Inclusion in the Nordic countries – perspectives, definitions and lessons learned

I came across a knowledge overview on studies on inclusion from the Nordic countries. One of the authors is one of my favorite researchers, Eva Hjörne, which caught my attention even further. I thought, perhaps there is something here that can help me explain how I understand inclusive education and why we stumble on the practice of it?

We had a discussion in my European group about inclusion, what it means and how it may look. I felt that my Swedish experience is one that could provide food for thought for other countries or regions on their inclusion journey. The discussion left me thinking about how there is a gap between the practice and the theory, between policy and practice and between the operative and the strategic work of inclusion. We may have grand ideas of all means all and we may all adhere to that thought only to stumble as soon as we hit the operative day to day practice. This gap is to me one of the major barriers to inclusion. Whenever we have anecdotes, experiences and stories of exclusion whether pedagogically or psychologically we risk finding arguments against inclusion. We may even start thinking that inclusion can be all means most students, or all means all that we can muster, or all means all provided we have the resources. 

The article, or knowledge review, I found brings up some of these issues and it helped me express to myself my concerns about inclusion as something that can look different for different people, for different regions or cultures. To me inclusion is as universal as human rights. We wouldn’t say that human rights can mean some people can only have a little bit of human rights, would we? 

All students or just SEN students?

The article brings up two starting points for the idea and the practice of inclusion. One is focused on ALL students and on creating learning environments for all in classrooms and schools. The other starting point focuses on students with SEN as the object of inclusion. For me, all means all is coherent with the first starting point for a definition. As far as I am concerned, I do not adhere to the idea of certain groups, categories or types of students are the object of inclusion. 

But I also understand that all means all may for others mean that all has to incorporate students with SEN. The two starting points differ greatly in that the first one doesn’t distinguish between labels categories of students while the second one does albeit for the positive inclusion of SEN students. 

I think that the two different starting points are important to highlight when discussing inclusion. Otherwise we will keep dancing around the word thinking that we all share a common idea that shows we are the good guys but in reality we risk stumbling on the day to day practice. 

Perhaps the stumbling occurs when the operative side of working in schools is introduced to the discussion. Perhaps inclusion can only be achieved if everyone commits to zooming out once in a while to reflect strategically on how the practices aid inclusion or hinder inclusion at a school level. More importantly, as long as we think that inclusion is achieved when we see an individual who is able to participate, then we have a long way to go. As long as we equate inclusion with anti-discrimination we have already accepted the barriers and the idea that inclusion is difficult because we have this or that student or this or that disability or this or that culture in school. 

I think we all have a long way to go still. We can rejoice in the small steps we are taking with practices, mindsets, collaborations and cultures but we can never be satisfied. The minute we say we have come a long way, that’s the minute we have also set a bar on inclusion, as if it’s an end goal or a situation that we can actually see before us. In reality it will be a never ending evolving idea with practices that need to go hand in hand. When we meet to talk about inclusive education we must be courageous enough to ask ourselves and each other: 

• Are we talking about ALL students or are we talking about some students, the ones we see as SEN students (whether it’s because of disability or migration or deprivation or….)? 

• Are we talking about this because we are caring about SEN students or are we talking about this because we care about ALL students’ learning, development and contribution to society? 

Why is this important? Because the actions we take, the practice we put in place will depend on the starting point for inclusion. And that may lead to more inclusion or more integration or segregation.

The Nordic experience – a school for all

The Nordic experience is an important one to share. Our countries have taken a high stance in promoting inclusive education with catch phrases such as “A school for all”. The policy is in place and there are good examples but there is still a gap between idea, policy and practice. The article takes a close look at this gap and it seems to be linked to to the starting point of inclusion. When some students are seen as ”difficult to include” or the object of inclusion, the practices are not as strategical as they could be. Focusing on teachers and teachers’ possibilities to reflect, to try out practices in collaboration and through co-teaching seems to be the strategically sound thing to implement for inclusive schools. This seems to be more difficult to put in place when the student is seen as the focal point for inclusion. A surprising but important lesson is also that specialists in schools may create more confusion about inclusion as they may have more of an individual focus and SEN as the starting point. The gap opens up when some zoom out to strategies and other zoom in to students, both in the name of inclusion but with different practices and outcomes both for the student and the school culture.

Next time we discuss inclusion, hopefully soon, I will think about the starting points and how we may help each other understand the perspectives through them. Maybe the illustration below is also a visual aid in our important discussions and reflections.

---

Are you interested in the origin of my reflection? Here is a link to the report and selected parts of the report that I find interesting to reflect upon and to discuss further. The headlines are mine!

From the idea of inclusion into practice in the Nordic countries

Many studies and reviews about inclusion and inclusive education have been conducted in recent years, showing that there are different ways to conceptualise and understand inclusion as well as various approaches to promoting inclusive education.

Two starting points for the definition of inclusive education

In an analysis of research concerning inclusive education by Göransson and Nilholm (2014), four different theoretical approaches of inclusive education were found. Two definitions focused on the inclusion of all students: 1) inclusion as meeting the social and academic needs of all individual students and 2) inclusion as building communities in schools and classrooms. The two remaining definitions focused on the inclusion of SEN students: 1) inclusion as the placement of SEN students in mainstream classrooms and 2) inclusion as meeting the social/academic needs of individual SEN students. The authors concluded that the various definitions of inclusive education might depend on different perspectives on schools’ missions and what schools should accomplish. 

Inclusive education – not only placement of certain students or categories of students

In a Norwegian study (Nilsen 2020), inclusion was divided in a similar way but into three dimensions: 1) an organisational dimension, which is a matter of physical placement and the organisation of schooling; 2) a social dimension, which refers to the students’ experiences of belonging, involvement and participation in work and activities in the classroom and to good relationships in terms of both student–student relations and student–teacher relations; and finally, 3) an academic dimension, which concerns learning outcomes, methods of teaching and learning. 

These theoretical approaches to inclusion are closely connected to inclusive education not only as a matter of placement but also as the teaching of a diverse group of students, as far as possible, in one classroom that is organised to meet the needs of all students.

One school for all  – a Nordic vision but in practice it’s hard

The Nordic countries have long been recognised as providing an inclusive and egalitarian educational system, with ‘one school for all’ being a famous catchphrase. However, some reports have shown that there is often a gap between policy and ideals on the one hand and the realisation of the idea of inclusion in practice on the other.

Barriers and gaps between ideas and practice

A gap between the idea of inclusion and the realisation in practice could be seen in a Norwegian study, in which the students were physically included in the classroom during social activities but received academic instruction outside the classroom in a smaller group. 

(a) Swedish study on educational leaders’ explanations of student problems in school, leaders still seem to view difficulties in school as caused primarily by students’ individual shortcomings. 

(…) general policies on inclusion leave much space for interpretation at the municipal and school levels, and this results in extensive variation. 

A Swedish study found that feelings of belonging, membership and acceptance were necessary reaching the goal of inclusive classrooms. 

Paradoxically, the stress in policy on the creation of inclusive education seems to have resulted in an increase in the identification of students as SEN students.

Teachers’ beliefs and attitudes show how teachers’ beliefs and attitudes are reflected in the articles in how their ideas of inclusion may have consequences for their practice. Teachers were included as the sample in most of the articles. Overall, the main finding showed that teachers are positive about the idea of inclusion.

In a Norwegian study, the conclusion was that teachers who participated in a national school development programme had a broader understanding of inclusive education that implies meeting the diverse needs of all students.

A Finnish study showed that teachers had many concerns about the consequences of the gap between policy and practice including students with SEN in the classroom and the school.

A Swedish study concluded that different occupational groups in schools have different ideas concerning how schools should organise inclusion of SEN students.

In another study, the results indicated that teachers experienced inclusion as an additional task. 

Collaboration and Coteaching was necessary to improve teachers’ teaching strategies and ultimately stimulate the idea of inclusive practices. 

Discussion topics from the findings in the knowledge review

The understanding of inclusion as a human right and a democracy does not provide concrete guidelines for practice, while the understanding of including placement leads to concrete organisational measures. 

Meeting the demand of inclusive education in a school for all is essential for ensuring human rights and democracy, which these values of inclusive educational policy give direction for practice. This can also be said for other ways of understanding and practicing included, and if the understanding is unreflected, there is still a risk that one cannot see how different types of approaches to practice may complement others. 
Few articles illuminating inclusion in Nordic schools address students with special educational needs explicitly. This is also in line with the international understanding of inclusion as a democratic and universal principle. Considering this, focusing on specific categories or group orientation is contrary to the principle of inclusion. However, we have no reason to say that it is the universal understanding that is the cause. Universal principles are not promoted by ignoring special problems related to individual and SEN – students (…). 

Perhaps one of the most important issues of teacher collaboration in the Nordic context are to secure the connection between what happens in special education and ordinary education (*Buli-Holmberg, Nilsen, and Skogen 2019*). When teacher challenges are understood as caused by students’ SEN and shortcomings, it is a long way to go before the idea of inclusion is realised.

(…) it is important to develop a support system for the teachers and helping them to work in teams if inclusive practice is to become a reality.

One main finding from the study of these articles is the existence of different understandings of inclusion. The understandings are mostly indirectly expressed and often unclear and unreflected. A consequence may be very different and hesitating ways of practicing inclusion and inclusive education. According to the articles, there is an overall ambition of inclusion, but more studies and research focusing on inclusive practices are needed. Among the different understandings of inclusion, we find both understanding of inclusion as a human right and a democracy and inclusion understood as physical placement. The first understanding is broad and fundamental. The second are narrow, more concrete, and practical. 

High quality learning of all students is a main goal in the realising of inclusive education. Failure to address this overall goal overlooks an important challenge in an inclusive school for all. There is still a long way to go before the idea of inclusion is realised in practice, although there in a Nordic context, the idea and the ambition are fully accepted. Consequently, there is hope for inclusive education, but there is also a need for more qualitative studies and research focusing on inclusion and inclusive education both in theory and in practice in order to meet and realise the overall goal of inclusion in the future.

---

Selected paragraphs from the knowledge review by

Jorun Buli-Holmberg, Hanne Marie Høybråten Sigstad, Ivar Morken & Eva
Hjörne (2022): From the idea of inclusion into practice in the Nordic countries: a qualitative literature
review, European Journal of Special Needs Education, DOI: 10.1080/08856257.2022.2031095
https://doi.org/10.1080/08856257.2022.2031095