Despite the widespread recognition of inclusion as a fundamental value in education over the past three decades (UNESCO, 1994), schools worldwide continue to struggle with the practical implementation of this ideal (Keles et al., 2022).

In Norway, the introduction of the new Education Act in August 2024 further emphasizes the value of inclusion by highlighting that all students have the right to a safe and positive learning environment that promotes health, inclusion, well-being, and learning (Opplæringslova, 2023). However, a recurring challenge persists in determining whether the broad political support actually translates into tangible outcomes in practice (Ainscow, 2020). Haug (2022) raises the question of whether this lack of impact can be explained by the concept of "frozen ideologies" coined by Liedman (1997), suggesting that ingrained mentalities, regulations, and practices hinder progress.

The concept of inclusion can be understood in the light of what Røvik & Pettersen (2014) refer to as a master idea. A characteristic of master ideas is that over time they have gained great legitimacy and spread across sectors and countries. Furthermore, they have the power to trigger a number of reforms and initiatives and being more or less self-justifying. The fact that the ideas are self-justifying can be positive in the sense that one does not need to spend time and effort arguing for inclusion. At the same time, the danger is that a lack of argument leads to skipping important discussions which also identify challenges and dilemmas when translating the idea into educational practice (Øen et al., 2024). Mhairi et al. (2021), therefore call for a new approach to professional learning for inclusion that "takes as its starting point the complex professional dilemmas that educators articulate rather than viewing them as discrete issues that can be addressed separately" (p. 2166).

According to Dignath et al. (2022), schools often prioritize structural and organizational changes in their efforts towards inclusion. While these aspects are crucial, organizational change ultimately relies on professionals’ ability to change their own practices. Therefore, schools are advised to consider teachers' individual perceptions of reality when implementing reforms, particularly in the context of inclusive education. This aligns with research suggesting that significant improvements to practice necessitate discussions surrounding the underlying understandings or theories that inform practice (Robinson, 2018).

Mhairi et al. (2021) emphasizes the importance of collaborative learning within the professional community as a key factor in developing inclusive practices. The Norwegian Core Curriculum consequently clarifies the significance of schools functioning as professional communities where all employees engage in reflective dialogues about value choices and developmental needs (Kunnskapsdepartementet, 2017).

The development of inclusive practices involves the engagement of the schools' external support services within the professional community. In this paper, the external support services will be limited to the Educational and psychological counselling service (EPS). This entails collaborating with professional groups who have; varying mandates, perspectives, concept of knowledge, and results in offering alternative solutions (Haug, 2022). Within this dynamic, there exists the potential for the emergence of innovative practices. However, for effective collaboration to take place, curiosity, a willingness to learn, humility, and respect must prevail. Without these qualities, differing mandates, legal bases, and perceptions of reality may hinder productive collaboration (Øen & Mjøs, 2023). This could potentially lead to a situation known as the "Blame Game" (Hood, 2002), where parties attribute problems, solutions, and need for expertise to external sources rather than taking personal responsibility (Mjøs & Øen, 2022).

The research question for this paper is:

How can a survey contribute to exploring and challenging existing practice and collaboration in terms of developing a more inclusive practice?

The methodological approach in this paper is based on research carried out in the SUKIP project (Mjøs & Øen, 2022). Here quantitative surveys were used as a catalyst for qualitative exploratory discussions in the study’s initial phase. The paper reports on a larger collaboration between NLA university college and several municipalities in Norway as part of the national initiative “The competence boost for special needs education and inclusive practice” (Utdanningsdirektoratet, 2021). In addition to forming the basis for this paper, the survey therefore also aims to provide the municipalities with a platform of knowledge, or a baseline in their understanding and knowledge of inclusive practices in schools. During the spring of 2024, a total of 20 schools from three different municipalities in western Norway will carry out a survey. This survey aims to examine how schools and the EPS look at their own and each other’s level of knowledge, competence, needs and collaborative culture. We also want to investigate the schools and the EPS's insight and understanding of each other's mandate and everyday work. The survey is digital, consisting of just under 50 statements. These are measured using the Likert-type scale, which has a range from 1 (completely disagree) to 4 (completely agree). It is also possible to answer "don't know" to all the statements. After completion, data is transferred to Excel/SPSS for statistical analyses. Some of the statements are taken from the inclusion handbook (Booth & Ainscow, 2001), whilst others have been adapted from previous studies (Mjøs & Øen, 2022; Øen et al., 2024). In this paper, we have chosen to explore the informants understanding of students who struggle in school, attitudes to inclusion, inclusive practice, and the relationship between general and special needs education. It is important to emphasize that these statements do not seek to map the extent to which the teachers' attitudes are compatible with the ideal of an inclusive practice. They primarily seek to underline different ways of understanding inclusive practice, as well as the dilemmas this entails.

This paper is based upon data collected in the spring of 2024. It is therefore only possible to highlight at this time, a few areas that are likely to be addressed. Our analysis will focus on the “typical” dilemmas and/or barriers which can arise within/between schools, those occurring between schools and external support services, in addition to differences between municipalities. The paper seeks to illustrate what Mhairi et al. (2021), calls a new approach to professional learning for inclusion where the complex professional dilemmas form the hub of professional collaboration. Recognition of the complexity becomes particularly important in an age of uncertainty where pandemics, migration and economic crises challenge the ideal of inclusion. This raises more dilemmas than ever when translating the ideal into practice. We argue that such an approach is particularly important for identifying local dilemmas and challenges, as schools and municipalities, both nationally and abroad, are affected differently by the uncertain times in which we live. Our research hopes to shed lights on some of the blind spots within inclusion research, as there is a lack of knowledge on how to facilitate the development of inclusive practices locally (Florian, 2014). In facilitating discussions within the professional community, along with identifying and acknowledging the many dilemmas of inclusion, this ultimately gives hope to the school of the future by encouraging inclusive practices which take the real world as a starting point, and not the ideal world.

Ainscow, M. (2020). Promoting inclusion and equity in education: lessons from international experiences. Nordic Journal of Studies in Educational Policy, 6(1). https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/20020317.2020.1729587 Booth, T., & Ainscow, M. (2001). Inkluderingshåndboka. Oplandske bokforl. Dignath, C., Rimm-Kaufman, S., van Ewijk, R., & Kunter, M. (2022). Teachers’ Beliefs About Inclusive Education and Insights on What Contributes to Those Beliefs: a Meta-analytical Study. Educational psychology review. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-022-09695-0 Florian, L. (2014). What counts as evidence of inclusive education? European Journal of Special Needs Education, 29(3), 286-294. Haug, P. (2022). Ingen kan alt – tverretatleg samarbeid om spesialundervisning og inkluderande praksisar i skulen. In M. H. Olsen & P. Haug (Eds.), Tverretatlig samarbeid. (pp. 11-43). Cappelen Damm Akademisk. Hood, C. (2002). The Risk Game and the Blame Game. Gov. & oppos, 37(1), 15-37. https://doi.org/10.1111/1477-7053.00085 Keles, S., ten Braak, D., & Munthe, E. (2022). Inclusion of students with special education needs in Nordic countries: a systematic scoping review. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, ahead-of-print(ahead-of-print), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2022.2148277 Kunnskapsdepartementet. (2017). Overordnet del – verdier og prinsipper Regjeringen]. https://www.regjeringen.no/. Liedman, S.-E. (1997). I skuggan av framtiden. Modernitetens historia. Albert Bonniers Förlag. Mhairi, C. B., Stephanie, T., Sarah, C., Rachel, L., Quinta, K., & Susanne, H. (2021). Conceptualising Teacher Education for Inclusion: Lessons for the Professional Learning of Educators from Transnational and Cross-Sector Perspectives. Sustainability (Basel, Switzerland), 13(4), 2167. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13042167 Mjøs, M., & Øen, K. (2022). En felles spørreundersøkelse skole-PPT som utgangspunkt for samarbeid om inkluderende praksis. Psykologi i kommunen, 4. Opplæringslova. (2023). Lov om grunnskolen og den vidaregåande opplæringa. https://lovdata.no/dokument/LTI/lov/2023-06-09-30 Robinson, V. (2018). Reduce change toincrease improvement. Corwin. Røvik, K. A., & Pettersen, H. M. (2014). Masterideer. In K. A. Røvik, T. V. Eilertsen, & E. M. Furu (Eds.), Reformideer i norsk skole. Cappelen Damm Akademisk. UNESCO. (1994). The Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action on Special Need Education. Paris Utdanningsdirektoratet. (2021). Tilskuddsordning for lokal kompetanseutvikling i barnehage og grunnopplæring. Utdanningsdirektoratet. Retrieved 01.03.22 from https://www.udir.no/kvalitet-og-kompetanse/lokal-kompetanseutvikling/tilskuddsordningene-for-lokal-kompetanseutvikling-i-barnehage-og-grunnopplaring/ Øen, K., Krumsvik, R. J., & Skaar, Ø. O. (2024). Development of inclusive practice – the art of balancing emotional support and constructive feedback [Original Research]. Frontiers in Education, 9. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2024.1281334 Øen, K., & Mjøs, M. (2023). Partnerskap mellom forskere og praktikere som innovasjonsstrategi – et utfordrende mulighetsrom. In M. Mjøs, S. Hillesøy, V. Moen, & S. E. Ohna (Eds.), Kompetanse for inkluderende praksis. Et innovasjonsprosjekt om samarbeid mellom barnehage/skole og PP-tjeneste (pp. 47-69). Cappelen Damm Akademisk. https://doi.org/10.23865/noasp.186.ch2