Lessons learned from Norway: a values-based formulation of inclusive education

ABSTRACT

Given the numerous conceptual approaches to understanding inclusive education, there is an obvious risk of fragmentation and stagnation in the field. In response, this paper aims to contribute to advancement by going beyond previous work and developing a holistic formulation of inclusive education. Its starting point is that the persistent challenge of offering equal opportunities and full participation for all students in regular schools appears to have complex causal explanations on multiple levels, including the ideological/political, practical, and individual/subjective. This holistic formulation draws on analyses of a) the connections between inclusive education, student diversity and the concept of special educational needs, b) some problematic experiences from Norway, and c) the current state of the field. In this formulation, three core values of inclusion— welcoming communities, combating discriminatory attitudes, and education for all – as articulated in the Salamanca Declaration, are linked to the institutional practice principles of participation, human diversity, and differentiation. The discussion explores these values and their alignment with the principles of inclusive practice and students’ inclusionary outcome in school. Furthermore, the interplay among these values and their corresponding principles of practice principle is illustrated, emphasising the need for awareness when prioritising one over another, both in research and practice.

KEYWORDS:

• Inclusive education
• special educational needs
• values of inclusion
• inclusive practices
• holistic approach

Inclusive education and the phenomenon of special educational needs

In 1994, the UNESCO (1994) stated that inclusive education (IE) should be an issue of concern for all countries. Although this statement was important initiative, bringing children with special educational needs (SEN) to the fore of education policy on a global agenda (Magnússon 2019, 677), the idea of strengthening the capacity of the education system to reach out to all learners predates Salamanca. Looking to Norway, inclusive education was part of the larger social democratic project arising after World War II and influencing educational policy from the 1970s forward (Imsen, Blossing, and Moos 2017). Special schools were closed during Norway’s ‘integration reform’ and values such as social justice, equity, and equal opportunities were equated with educating all students in one regular school (Vislie 2003). As a result of its early interest in developing inclusive practices, Norway became one of the first countries in Europe to establish legislation supporting the right of students to attend regular classrooms in local schools (Nes, Demo, and Ianes 2018).

Alongside political developments towards IE, much attention was paid to replacing the concept of integration with inclusion, marking that the focus should not be on students with SEN having the right to be moved to or placed in regular schools, but instead on developing school as a place where all students naturally belong, regardless of need, thus providing educational equality for SEN students (Reindal 2016; Vislie 2003). In the same vein, the longstanding traditional individual approach within the field of special education (SE), in which SEN had been understood and dealt with as a difficulty or deficit on an individual level, was replaced with a social-contextual approach (Reindal 2016, 4) emphasising that SEN should be understood in relation to a school’s failure to accommodate human diversity. This approach in turn necessitates changes in school context in order to increase possibilities for inclusion (Vislie 2003). It was pointed out that the distinction between integration and inclusion critically clarified IE, not as a final state to be achieved once and for all, but as an ongoing process by which a school attempts to respond to all pupils as individuals (Vislie 2003, 21). Furthermore, the challenge to ensure real and active participation for all students led to the development of a more differentiated concept of inclusion, focusing on student outcomes in social, cultural, and academic terms (Nes 2003, 74). Aligned with this, an enrichment approach to IE arose, which argued that students’ experiences with human diversity throughout childhood provides valuable life experiences in terms of expanded understanding of the resources of others, as well as tolerance of and respect for both others and oneself (Befring 1997). As such, the enrichment approach made clear that IE was about combatting discriminatory attitudes and preparing students for a future life in heterogeneous society (Befring 1997, 183–184).

The development of different approaches to IE and SEN is valuable because these serve as working concepts that have consequences for practice. However, because they have different and sometimes conflicting focuses, there is a risk that they contribute to stagnation rather than the realisation of inclusion in practice (Amor et al. 2019; Nilholm 2021; Nilholm and Göransson 2017). For example, persistent variations in focus can be observed in research in the field, both regarding whom IE concerns (all students vs. students with special needs) and where IE takes place (regular classrooms vs. segregated provisions) (Amor et al. 2019; Göransson and Nilholm 2014). As outlined by Kiuppis (2014) and Magnússon (2019), UNESCO (1994) can be interpreted either way. Furthermore, in recent years, the values of IE have been challenged by other seemingly competing political values geared towards making education systems more efficient in terms of academic achievement (Ainscow 2016; Ainscow and Messiou 2018). Even in Norway, with its long tradition and high ambitions for IE, inclusion still remains more ideology than reality. As such, it is a case that offers insight into the pervasiveness of barriers to IE.

Experiences from Norway

Despite great efforts to increase inclusive education in Norway throughout the integration reform and the transfer of students with SEN into regular schools, it became clear that these students were still largely excluded from the community, both socially and academically (NMCAE 1985, 22). The shortcomings were attributed at that time to difficulties and a lack of success in creating adapted and differentiated teacher practices in the regular classrooms. This led to a heightened focus on the social contextual approach to special needs, evident in the Education Act’s (NMER 2014), statement that all students should have the right to attend a regular class in a local school, regardless of ability and need, and the individual right to SE should apply only for those who do not benefit satisfactorily from necessary adaptions in regular education.

Later, an Official Report from the Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research (NMER) prepared to guide inclusive education policymaking highlighted that:

An inclusive school places significant demands on the education system. When a student is not performing, the question is: What is wrong with the school? In the traditional school setting, the question has been: What is wrong with the student?.

(NMER 2023, 23)

With the intention of creating real changes in schools’ regular practices, the same report proposed removing students’ individual right to SE (NMER 2023). Even though the proposal did not gain traction, the social-contextual approach still gained significant importance in the field of IE in Norway. This was reflected in a complementary theory suggesting that implementing more adapted teaching practices in regular classrooms could decrease the emergence and development of SEN, thereby diminishing the necessity for SE (Bachmann and Haug 2006, 68). As the Norwegian Directorate of Education and Training (NDET 2021) emphasises, the social-contextual approach should be understood as the most appropriate in terms of contributing ‘to strengthening the emphasis on a well-adapted mainstream education provision, and in doing so, reduce the need for special education’ (39). Thus, the situation in Norway echoes the ‘full inclusionists’ call for an end to all SE settings’, as articulated by Vislie (2003, 29).

At the same time, inclusion efforts in Norway were challenged by other seemingly competing values for education (Imsen, Blossing, and Moos 2017). During the period of the so-called ‘PISA-shock’ in 2000 and the implementation of a new curriculum (‘Knowledge Promotion Reform’) which followed in 2006 (NMER), there was a noticeable increase in students receiving SE, with even more students receiving SE in segregated settings outside their local school (NDET 2022–23). In 2012, this was the situation for about 5,000 students, a number which was almost twice as high as in 1992 when the special schools were closed (Jelstad and Holterman 2012). Currently, the number stands at 4,564 students with an additional 2,199 students spending one or more days in an alternative education setting (NDET 2022–23). Of the 49,814 students (constituting 8% of the total student population) who receive SE either within or outside of their local school, approximately half do so in predominantly segregated groups (NDET 2022–23).

Research findings confirms this tendency to increased segregation and poor educational conditions for students with SEN in regular schools in Norway (Nordahl 2018). Furthermore, it is pointed out that students are often left to their own devices even when they participate in general education (Nilsen 2020, 992). When exploring the situation from teachers’ perspectives, Nilsen (2020) found that they experience a curriculum dilemma in terms of striving to find a balance between curriculum commonality and differentiation to student diversity in regular classrooms, which hinders the ability of students with SEN to ‘function and be accepted as full, participating members of the classroom community’ (992). Furthermore, a study of the experiences of 12 special educators working in regular schools found that they were often isolated with the responsibility for students receiving SE (Uthus 2014, 246). Several of the special educators reported that despite the expert assessments prepared by the Educational Psychological Service recommending SE be given to individual students directly and in regular classrooms, the students were placed in segregated provisions alongside peers with widely varying diagnoses and needs (Uthus 2014, 261). Even though the narratives of the individual special educators varied, they all reported surprisingly similar experiences with respect to how SE provisions were predominantly functioning as preservation of a status quo which did not uphold the dignity of students, rather than as a contribution to inclusive education. While the special educators associated the situation with the growing attention on educational efficacy in terms of students’ academic achievement, economic stresses, and teacher accountability, they also offered other and more subtle explanations. For instance, when they raised concerns with the principal about the situation of students with SEN, they were met with the argument that striving for inclusion meant minimising SE as much as possible (Uthus 2014, 261), as aligned with guidelines rooted in the social-contextual approach and the complementary theory (Bachmann and Haug 2006, 68). As the principal invoked a ‘warm’ value of inclusion to rationalise what the special educators experienced as ‘cold’ or undignified situations for students with SEN, the teachers felt they (and their students) were the school’s shameful secret. Given these narratives, Uthus (2014, 294) questions whether the situation in Norway is not only about the competing values in the efficacy and accountability discourse but also about the constitution of a political, legal, conceptual, and practical understanding of IE that aligns with a social contextual approach. When the phenomenon of special needs is perceived to exist solely due to environmental shortcomings and barriers, and the solution to inclusion is seen as an ‘end to all SE settings’ (Vislie 2003, 29), a paradoxical situation of undignified conditions for some students with SEN can obviously arise.

To delve into this complexity of IE, we will now examine the current state of the field, where multiple researchers stress the importance of adopting a more holistic formulation of IE.

A call for holistic concepts in the field of IE

Despite the fact that the social contextual approach of SEN was important to the further development in the field of IE, several researchers cautioned against dichotomising the approaches as individual vs. social contextual, as they ‘[…] share common limitations of reductionism’ (Skidmore 1996, 33). It was argued that even within optimally inclusive environments, many students would still face limitations, as Terzi aptly puts it, ‘… simply because of their impairments’ (2004, 150). As a result, alternative holistic concepts emerged, arguing that the phenomenon of SEN should be understood and accommodated both on an individual biological or medical level and by breaking down barriers and shortcomings in the social context (Reindal 2009, 164; Skidmore 1996, 42). At the same time, it was pointed out that a holistic approach was not straightforward either (Norwich 2002). If IE involves identifying students’ differences to meet their individual needs, it involves a simultaneous risk of stigmatising and excluding students. Or, when looking at it the other way around, if IE implies maintaining a sense of normality and treating all the same, this implies a simultaneous risk of not giving the diverse student body equal opportunities for individual growth and learning in the community (Norwich 2002, 496). According to Norwich, such a ‘dilemma of difference’ can never be solved once and for all, meaning that differentiation and the inclusivity of the system must be monitored and handled in a continuous process (Norwich 2002, 492).

Furthermore, based on an acknowledgement that a one-sided individual- and deficit-oriented approach to SEN will never be the only contributor to IE, researchers stressed the importance of a nuanced understanding in holistic terms. For instance, Skidmore (1996) accentuates the importance of distinguishing between ‘diagnoses’ resting on value-laden judgements about behavioural and cognitive norms (e.g. ADHD) and those with an organic basis, (e.g. Down’s syndrome) (36). In the same vein, Reindal (2009, 159) reminds us that two people with the same quantity of individual resources may differ greatly in what external resources are needed to make them functional, aligning with Sen’s capability approach (Sen 2009). As this approach ‘gives a central role to the evaluation of a person’s achievements and freedoms in terms of his or her actual ability to do the things a person has reason to value doing or being’ (16), attention is placed on human diversity (we are all different), impairment and disability (as specific variables of human diversity), and reducing barriers and inequalities caused by the social environments (Reindal 2009). Further, a capability approach emphasises ‘the ends’—what is well-being for the individual (Sen 2009). By linking well-being to individual freedom and choice to live a valued life, the capability approach came to substantiate the importance of empowerment and increased student agency in IE (Norwich 2022; Reindal 2009). Recently, the capability approach has been highlighted as a central contribution to a broader conception about research into inclusive education. As outlined by Norwich (2022, 2), exploring IE through the capability approach is appropriate for uncovering value tensions about students’ differences, psychological well-being, and personal (vs. public) choice.

In recent years, researchers have stressed the exploration of inclusion as a multifaceted and context-sensitive phenomenon that requires contemporaneous analysis on the macro, meso, and micro levels (Schuelka and Thyrring Engsig 2022, 449). While exploring macro aspects such as cultural ideologies, policy, organisation, financing, teacher education, and laws/regulations, other aspects (at the meso level) should be explored simultaneously: local school contexts; teachers’ practices, self-reflections, and change; and teacher–student interactions, for instance (Chapman and Ainscow 2021; Nilholm 2021). The popular perspective that IE cannot exclusively be defined top-down strongly implies that individual and subjective dimensions of inclusion (the micro level) should be taken into account, Nes suggests that inclusion at the individual level involves a range of dimensions such as the social, cultural, and academic, where outcomes must be considered (2003, 74). However, according to Qvortrup and Qvortrup (2018), such outcome dimensions of IE at the micro level must be explored from an insider perspective, manifested as a continuum of feeling from belonging to marginalisation on the part of individual students in the community (A. Messiou 2006; A. Qvortrup and Qvortrup 2018). When placing the students’ psychological experiences of inclusion at the forefront, formal participation and physical placement therefore emerges as a concern at different levels of IE (i.e. meso and macro) (A. Qvortrup and Qvortrup 2018).

According to what seems to be ongoing barriers to IE, several researchers have also critiqued the concept of IE as incorporating ‘exclusionary conditions’ such as lack of teacher competence in meeting students’ various needs in inclusive classrooms (Hilt 2015). Based on this, she suggests overcoming barriers of inclusion by establishing exclusion processes as an internal part of inclusion processes. Qvortrup and Qvortrup (2018) also argue that there will always exist a duality of the ideological and the pragmatic perspectives of IE, thus suggesting IE as ‘ … a framework for understanding and working with inclusion in schools that take into account the dynamic relationship between inclusion and exclusion and the fact that inclusive work will never reach a stable state of total inclusion’ (810). Rather than considering students as either included or excluded, it may be more fruitful to acknowledge that each will experience inclusion and exclusion simultaneously, and to a certain and everchanging degree.

In the following discussion, we will delve more deeply into the complex relationship between the ideological value of IE, inclusive practices, and students’ inclusionary outcomes in schools.

Discussion

As highlighted in previous sections, the field of IE is characterised by lack of clarity and seemingly conflicting values and approaches, a state that calls for development of more holistic concepts in the field. In the following section offer our contributions by examining first how inclusion appears at different levels, inspired by (Schuelka and Thyrring Engsig 2022, 449), and then how inclusion can be articulated in terms of several core values found in the Salamanca Declaration (UNESCO 1994), inspired by Kiuppis (2014) and Magnússon (2019). We then address how these values can be associated with principles for institutional practices. Our ambition is to provide an expanded understanding of inclusive education as an ideology, a practice, and an inclusionary outcome for the individual student.

Throughout the discussion, we will refer to the previously presented conceptualisations of IE, approaches to SEN, the problematic experiences from Norway, and the current state of the field. We formulated the following research question to guide our work: How should one understand the phenomenon of IE when analysing the dynamic interaction between the ideological value of IE, inclusive practices, and students’ inclusionary outcomes in schools?

Inclusion at different curriculum levels

In order to clarify the values around inclusion as they take shape at the macro, meso, and micro levels, it is useful to distinguish between different curriculum levels (Keiding and Qvortrup 2014, 173). With reference to Goodlad and colleagues (1979), at least five distinct curriculum levels are found, as illustrated in Figure 1:

Figure 1. Curriculum levels of inclusive education, inspired by Olsen (2010).

At the macro level, we can distinguish between IE at a societal and a political level. At a societal level, IE embodies values rooted in inclusion as an ideology. The level of school policy aims to actualise these values. However, following Qvortrup and Qvortrup (2018) and their references to systems theory (Luhmann 1995), schools must not only realise those values linked to IE, but also face the complexity of managing multiple educational values and other codes like law, economics, and ethics. For instance, the Norwegian case exemplifies how a narrow ideological value of IE (understood only in terms of the social-contextual approach to SEN) undermined students’ legal entitlements to SE at an individual level. Additionally, when economic considerations (also in terms of ‘knowledge promotion’) are prioritised over IE, especially when subtly legitimised by the same social-contextual approach, ethical issues are involved as well. This reminds us that we cannot entirely resolve interferences between the societal and political level of IE (‘Why inclusion?’) and achieve a definitive and final solution for realisation. Rather, it is crucial to recognise and assess multiple and interfering educational values and codes separately (A. Qvortrup and Qvortrup 2018).

At the organisational and practice (meso) level, IE refers to completely different codes than at the other levels. Determining concrete plans, teaching methods, and practices for a reasonable degree of inclusion (‘How do we make inclusion happen’) is a professional task. This process relies on, for example, organisational conditions, school management, teacher competence, and teacher–student interactions, but manifests as students’ psychological experiences of both inclusion and exclusion – the micro level – in line with Hilt (2015) and Qvortrup and Qvortrup (2018). Therefore, rather than adopting a traditional linear perspective (Goodlad, Frances Klein, and Tye 1979; Olsen 2010), we favour a circular one (see Figure 1), emphasising teachers’ explorations of students’ ongoing and everchanging experiences of inclusion and exclusion, according to their planning and practices in a unique school context.

Values of inclusion and their corresponding principles for inclusive practices

In line with Kiuppis (2014) and Magnússon (2019), the development of different and apparently conflicting approaches in the field of IE reflects ambiguities about the values of inclusion in the Salamanca Declaration (UNESCO 1994). This reminds us of the importance of avoiding reductionism when it comes to the values in this document, echoing previous warnings in the field of IE about understanding the phenomena of special needs (Skidmore 1996). Therefore, to provide a deeper understanding of the complexities surrounding the implementation of IE at the practical level, we find it essential to look more closely into inclusion as an educational or ideological value. Throughout the previous sections, Nes’ (2003) distinction between social, cultural, and academic inclusion has proved useful. If these are foundational values of IE, we must ask whether these three values are to be found in the Salamanca Declaration (UNESCO 1994). Salamanca states that ‘regular schools with (this) inclusive orientation are the most effective means of combating discriminatory attitudes, creating welcoming communities, building an inclusive society and achieving education for all’. Moreover, it adds that ‘it provides an effective education to the majority of children and improves the efficiency and ultimately the cost-effectiveness of the entire education system’ (ix). It is thus evident that the value of inclusion encompasses all three values: concerns for strong communities (‘welcoming communities’), societal safety (‘combating discriminatory attitudes’), and issues of equity (‘education for all’). Furthermore, equity is reflected against considerations of efficiency (academic achievement) and resource allocation (economic). In Figure 2, we propose how these values of IE can be translated into core principles for practice. This is not a simple task, as will be discussed when we deal with each of the values, principles for practice and their relationships with one another.

Figure 2. Overarching values linked to inclusion and their corresponding principles for inclusive practices.

It is suggested that the first value, welcoming communities can be achieved by the principle of ensuring active student participation in the school environment. This involves enrolment or membership in local schools (A. Qvortrup and Qvortrup 2018), aligning with a legal right to attend a regular class in a local school (as in Norway, NMER (2014)).

However, in the context of IE, it is essential to consider students’ formal membership vis-à-vis the various arenas of communities of which the student can potentially be a part. Drawing on a systems-theory understanding (Luhmann 1995), Qvortrup and Qvortrup (2018) define school as a complex social system comprising organisation and interaction systems. Within the classroom, a student can actively engage in formal teaching communities and whether all students are given equal opportunities to do so depends on ‘an inclusive pedagogy’ and a means of ‘raising standards’ within a school in general (Vislie 2003, 22). Additionally, students participate in informal communities with peers, teachers, and other professionals in class or on the playground and during breaks. Beyond school hours, the students may be invited – or not – to socialise in interpersonal relationships with peers or friends, and they may choose – or choose not – to take part in social communities organised by sports or social clubs. This emphasises the importance of distinguish between different arenas of communities for comprehending the processes of inclusion (and exclusion) within schools.

Building on the work of Qvortrup and Albrechtsen (2014) and Qvortrup and Qvortrup (2018), we posit that total inclusion in all described community arenas may not be possible nor even desirable for the individual student. To elaborate on this, the perspective of Schroer (2008) can be useful, as it differentiates between ‘total exclusion’ as one extreme and ‘total inclusion’ as another.

(Schroer 2008)

The extremes are children who engage in every possible community and children who are totally excluded, not participating in any community (A. Qvortrup and Qvortrup 2018). The reality, however, is that children are included in some communities and excluded (or may choose to exclude themselves) from others, a condition which usually has negative associations. But according to Schroer (2008), this middle is the golden mean worth striving for; while total inclusion implies that students are fully adjusted and accommodated, meaning that they do not feel visible as unique individuals, total exclusion means preserving one’s individuality but feeling completely invisible to the social environments (Schroer 2008). Such a distinction highly aligns with recent approaches on the micro level of inclusion and the everchanging continuum of positive or negative psychological experience for the individual student (Messiou 2006; A. Qvortrup and Qvortrup 2018). By recognising this as a crucial part of the principle of participation, it obligates all professionals in the school to take part in on-going reflections about dilemmas and value tensions related to students’ diversity, their psychological well-being and personal choice (agency), as suggested by Norwich (2022, 2).

We find such a child-centred principle of participation valuable because it leads to the argument that inclusion is not solely about placement in regular schools and classrooms, as stated formally in the problematic example from Norway (Uthus 2014). Recognising and practicing inclusion based on the students’ own terms (L. Qvortrup 2012) makes it clearer that inclusion might unfold in intermediate forms of both schools and classrooms (even additional or special ones).

The second value of no discrimination provided by Salamanca concerns the notion that inclusion fosters a society marked by respect and tolerance for all individuals (UNESCO 1994). In schools, this can be achieved by the principle of human diversity. This principle obliges municipalities and schools to organise educational environments in a way that allows students to interact with peers who have varying backgrounds, needs, potentials, and behaviour patterns. This is aligned with the enrichment perspective (Befring 1997), which holds that exposure to human diversity in school equips students with the capacity to embrace differences in the future, as these experiences foster deeper self-awareness for all students, helping them recognise their strengths and weaknesses in the face of diversity.

Through this, students come to understand that everyone is of value and deserves respectful treatment and recognition for their unique qualities. While human diversity typically encompasses differences in ethnic, social, and cultural backgrounds (Nes 2003), we propose extending it to encompass students’ various biological and medical conditions (impairments), in line with Norwich (2002), Skidmore (1996), Reindal (2016), and Terzi (2004). As with the first value of welcoming communities, we argue for a balanced realisation, finding a golden mean between students’ experiences of total diversity (maximum differences) and their experiences of total unity (complete similarity) among students.

Understanding and experiencing the mechanisms related to inclusion and discriminatory exclusion is only possible when one recognises differences with some, while at the same time feeling a sense of unity and experiencing reciprocal relationships with others. This implies that every student should have a sense of belonging in an environment marked by both diversity and unity. Once again, this points to extremes in which students placed in mainstream classrooms might experience no identification, as a total loss of identity (self-concept), or full identification implying a sense of complete identity (self-concept) with the others in additional/special classrooms. Since neither of these extremes truly exists, the key lies in finding a balance which promotes a sense of belonging for the individual student. What is worth noting here is that the balance point is equally important in both directions. Whilst the ideology of full inclusion within regular classrooms, as seen in the Norwegian context (NDET 2021), may strip students of experiencing an identity, full-time placement in alternative classrooms, coupled with complete identity immersion, would deprive both the students placed there – and others – of the valuable exposure to human diversity.

The third value of ‘educational equity’ is achieved through the principle of differentiated educational practices. Aligning with Messiou and colleagues, (2022), student diversity is a premise for the principle of differentiation, concerning both individual characteristics and learning prerequisites and social contextual barriers. In the same vein, the capability approach bases the principle of differentiation on student diversity, not as a (social) aspect of diversity, but as a specific variable of diversity (Reindal 2009, 159). However, the rationale for differentiation differs among these approaches. While Messiou and colleagues (2022) emphasise equal educational opportunities for all students, the capability approach sees differentiation as addressing students’ needs for external resources to fulfil their chosen life path (the individual is ‘the end’/ultimate goal). Despite these distinctions, we propose that ‘equity’, as a value, should encompass both approaches, ensuring students’ right to participate, learn, and enhance their opportunities for a valued life. Therefore, the principle of differentiation should encompass students’ individual characteristics and learning prerequisites (and potentials), social contextual barriers, and any necessary additional resources.

Since students with SEN exhibit the same diversity as all human beings, Skidmore (1996) highlights the importance of specifying the nature of SENs before determining the differentiation required. For instance, a student diagnosed with Down’s syndrome might benefit from specialised educational support, while a student with ADHD could benefit more from the removal of barriers in the social context. Given the principle of student diversity, there will initially be as many variations in what allocated resources should entail as there are students. Hence, it can be useful to distinguish between differentiation in the span between treating all students the same and treating them as completely unique:

While treating the students the same implies distributing resources universally, treating students as unique requires resources (e.g. economic or in terms of specialised competencies/practices) directed towards a select few. Once again, we advocate for finding a middle ground between these extremes, differing from the social-contextual approach in Norway, which, in line with the theory of complementarity, tends to favour uniform treatment (adapted education) for all students over differentiation in the form of SE (Bachmann and Haug 2006). The social-contextual approach in Norway risks becoming more extreme, as clearly expressed through repeated suggestions that the legal right to SE be revoked (Nordahl 2018). The crucial point here is that undermining the principle of differentiation might paradoxically hinder its own aim, that of IE (Terzi 2004, 141). Thus, the key challenge lies in striking a balance between identifying and responding to students’ differences while emphasising normality and equal treatment at the same time, echoing Norwich’s (2002) ‘dilemma of difference’.

However, achieving inclusion requires a significant economic investment for society and must, in line with Salamanca (UNESCO 1994), be sustainable in the long term. Arguments for less differentiated treatment due to higher costs are understandable. Yet insufficient differentiation increases the risk of student exclusion and drop-out, potentially incurring long-term costs for society. Indeed, assembling a diverse group of students in regular classrooms also requires significant resources.

Final reflections

Throughout this paper, we have shown how ideological interpretations of inclusion can shape exclusionary realities in schools. Even if competing values of students’ academic achievement are found to undermine the value of IE in recent years (Ainscow 2016; Ainscow and Messiou 2018; Imsen, Blossing, and Moos 2017), it is more concerning if a concept of inclusion aimed at realising a school for all students actually rationalises and justifies such exclusionary tendencies as seen in the example with special educators in Norway. By considering IE both ideologically and pragmatically in terms of inclusive practices and students’ inclusionary outcomes, we emphasise that a purely ideological understanding is neither entirely achievable nor desirable. In Salamanca (1994, 11), this is reflected by a description of inclusive education as never static or to be achieved once and for all, but rather as an ongoing orientation wherever possible (emphasis ours). Thus, discussing inclusion along the extreme continua of exclusion, unity, and unique treatment reveals a more sophisticated and dynamic reality for students than the ideological approach implies. This formulation urges all educational stakeholders to reflect on priorities and actions supporting IE. Given the problematic experiences in Norway, this should apply to the drafting of legislation and policy documents as well. In line with Hilt (2015), an unambiguously positive inclusion discourse at a macro level might hide exclusionary conditions, and worse, also legitimise the unfolding of exclusionary processes in schools.

A concept of inclusion which includes a pragmatic and experience-based dimension is valuable because it places students and their agency in the forefront, in line with the capability approach (Reindal 2009) and recent conceptualisation in IE (Messiou et al. 2022; Norwich 2002). However, as the situation in Norway makes clear, relying solely on student-centred and subjective criteria of inclusion is not sustainable; objective criteria for inclusive practices must always be considered. For example, provisions for students with SEN may objectively appear undignified, even if the students or their parents do not perceive it that way. While we have highlighted specific objective inclusion criteria for each value and principle in the discussion, considering them together is crucial. As shown by the example of the special educators in Norway, prioritising the principle of human diversity toward one extreme (all students in regular classrooms) over differentiation towards the other extreme (individual legal entitlement to SE) undermined their participation in the ‘welcoming communities’ formulated by Salamanca (UNESCO 1994). However, if differentiation and the pursuit of justice (fairness) for the individual are viewed as the priority (Terzi 2004), students might be deprived of the value of human diversity – the opposite of participation in welcoming communities. Consequently, balance between the three principles of participation, human diversity, and differentiation in the concept of inclusion is crucial.

The concept of IE presented in this paper goes beyond previous approaches such as the individual, social-contextual, and capability approach, even as it integrates elements from each. According to the social-contextual approach, of which we have raised some concerns, it remains to be said that the thought experiment it proposes is fundamental: if shortcomings and barriers in the school environment no longer existed, the extent of SEN will be reduced and so will the need for SE. Therefore, ongoing efforts towards inclusive practices in schools is crucial in IE. Aligned with Salamanca (UNESCO 1994, 11), such efforts concern not only teachers and school staff, but also peers, parents, families, and volunteers.

Implications

With the complex reality of IE in mind, researchers are clearly in danger of contributing to reductionism and stagnation in the field if they adopt too narrow a scope. Therefore, when designing studies, formulating research questions, and making tools for gathering and analysing data, it is worth striving to explore even the smallest phenomena in relation to the values and principles of practices presented here. Furthermore, the concept of IE presented in this article lends itself to the exploration and assessment of the individual child’s conditions of inclusion, at societal, practical, and student-outcome levels.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Correction Statement

This article has been republished with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.