In recent years, several Norwegian reports have concluded that many children and youth with special educational needs do not receive the necessary pedagogical adjustments they require (Barneombudet, 2017; Nordahl, 2018). Based on this, Stortingsmelding 6. (2019 – 2020) Tett på – tidlig innsats og inkluderende fellesskap i barnehage, skole og SFO announced a competence boost within the field of special education. "The Competence Boost for Special Education and Inclusive Practices" is intended to be a permanent arrangement in the Norwegian education system, with the goal of providing all children and youth, from kindergarten to upper secondary school, with tailored and inclusive educational opportunities. This entails considering the general pedagogical and special educational offerings in conjunction, at the municipal and individual school and kindergarten level (Meld. St. 6 (2019-2020)).

This initiative aims to increase special educational competence among teachers and other professionals in the team supporting the student, particularly involving the Educational and Psychological Counselling Service (EPS). It is emphasized that the actors within the team must develop collaboration skills to work systematically in further developing the quality of education. This applies to both regular school practices, as well as improving the quality of special education (Haug, 2021).

Many previous competence initiatives in the Norwegian education sector have been largely characterized by top-down management. Stortingsmelding 21 (2016-2017) emphasizes that the most significant competence development in schools must occur at the local level. Within this context, there is also an acknowledgement that previous national initiatives have allowed for insufficient local adaptations. Therefore, the Competence Boost should be understood as a new strategy for competence development within the education sector in Norway, where competence is developed locally within each municipality (Mjøs et al., 2023).

In this endeavor, universities and colleges are to be regarded as equal partners to municipalities. The idea is that the various parties should complement each other and place emphasis on mutual learning. When competence is developed through partnerships between primary schools, support systems, and universities/colleges, and is based on local needs, it opens up many possibilities. However, it is also challenging as it is left to the actors to determine what the local needs are. The different actors may bring different understandings of the problems into the partnership and therefore have different needs. Often, in such partnerships, actors may also have unrealistic expectations of each other due to insufficient insight and understanding of each other's guidelines and mandates (Øen & Mjøs, 2023). In these situations, a "blame game" (Hood, 2002) can easily arise, where the different parties primarily believe that it is others who need to increase their competence and change their practices, rather than themselves.

This project reports on the first phase of the Competence boost in a Norwegian municipality. In this initial phase, the work primarily takes place at the steering committee level. The steering committee consists of representatives from the school ownership, representatives from the leadership of the municipal support system for education, and representatives from universities and colleges. In collaboration, the participants contribute to identifying competence needs and based on this, develop a plan for further competence development. Such a plan for competence development largely involves changes at the system level and therefore bears the mark of innovation (Florian, 2015). However, in order to harness the innovative potential of the work, it is crucial that the plans are anchored in the respective organizations and that they reach a consensus and acknowledge the current state (Øen & Gilje, 2020).

The research question for this project is:

What characterizes the process of implementing the Competence Enhancement Project in the municipality and what does this mean for further work?

The research approach in this project supports what Ainscow et al. (2004) describe as "collaborative action research." As researchers, we have been participants in the work of the steering committee, and our role has therefore been to be critical discussion partners while also researching the processes in which we have taken part (Øen & Mjøs, 2023). This role thus entails a kind of intermediary position where we alternate between being a listening and neutral observer, an active conversation/discussion partner, and finally, analytical and explorative (Ainscow et al., 2004). The data material on which this paper is based consists of audio recordings from a total of ten collaborative meetings over a period of 18 months. In addition, meeting minutes and meeting invitations are also included as part of the data material. The research question for this paper has an exploratory approach. Therefore, we have chosen to rely on an inductive thematic analysis based on Braun & Clarke (Braun & Clarke, 2006; Braun et al., 2022). The analytical approach described in this article emphasizes the recognition that meaning, patterns, and themes are created through the interaction between the researcher and the data material. This is particularly essential when the researcher is investigating processes in which they are involved. Although the analytical process can be described as a series of steps, Creswell (2014) points out that these steps are not always followed in order. It is therefore an iterative process where one often jumps back and forth between different steps (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). As of now, we are in the middle of the analytical phase where we have chosen to use an open coding (Corbin & Strauss, 2008) based on the phases within thematic analysis described by Braun & Clarke (Braun et al., 2022). This approach involves the following steps: 1. Familiarize oneself with the data material. 2. Start the coding work. 3. Generate preliminary themes. 4. Develop and evaluate themes. 5. Refine, define, and name the themes. 6. Write down the analysis. Since this work is ongoing, it is not possible to present crystallized themes in this paper.

Since the analysis is still in an early stage, it is too early to draw conclusions regarding the findings in the research material. However, preliminary tendencies in the material show that inclusion as a concept is central and that there is a clear focus on how schools and kindergartens can work more closely with the PPT (Pedagogical Psychological Service). At the same time, it becomes apparent that different perceptions of reality among the various actors also make the process challenging at times. Although the municipalities initially felt that they had a good overview of their own competence needs, the findings also reveal that the innovative processes uncover new "blind spots" regarding competence. This is particularly true for the competence related to action, where theoretical knowledge is translated into inclusive practices.

Ainscow, M. E. L., Booth, T., & Dyson, A. (2004). Understanding and developing inclusive practices in schools: a collaborative action research network. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 8(2), 125-139. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360311032000158015 Barneombudet. (2017). Uten mål og mening? Barneombudet. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in psychology, 3(2), 77-101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa Braun, V., Clarke, V., & Braun, V. (2022). Thematic analysis : a practical guide. SAGE. Corbin, J. M., & Strauss, A. L. (2008). Basics of qualitative research : techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (3rd ed. ed.). Sage. Creswell, J. W. (2014). Educational research : planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (4th ed. ed.). Pearson. Florian, L. (2015). Inclusive Pedagogy: A transformative approach to individual differences but can it help reduce educational inequalities? Scottish Educational Review, 47(1), 5-14. Haug, P. (2021). Spesialundervisning : ei innføring. Det norske samlaget. Hood, C. (2002). The Risk Game and the Blame Game. Gov. & oppos, 37(1), 15-37. https://doi.org/10.1111/1477-7053.00085 Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research : a guide to design and implementation (4th ed. ed.). Jossey-Bass. Mjøs, M., Moen, V., & Øen, K. (2023). Kommunal styring og ledelse av en forskningsstøttet innovasjon for utvikling av inkluderende praksis. 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 Nordahl, T. (2018). Inkluderende fellesskap for barn og unge. Fagbokforl. Øen, K., & Gilje, J. (2020). Desentralisert kompetanseutvikling. Bedre skole(2), 32-38. 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