The educational system has in recent years undergone significant changes, not least of which in relation to student composition. In a compulsory school facing an ever increasing level of minority student enrollment, the factors of inclusion – both academically and socially speaking – pose great challenge challenges to schools (Daugstad, 2007). Generally speaking, students having Norwegian as a second language will not acquire the same learning dividends as ethnic Norwegian students (SSB, 2009; St.meld; nr 30(2003-2004), 2004). An OECD report entitled Migrant Education confirms that this discrepancy is representative of what has become an international phenomenon (Nusche, 2009).
This situation has led to the creation of certain ideological and political guidelines, while teachers do not have enough training in the subject in everyday teaching situations, as resources are stretched and teachers consequently do not receive adequate support from school administration and other colleagues to meet the challenges represented by a diverse student body (Kulbrandstad & Kulbrandstad, 2008; Rambøll Mangement, 2006). Teachers are pressed into a situation of being an ”assistant” putting the government’s educational policies into practice and being an autonomous teacher acting based on his or her own professional and ethical assessments. They are to practice their mandate for the greater society with a high level of their own discretion (Lipsky, 1980; Støkken & Nylehn, 2002).
The important point here is the teachers’ ethical and professional reflections in association with their own profession. The level of expertise they demonstrate in dealing with second-language students, the support they receive in completing this work and their disposable resources are important topics to consider. The support received from the administration or colleagues serve as an important confirmation of the fact that they are making sound decisions. However, the fora for reflection and skills development are often lacking, and teachers are left to make decisions alone. Lacking the professional knowledge to make these determinations, teachers act based upon more individual, private deliberation (Mesel, 2008). How should teachers divide their time among students? Students not reaching sufficient levels of linguistic competence need adapted education. Should teachers spend more of their time and resources on these students? Is it correct and reasonable that students are to be treated different, or should it be a goal that students are treated equally? It is essential in this situation to reflect upon the possibilities teachers have to make decisions and justify their choices.
The ideology and foundation on which school is based should be reflected in practice; however, the discussion regarding inclusion appearing in governmental documents take place at a metalevel, while implementation occurs at a practical level. Lipsky (1980) claims that public policy reveals itself in the individual professional practitioner’s encounter with users, and not necessarily in laws and official documents. The professional, in this case the teacher, retains his/her own definition of what constitutes good instruction, a belief that does not necessarily harmonize with theory and official guidelines regarding minority students’ needs. The goals found in documents are in addition vague, something that causes among other things Lipsky’s emphasis on the professional practitioner’s discretion level a relevant point.
