The paper is part of a Ph.D. project that deals with the transition from primary school to further education and employment for young people in the Danish primary school's special education services.

Specifically, the work presents the following research question: What formal and informal understandings and frameworks exist in the primary school's special education services in relation to the transition to further education and employment?

The paper addresses how welfare professionals in special education services in the Danish primary school meet young people in relation to preparing for the upcoming transition to further education and employment. Young people in the Danish primary school's special education services are a marginalized group who often face particular barriers in their transition from primary school to further education and employment. The transition period is well-known as a critical phase, but it is under-researched in international, European, and Danish studies, especially in relation to the specific dynamics in special education services.

The preparation for the transition from primary school's special education services to further education and employment is a critical phase for most young people in need of special support. The numbers speak for themselves. While the general level of education is rising, fewer and fewer young people receiving special education are obtaining a secondary education (Andreasen et al., 2022; Dalgaard, 2024; Ministry of the Interior and Housing, 2022; Lindeberg et al., 2022; Mortensen et al., 2020; Røder et al., 2021; Ministry of Social Affairs, 2022). The educational gap between young people in primary school's special education services and other young people is growing - and young people in need of special support are among the most vulnerable groups in Denmark (Dalgaard, 2024; Ejrnæs, 2019; Mortensen et al., 2020; Ministry of Social Affairs, 2022). For these young people, the educational gap means an increased risk of unemployment and low lifetime income, along with an increased risk of marginalization, reduced quality of life, and health status (Ejrnæs, 2019; Mortensen et al., 2020). For society, it negatively affects the political intention of equality (where equality is understood as the equal opportunity of different social groups (Bengtsson, 2008; Ejrnæs, 2019), as well as leading to lower labor supply, increased costs for support measures in the specialized social area, and increased transfer incomes and health expenses (Arendt, 2005; Bengtsson, 2008; Ejrnæs, 2019; Ministry of Social Affairs, 2022).

The preparation of young people for transition is influenced by both formal structures - such as legislation and policies - and informal understandings and practices among the actors involved in the planning - such as teachers, educators, and youth guidance counselors. Despite increased attention on how primary school prepares for the transition (Danish Evaluation Institute, 2015; Jensen et al., 2015; Rangvid, 2020), there is a lack of research that integrates both formal and informal aspects in an analysis of transition preparation.

In this context, this article aims to contribute to the research field by examining how formal and informal understandings and frameworks shape transition preparation in primary school's special education services. The article particularly focuses on the actors who facilitate the transition - including teachers, educators, and counselors. The focus is on the structural and cultural understandings that shape their practice and collaboration in preparing the transition from primary school to further education and employment for their students.

The theoretical framework will primarily consist of theories on public administration and policy implementation, including Lipsky (2010) and Ball et al (2012).

Data collection has taken place in two selected case municipalities in Denmark, involving two different special education primary schools. The research question has been addressed through two different data collection methods to provide various types of data and insights. The data collection methods are: Collection of data via existing data sources Qualitative semi-structured individual interviews and group interviews The collection of existing data sources includes: Existing governance documents: Examination of formal guidelines and understandings by reviewing existing documents such as legislation, policies, guidelines, and reports from ministries, the National Association of Municipalities, municipalities (particularly the case municipalities), and special education primary schools in the case municipalities. Literature review: Examination of relevant research literature on special education and special needs education in primary and secondary education – particularly in relation to students' preparation for the transition to further education and employment after completing primary school. The study aims to provide a theoretical background and identify existing research work in Denmark, the Nordic countries, and internationally. The choice to use the semi-structured interview is based on the aim to combine a systematic approach to data collection with an open exploration of the participants' experiences (Kvale & Brinkmann, 2015). This method enables a focused investigation of key themes while giving participants the freedom to share their own perspectives and experiences. The qualitative semi-structured interviews are conducted to answer sub-questions regarding formal and informal understandings and frameworks in primary school's special education services in relation to the transition to further education and employment. To gain background knowledge about the special education efforts in the Danish primary school and the case municipalities' understandings, formal frameworks, and efforts in relation to preparing for the transition to further education and employment, qualitative semi-structured interviews have been conducted with the following individuals: A special education consultant in the Ministry of Education. A consultant in the special education area in the National Association of Municipalities. A researcher from the National Research and Analysis Center for Welfare. Two leaders of the case municipalities' special education centers. Two department heads from the two departments under the case municipalities' special education centers. Youth guidance counselors in the case municipalities' special education centers. Finally, extensive focus group interviews have been conducted in the two case municipalities.In total, 6 teachers and educators involved in transition efforts in the case municipalities have been interviewed.

This study examines how teachers, educators and youth guidance counselors exercise their discretion in supporting students' transitions, particularly those requiring special support. A key focus is the interplay between policy and practice, analyzing discrepancies through document reviews and interviews. One critical area of analysis is practitioners’ discretion in decision-making. Educators must prioritize time and resources when supporting students with special needs, determining how to allocate support effectively. The study explores how they navigate these choices and the extent to which their discretion shapes students' educational trajectories. Another significant focus is the policy-practice gap, highlighting how formal policies often diverge from everyday practice. While political guidelines advocate for inclusive education, real-world implementation is often constrained by resource limitations, such as insufficient staffing, inadequate planning time, or lack of specialized tools. Using Lipsky’s concept of 'rationing,' the research examines how practitioners distribute scarce resources, sometimes leading to selective rather than full inclusion. The study also investigates working conditions and resource availability, assessing how organizational pressures impact educators’ ability to implement transition policies. Factors such as workload and resource shortages contribute to variations in how special education services operate across different municipalities. Additionally, the research explores attitudes and biases among practitioners, analyzing how personal beliefs influence decisions regarding student support. Implicit biases, including ableism or lowered expectations for students with special needs, may shape guidance and recommendations for their educational pathways. By analyzing these dimensions, this study provides insight into how structural and personal factors shape the transition process for students in need of special support, offering a critical perspective on improving special educational practices.

Andreasen, A. G., Schindler Rangvid, B., & Høygaard Lindeberg, N. (2022). Støtte, støttebehov og elevresultater—Delrapport 1. VIVE. Arendt, J. N. (2005). Does education cause a better health?: A panel data analysis using school reforms for identification [Article]. Economics of Education Review, 24(2), 149–160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2004.04.008 Ball, S. J., Maguire, M., & Braun, A. (2012). How schools do policy: Policy enactments in secondary schools. Routledge. Bengtsson, E. (2008). Socially responsible investing in Scandinavia—A comparative analysis [Article]. Sustainable Development (Bradford, West Yorkshire, England), 16(3), 155–168. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.360 Campbell, F. K. (2009). Contours of ableism: The production of disability and abledness. Palgrave Macmillan. Dalgaard, J. (2024). 10 år efter specialtilbud. KL Analyse og makro. Dansk Evalueringsinstitut. (2015). Skolers arbejde med at forberede elever til ungdomsuddannelse. EVA. Ejrnæs, M. (2019). Det ved vi om ulighed, fattigdom og sociale problemer. [Book]. Dafolo. Falster, E. (2024). Ableisme. Samfundslitteratur. Goodley, D. (2014). Dis/ability studies: Theorising disablism and ableism (1st Edition). Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group. Indenrigs- og boligministeriet. (2022). Overgang til ungdomsuddannelse blandt elever med psykisk sygdom. Indenrigs- og Boligministeriets Benchmarkingenhed. www.benchmark.dk Jensen, V. M., Rangvid, B. S., & Nielsen, S. S. (2015). Forberedende tilbud og overgang til ungdomsuddannelse. VIVE. Kvale, S., & Brinkmann, S. (2015). InterViews: Learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing (3rd ed.). Sage. Lindeberg, N. H., Tegtmejer, T., Iversen, K., Andreasen, A. G., Ibsen, J. T., Rangvid, B. S., Bjørnholt, B., Ruge, M., & Ellermann, K. G. (2022). Styring, organisering og faglig praksis—Delrapport 2. VIVE. Lipsky, M. (2010). Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public services (Updated edition). Russell Sage Foundation. Mortensen, N. P., Andreasen & A.G., & Tegtmejer. T. (2020). Uddannelsesresultater og -mønstre for børn og unge med funktionsnedsættelser. VIVE. Rangvid, B. S. (2020). Tilbageførte elever og overgang til ungdomsuddannelse. VIVE. Røder, K. L., Kleist B.H, Bjørn N.H., & Andersen, N. C. H. (2021). Ungdomsuddannelse blandt unge med psykiatriske diagnoser. Momentum. Socialministeriet. (2022). Socialpolitisk Redegørelse 2022. Social-, Bolig- og Ældreministeriet.