varied ways in which teachers include students with SEN in education (doings), how they express themselves in words and language to describe what is going on in their teaching (sayings) and how they relate to students, colleagues and other partners (relatings) (Mahon et al., 2017). Inclusive education practices are ‘held in place’ by external structures or arrangements (cultural-discursive, material-economic and sociopolitical circumstances. Against this background, the present study investigates the following research question:

How can the new Norwegian Education Act constrain and enable inclusive education practices for students with SEN in primary and secondary schools?

The research question is explored by analysing the forthcoming Education Act and its preparatory documents.

The documents were analysed by qualitative content analysis (QCA) with a deductive approach (Elo & Kyngös, 2008). The main concepts of the theory of practice architectures (Kemmis et al., 2014), including cultural-discursive, material-economic and sociopolitical arrangements, constituted the frames of categorisation. Kemmis et al. (2014) claim that participants in communities encounter one another in intersubjective spaces, which are arranged in particular ways and structure social life. They conceptualise this as a ‘practice architecture’ comprising three kinds of interwoven arrangements. Cultural-discursive arrangements enable or constrain how shared discourses are expressed in the social medium of language, for example, determining how concepts in legal documents may contribute to establishing a shared language in inclusive education practices. Material-economic arrangements enable and constrain how things can be done in the medium of work and activity. This may embrace how concepts in legal documents give directions for how inclusive education is organised and implemented. Sociopolitical arrangements exist in the dimension of social space, influencing how people connect to one another in the social medium of power and solidarity, dealing with relations to political entities. In our context, these may embrace the nature of the relationships between the Education Act and the practices of inclusive education and how the Education Act affect the formation of relationships in the practice. The three arrangements are densely interwoven, with each informing the other (Mahon et al., 2017), so that they emerge and develop in relation to one another and continually change through the dynamic interplay between arrangements and practices. These arrangements give practices a characteristic form, which shapes and prefigures practice, enabling or constraining new interaction (Mahon et al., 2017). In the first phase of the analysis, the data were coded according to the predefined categories. First, concepts and formulations in the documents that help to shape or are shaped by the language, discourses and knowledge related to inclusive practices were categorised into cultural-discursive arrangements. Next, formulations that offer guidelines for the organisation of inclusive practices were categorised into material-economic arrangements. Finally, findings that create frameworks for relationships were categorised into sociopolitical arrangements. In this phase, we also assessed similarities and differences in the use of terms in the documents. In the final phase of the analysis, we considered how the findings could influence the practice architecture and practice.

The results indicate that the new legislation’s strengthening of students’ right to participate has the potential to enhance participation and co-determination, including for students with SEN. However, the Education Act vaguely and inconsistently employ concepts regarding inclusive education for students with SEN, and they become ambiguous due to the use of broad, general terms. The analysis also points out that the documents’ terminology is weakly connected and does not communicate well with educational institutions. Based on the results, the present paper discusses how the arrangements given by the Education Law and the preparatory document, could constrain and enable inclusive education practices for students with SEN. We also discuss the findings in relation to the current challenges for inclusion in Norway and the ideals of the Nordic model of education. This study deepens knowledge and increases understanding of how policy documents influence inclusive education practices for students with SEN. The paper provides input to the discussion of how concepts related to inclusion and inclusive education should be formulated and treated through policy documents to provide a clear direction for the development of inclusive education. Finally, this paper reflects the Norwegian context, but there is reason to believe that our findings may apply to a broader international context. The development of inclusion and inclusive education is high on the international policy agenda, and our paper illustrates the power of using the findings and discussion of a specific context to help readers reconsider policy and practice in their own context. This may make challenges and possibilities clearer and provide a catalyst for new scrutiny and innovation.

References Elo, S., & Kyngäs, H. (2008). The qualitative content analysis process. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 62(1), 107–115. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007. 04569. Frønes, T. S., Pettersen, A., Radišić, J., & Buchholtz, N. (2020). Equity, equality and diversity in the Nordic model of education. Springer Nature. Hanssen, N. B., Hansén, S.-E., & Ström, K. (Eds.) (2021). Dialogues between Northern and Eastern Europe on the development of inclusion : Theoretical and practical perspectives. Routledge Haug, P. (2017). Understanding inclusive education: Ideals and reality. Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research, 19, 206–217. Hausstätter, R., & Vik, S. (2021). Inclusion and special needs education: A theoretical framework of an overall perspective of inclusive special education. In N. Hanssen, S. E. Hansén, &. K. Ström (Eds.), Dialogues between Northern and Eastern Europe on the development of inclusion: Theoretical and practical perspectives (pp. 83–98). Routledge. Keles, S., Braak, D., & Elaine Munthe, E. (2022). Inclusion of students with special education needs in Nordic countries: A systematic scoping review. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 1-16. doi: 10.1080/00313831.2022.2148277 Kemmis, S., Wilkinson, C., Edwards-Groves, I., Grootenboer, H. P., & Bristol, L. (2014).Changing practices, changing education. Springer. Mahon, K., Francisco, S., & Kemmis, S. (Eds.). (2017). Exploring education and professional practice. Springer. Olsen, K., & Hanssen, N. B. (2021). Praksisarkitekturen til spesialpedagogiske undervisningspraksiser i barnehagelærerutdanningen. In J. Aspfors, R. Jakhelln, & E. Sjølie (Eds.), Å utvikle og å analysere praksis—teorien om praksisarkitekturer. Universitetsforlaget. Olsen, M. (2021). A practical-theoretical perspective on the inclusive school in Norway. In N. B. Hanssen, S. Hansén, & K. Ström (Eds.), Dialogues between Northern and Eastern Europe on the development of inclusion: Theoretical and practical perspectives. Routledge.