Introduction

Since ratifying the Salamanca Statement (1994), Norway has been committed to the principle that all children should attend mainstream schools unless compelling reasons dictate otherwise (Mitchell & Sutherland, 2020). Recent data reveals a complex trend: while more pupils receive Individually Tailored Education, ITE, (former called special education) within the ordinary classroom, there has also been a significant increase in pupils receiving education in segregated settings—up by 452 pupils over the last five years (The Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training, 2023). This paradox suggests that despite inclusive ideals, the barriers to full participation remain high.

This article addresses the research question: "What are the conditions for developing inclusive education for pupils with ITE needs in lower primary school?" Utilizing data from the KOSIP project, the study intends to identify factors that either facilitate or hinder inclusive practice.

Legal and Theoretical Framework

The Norwegian Education Act (2023) defines education as both a right and a duty (§§ 2-1, 2-2). While § 11-1 mandates that all pupils receive a "satisfactory benefit" from ordinary education, § 11-6 grants a statutory right to ITE when these needs cannot be met through general adaptations. This relationship can be explained through Haug’s (2017) complementarity theory: high-quality ordinary education reduces the need for special measures, whereas systemic failures in the ordinary classroom increase the demand for ITE.

Dimensions of Inclusion

To capture the complexity of inclusion, Haug (2014) deconstructs the concept into two dimensions:

1. Vertical Dimension: Spans from national policy and municipal frameworks down to the individual experiences of pupils and parents.
2. Horizontal Dimension: Comprises four core challenges: Community (belonging), Participation (active engagement), Influence (democratic voice), and Benefit (academic and social outcomes).

Multiprofessional Cooperation as a Quality Factor

Inclusive education requires a shift from individual teacher autonomy to collective responsibility. The QU!S-S model (Schurig et al., 2025) identifies multiprofessional cooperation as a critical level of school development. Key elements include (1) Enhanced individualization: Collaborative problem-solving enables adaptive and differentiated teaching. (2) Systemic support: Statutory cooperation with the Pedagogical-Psychological Service (PPT) is essential for holistic service delivery (§§ 11-13, 24-1). (3) External networks: For complex needs, schools must bridge services between parents, health institutions, and social welfare services.

Critical challenges: Paradigm shifts and pupil voice

Despite inclusive rhetoric, an "integration paradigm" often persists, where a pupil’s inclusion is conditional upon their perceived "fit" within existing resources (Lindner et al., 2023). Furthermore, a significant barrier is the lack of pupil voice. Decisions are frequently made on behalf of pupils rather than with them (Cosma & Soni, 2019). Authentic inclusion requires identifying and dismantling structures that marginalize these pupils (de Leeuw et al., 2018).

Finally, Hornby and Kauffman (2023) provide a necessary critique, warning that an ideological push for "full inclusion" might undermine the specialized pedagogical support some pupils require. They argue that placement should not override the actual educational benefit for the child.

Developing inclusive education at the primary level depends on high-quality ordinary instruction, robust collaborative structures, and a shift in professional attitudes. Success is contingent upon the school’s "competence capital"—both formal knowledge and the capacity for collective pedagogical reflection (Olsen & Haug, 2022).

The study is based on empirical data from the national web-based survey KOSIP (Competence Mapping of Special Education and Inclusive Practices). The survey was developed through a collaboration between four academic institutions: the University of South-Eastern Norway, the University of Stavanger, Volda University College, and The Arctic University of Norway. Data collection was conducted using the SurveyXact software and concluded in 2022. The primary objective of the study is to reflect the knowledge and perspectives conveyed by the KOSIP participants. This article specifically focuses on inclusion, adapted education, individually tailored education (ITE), and interdisciplinary collaboration. Sample and categorization While the national survey included 2,550 respondents working within grades 1–4, this article utilizes a regional subset with a sample size of N=405. To identify variations between different professional roles, the respondents were initially divided into several categories. Overview of the Sample Leaders with personnel responsibility (Principals, inspectors, dept. heads, etc.) N=60 Class teachers N=177 Subject teachers without class responsibility N=61 Social educators/Youth workers (3-year degree) N=8 Assistants/Para-educators/Skilled workers N=46 Special education teachers N=38 Special education advisors/coordinators N=1 Social-pedagogical advisors N=0 Other N=14 For the qualitative analysis, these roles were consolidated into three overarching categories to facilitate a clearer thematic overview: -Leaders and coordinators: Includes principals, inspectors, department heads, and special education advisors. -Teachers: Includes class teachers, subject teachers, and special education teachers. -Assistants and social educators: Includes respondents in roles without primary pedagogical responsibility, such as assistants, para-educators, and youth workers. This consolidation ensures a manageable level of detail, allowing for the identification of significant trends across the material without compromising the interpretability of the data. Analytical approach The analysis includes only respondents who completed the entire survey. During the processing of the data, filters were applied to isolate "Primary School," "Grades 1–4," and the specific geographical region. The quantitative component utilizes descriptive statistics, with a primary emphasis on cross-tabulation. This is a bivariate analytical technique used to examine relationships between categorical variables at the nominal level—meaning variables categorized without an inherent natural ranking (Cohen et al., 2018). The qualitative data was first segmented into the three professional categories described above. The responses were sorted and identified primary tendencies within each professional category. Following this summary, a content analysis was performed. This involved an iterative process of reading, coding, and categorizing the responses. These categories were subsequently mapped to the article’s core themes to address the overarching research question.

Perceived strengths in inclusive practice The preliminary findings identify four areas where respondents perceive their schools to be successful in fostering inclusion. (1) A core strength is the ability to view each pupil as an individual, tailoring instruction to their specific prerequisites. This involves facilitating a sense of mastery through differentiated tasks, individual education plans, and flexible pedagogical approaches. (2) Inclusion is viewed as a holistic process where social belonging is as vital as academic progress. Schools emphasize the importance of play environments, friendships, and structured recess activities. (3) Success is attributed to robust internal and external networks. This includes the internal sharing of expertise between general teachers, special educators, and assistants, as well as maintaining a constructive dialogue with parents and external agencies like the Pedagogical-Psychological Service. (4) There is a widespread commitment to a positive view of the pupil, where diversity is framed as a fundamental value Barriers to realizing inclusive education Despite the positive intentions of staff, several systemic factors hinder the full realization of inclusion. (1) Budgetary instability and municipal cuts are cited as significant barriers. Resources are often "locked" to formal administrative decisions, making it difficult to proactively strengthen ordinary instruction. (2) The lack of time remains a critical obstacle, affecting everything from lesson differentiation to the implementation of new routines and systemic collaboration. (3) General teachers often feel overwhelmed when managing large classes with diverse, complex needs without sufficient support, challenging the feasibility of the teacher's role. (4) Informants report a lack of clear leadership from municipal authorities and fragmented collaboration with external agencies. Excessive documentation and administrative meetings are perceived to detract from direct student interaction. Finally, a lack of shared responsibility—where inclusion is seen solely as the special educator's task—remains a persistent barrier.

Cohen, L., Morrison, K., & Manion, L. (2018). Research methods in education (Eighth edition ed.). Routledge. Cosma, P., & Soni, A. (2019). A systematic literature review exploring the factors identified by children and young people with behavioural, emotional and social difficulties as influential on their experiences of education. Emotional and behavioural difficulties, 24(4), 421-435. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632752.2019.1633738 de Leeuw, R. R., de Boer, A. A., & Minnaert, A. E. M. G. (2018). Student voices on social exclusion in general primary schools. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 33(2), 166-186. https://doi.org/10.1080/08856257.2018.1424783 Haug, P. (2014). Inkludering. In T. Nordahl & O. Hansen (Eds.), Inklusion. Oslo: Gyldendal akademisk. [Inclusion] Haug, P. (2017). Kva spesialundervisning handlar om, og kva funksjon den har. In P. Haug (ed.), Spesialundervisning. Innhald og funksjon. (pp. 386-411). Samlaget. [The essence and function of Special Needs Education] Hornby, G., & Kauffman, J. M. (2023). Special education's zombies and their consequences. Support for learning, 38(3), 135-145. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9604.12451 Lindner, K.-T., Schwab, S., Emara, M., & Avramidis, E. (2023). Do teachers favor the inclusion of all students? A systematic review of primary schoolteachers’ attitudes towards inclusive education. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 38(6), 766-787. https://doi.org/10.1080/08856257.2023.2172894 Mitchell, D., & Sutherland, D. (2020). What really works in special and inclusive education: using evidence-based teaching strategies (Third edition ed.). Routledge. Olsen, M. H., & Haug, P. (2022). Tverretatlig samarbeid (1. utgave ed.). Cappelen Damm akademisk. [Inter-agency collaboration] Lov om grunnskolen og den vidaregåande opplæringa. (LOV-2023-06-09-30), (2023). https://lovdata.no/lov/2023-06-09-30 [The Norwegian Educational Act] Schurig, M., Weiß, S., Kiel, E., Heimlich, U., & Gebhardt, M. (2025). Assessment of the quality of inclusive schools A short form of the quality scale of inclusive school development (QU!S-S) – reliability, factorial structure and measurement invariance. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 29(12), 2168-2183. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2020.1862405 UNESCO. (1994). The Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action on Special Needs Education. UNESCO