Numerous studies have demonstrated that, on the practice level, the interprofessional collaboration (IPC) in Norwegian ECEC is often unsatisfactory and inadequate—in the sense of it being rare—while also apparently weakening the continuity and quality of inclusive ECEC (Hannås & Hanssen, 2016). A weak system of IPC can be explained by the lack of attention on the policy and legislation levels regarding central guidance and the coordination of services (Nordahl et al., 2018). Surprisingly, neither the Kindergarten Act (KA) nor Framework Plan have been able to provide a guide for IPC for how to draft the interprofessional approach, which has led to them being criticised for not being more detailed and specific about the content and design of IPC (KA, 2006; MER, 2017). Indeed, there is a reported lack of concrete measures and follow-ups on the progression of ECEC work with respect to quality and availability (Nordahl et al., 2018). The aim of this paper is to give an overview of IPC in ECEC at the legal and legislative levels. We have formulated the following question: How is IPC defined and described in Norwegian legal and legislative documents, and what guidelines are laid down for this collaboration? The empirical basis of the current paper is a document analysis. Three main legal and legislative documents which treats the concept of IPC, were chosen for analysis: Kindergarten Act 2006 (KA, 2006); Framework Plan for the Content and Tasks of ECEC (MER, 2017); Meld. St. 6 (2019–2020) Early intervention and inclusive education in kindergartens, schools and out-of-school-hours care (MER, 2019). In the current study, the data consisted of texts that were analysed with the help of thematic analysis using an inductive approach (Braun & Clarke, 2006). The results show that there is a lack of concrete definitions of IPC in legal and legislative documents. Furthermore, the legal and legislative documents provide some guidelines for IPC but on a general level and with an unclear basis. The chapter concludes that the definition of IPC in ECEC should be clarified and explained more clearly and made more apparently related to each other, both in the legal and legislative documents. As practical implications, drawing up a common national strategy plan and common guidelines regarding IPC in ECEC can be an effective move the authorities could use to steer development in the education sector towards more inclusive ECEC, especially for children with special educational needs.

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. Hannås, B. M., & Hanssen, N. B. (2016). Special needs education in light of the inclusion principle: An exploratory study of special needs education practice in Belarusian and Norwegian preschools. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 31(4), 520–534. http://doi.org/10.1080/08856257.2016.1194576 Kindergarten act (2006). https://lovdata.no/dokument/NL/lov/2005- 06-17-64 Ministry of Education and Research [MER]. (2017). Framework plan for the content and tasks of ECECs. https://www.udir.no/globalassets/filer/barnehage/rammeplan/framework-plan-for-ECECs2- 2017.pdf Ministry of Education and Research [MER]. (2019). Close attention – Early intervention and inclusive community in ECEC, school and after-school care. (Meld. St. 6 (2019–2020)). https://www.regjeringen.no Nordahl, T., Persson, B., Brørup Dyssegaard, C., Wessel Hennestad, B., Vaage Wang, M., Martinsen, J., & Johnsen, T. (2018). Inclusive community for children and young people. The expert group for children and young people with SEN. Fagbokforlaget.