Previous research shows that a student’s special needs are structured and understood in different ways. For example, early childhood education pedagogical documents seem to contain varying structures of a child’s special needs (Heiskanen, Alasuutari & Vehkakoski 2018). As a result of the descriptions in the documents, different subject positions are constructed for the child, in which the dominant position is to see the child as problematic and permanently in need of support (ibid; Andreasson & Asplund 2013; Smith 2012.) Isaksson, Lindqvist and Bergström (2010) showed that principals define the student's special support needs using three models: the pedagogical model, the medical model and the social model. Andreasson and Carlsson (2013) in turn suggested that in the personal learning organization plan, the student in need of support is described through deficiencies and characteristics, different from the ideal student in school discourse. According to Vehmaa (2010), defining special needs through pedagogical documents is controversial, as it is based too much on the subjective assessments of professionals about what is good and desired behavior. The practice categorizes children as “ordinary” and “special”. Ultimately, it is also about the power that teaching professionals use when defining a student’s special needs (Ainsworth & Hardy 2004). According to Finnish Basic Education Act (628/1998,7.4.1) the basis for special support is the inadequacy of group-specific forms of support for the student's learning and school attendance. The student's absences, lack of motivation, early stage of the language of instruction or behavioral challenges cannot be grounds for transferring to special support. It is therefore important to also examine the accounts of basic education officials on the grounds on which special support is provided in municipal basic education. With this discursive research, we aim to increase understanding of the constructions of ‘special needs’ultural factors that structure and guide a student’s transition to special support, as well as the subject positions constructed for the student in the accounts. The study draws from socio-constructivist approach: Speech acts of the interviewees are not only representations of the culture of support, but they also contribute to constructing that culture. (Gee 2011; Gergen 2015.) The research aims to answer the following questions:

1. What kind of interpretive repertoires are used for justifying the need for special support?

2. What kind of subject positions are constructed for the student in these interpretive repertoires?

The data consists of interviews with officials responsible for learning and school attendance in 13 municipalities in Finland. The central concept of the analysis is interpretive repertoire, which according to Fairclough's (2003) definition is the perspective from which the world is described. In the first phase of analysis, the study identifies accounts in which the interviewees refer to the student's special support needs. Next, the key themes are identified and the accounts will be grouped into interpretive repertoires. (Fairclough 2003.) Rhetorical analysis is used for interpreting the repertoires. More specifically, the study examines how the interviewees use different rhetorical devices to support their claims (Heracleous 2004). In the interpretive phase, the legitimation of the arguments presented in the accounts is examined. The study pays special attention to speeches that are reinforced by references to morality, rationality, authority, and the naturalness or inevitability of events, the speaker or the presented argument, contrast pairs, and repetition (Reyes 2011). The interpretation is guided by the following auxiliary questions: How are the arguments constructed in the speech to be convincing? Who are the actors in the speech? What possible rights and obligations are related to the student's subject positions?

Previous research shows that as a result we will identify varying constructions of ‘special needs’. The discursive frameworks that already influence the definition of special support needs in early childhood education and thus the subject positions that are constructed for the child (Pihlaja, Sarlin & Ristkari 2015) are also culturally present in basic education (e.g. Hjörne & Säljö 2004). However, it is important to examine the material openly and highlight any opposing voices. This helps us to better understand the cultural conventions involved in defining special support. (Duberley & Johnson 2009.)

Ainsworth, S. & Hardy, C. (2004). Critical discourse analysis and identity: why bother? Critical Discourse Studies, 1(2), 225–259. https://doi.org/10.1080/1740590042000302085 Andreasson, I. & Carlsson, M. A. (2013). Individual Educational Plans in Swedish Schools -- Forming Identity and Governing Functions in Pupils’ Documentation. International Journal of Special Education, 28(3), 58. https://andor.tuni.fi/permalink/358FIN_TAMPO/176jdvt/cdi_eric_primary_EJ1024414 Basic Education Act 21.8.1998/628 https://www.finlex.fi/fi/laki/ajantasa/1998/19980628#L1P3 Duberley, J. & Johnson, P. (2009). Critical Management Methodology. In M. Alvesson, T. Bridgman & H. Willmott (Eds) The Oxford Handbook of Critical Management Studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 345-368. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199595686.001.0001 Fairclough, N. (2003). Analysing discourse textual analysis for social research. Routledge. https://andor.tuni.fi/permalink/358FIN_TAMPO/1kfmqvo/alma999696754205973 Gee, J. P. (2011). An introduction to discourse analysis : theory and method (3rd ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203847886 Gergen, K. J. (2015). An Invitation to Social Construction (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781473921276 Heiskanen, N., Alasuutari, M. & Vehkakoski, T. (2018). Positioning children with special educational needs in early childhood education and care documents. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 39(6), 827–843. https://doi.org/10.1080/01425692.2018.1426443 Hjörne, E. & Säljö, R. (2004). “There Is Something About Julia”: Symptoms, Categories, and the Process of Invoking Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder in the Swedish School: A Case Study. Journal of Language, Identity, and Education, 3(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327701jlie0301_1 Pihlaja, P., Sarlin, T & Ristkari, T. (2015). How Do Day-Care Personnel Describe Children with Challenging Behaviour? Education Inquiry, 6(4), 26003. https://doi.org/10.3402/edui.v6.26003 Vehmas, S. (2010). Special needs: a philosophical analysis. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 14(1), 87–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603110802504143