International Journal of Inclusive Education

This article was downloaded by: [Archives & Bibliothèques de l'ULB]
On: 25 January 2015, At: 18:06

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
International Journal of Inclusive

Education
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tied20
Adapted education: the Norwegian

pathway to inclusive and efficient
education
a
Rolf B. Fasting
a
Department of Primary and Secondary Teacher Education , Oslo
and Akershus University College of Applied Sciences , Pb 4 St.
Olavs plass, Oslo , 0103 , Norway
Published online: 10 May 2012.
To cite this article: Rolf B. Fasting (2013) Adapted education: the Norwegian pathway to inclusive
and efficient education, International Journal of Inclusive Education, 17:3, 263-276, DOI:
10.1080/13603116.2012.676083
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2012.676083
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
International Journal of Inclusive Education, 2013
Vol. 17, No. 3, 263– 276, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2012.676083
Adapted education: the Norwegian pathway to inclusive and

efficient education
Rolf B. Fasting∗
Department of Primary and Secondary Teacher Education, Oslo and Akershus University
College of Applied Sciences, Pb 4 St. Olavs plass, Oslo 0103, Norway
Downloaded by [Archives & Bibliothèques de l'ULB] at 18:06 25 January 2015
(Received 28 March 2011; final version received 4 March 2012)
Since the UNESCO conference in 1994, inclusion has been a major denominator in
the educational debates of most OECD countries, focusing on how to facilitate
education and social interaction for the diversity of pupils. By international
standards, the Norwegian education system is regarded as inclusive, but the
ongoing debate and political pressure in Norway on how to increase pupils’
benefit of education, challenge this understanding. This article gives a historical
account of Norwegian education policy to illustrate the way inclusive education
has been understood over the years. Furthermore, it presents empirical evidence
showing an increasing use of special education in Norway as a basis for
discussing dilemmas of the current education reform, ‘Knowledge Promotion’.
The last part of the article highlights the partly contradictory aims schools and
teachers are given: the aims of increasing pupils’ learning and of developing
inclusive schools. The outcomes of the processes involved are closely related to
the standards of educational policies, how these standards are implemented and
the understanding of how to develop schools that take care of and respect the
variety of pupils.
Keywords: inclusive education; education policy; special education; adapted
education
Background and aim

The question of how to facilitate efficient and inclusive education for the diversity of
pupils has challenged policy-makers and school leaders all over the word for
decades. In spite of the efforts made by UNESCO/International Bureau of Education
(IBE), and the unimpeded exchange of experiences and ideologies within OECD
countries, there are still differences in how to understand and implement inclusive edu-
cation (Nes and Strømstad 2001; Zelaieta 2004). Even within the Nordic context,
countries with comparable educational ideologies based on social democratic aims
(see Telhaug, Mediås, and Aasen 2006), there are significant differences both in how
to put inclusive education into practice (Hausstätter and Takala 2008) and the pupils’
benefit of education (Matti 2009).
In Norway, the understanding of the term inclusion has its roots in ideas grown out
of social, political and educational processes over the last 150 years. Accordingly, the
introduction of the term inclusion in the Norwegian National Curriculum of 1997 (NC-
∗
Email: rolf.fasting@hioa.no
# 2013 Taylor & Francis

264 R.B. Fasting
97) did not cause any major debate. Instead, the education debate has been turned
towards differentiation and the implementation of adapted education.
Inclusive education can be understood initially as ‘a move towards extending the
scope of “ordinary” schools so that they can “include” a greater diversity of children’
(Clark, Dyson, and Millward 1995, 5). Hence, inclusion has to be considered a process
of change, whereby policy-makers and schools are gradually being more responsible
for accommodating the needs of a greater diversity of the pupil population. Both
adapted education and inclusive education have common denominators, implying
respect, sensitivity and responsibility for the diversity of human beings. However,
the principle of adapted – or adaptive education (i.e. Engen and Lied 2011) – can
be understood as an overarching, non-categorical principle including ideologies and
practices as well as collective and individual aspects of education.

The aim of this article is to discuss Norwegian education policy and the develop-
ment of a unitary school system in the light of the principles of inclusion and
adapted education. Furthermore, the article tries to identify significant characteristics
in the process towards providing educational opportunities to children with different
backgrounds and abilities within ordinary schools in Norway. Finally, the current Nor-
wegian National Curriculum of 2006, ‘Knowledge Promotion’ (Ministry of Education
and Research 2006, 2008), is discussed in the light of the UNESCO/IBE understanding
of inclusion and the social objectives of education. The article accounts for policy docu-
ments and white papers that have made a significant impact on Norwegian education
policy in terms of implementing the two principles. The selection of documents is dis-
cussed in the light of empirical data from Grunnskolens Informasjonssystem – GSI
statistics1 (a web-accessible database providing information on Norwegian education)
showing an increasing number of Norwegian pupils receiving special education. As a
framing point for the following discussion, some Norwegian characteristics are
reviewed.
Norway – some characteristics

Norway is located on the western part of the Scandinavian Peninsula between Sweden
and the Atlantic Ocean. The country is sparsely populated, with approximately 5
million inhabitants (2011). It is divided into five regions, Eastern Norway, Southern
Norway, Western Norway, Central Norway and Northern Norway, all separated by
the Scandinavian mountain system and a jagged coastline. Compared to the area of
land, the coast is longer than those of most other major countries, and extends
more than 20,000 km, including fjords and offshore islands. In accordance with the
topography, the country is divided into 430 municipalities; one-third with less than
3000 inhabitants, and just a few cities with more than 100,000 citizens. Although
Norway has received a substantial proportion of immigrants over the last few
decades, the population, at least outside the larger cities, is fairly homogeneous
and has relatively low socio-economic segregation compared to most European
OECD countries.
As in other Scandinavian countries, Norwegian education is based on a grand con-
sensus about equality and democratic aims. These principles are manifested through an
equal right to education, free of charge, financed through taxation, all the way from
compulsory school throughout upper secondary and higher education, irrespective of
gender, age, skills, origin and socio-economic background (Ministry of Education
and Research 2007, 2009). The compulsory levels of education comprise primary
International Journal of Inclusive Education 265
school (Y 1–7) and lower secondary (Y 8–10), and all Norwegians join their local
public school at the age of six. Upper secondary school (Y 11 –13) is a statutory
right for all citizens, and most pupils (98%) continue from lower secondary to upper
secondary general studies/ vocational education and training, where 75% graduate 3
or 4 years later (Y 13).
The Norwegian education system is close to a ‘one-track’ system (Pijl and Meijer
1991), which means that all pupils (including pupils with Special Educational Needs
(SEN)) are subjected to the same regulations and supported by their local school. A
municipal support system, the Educational Psychology Service, is available to
schools to ensure that expert assessments are prepared, and pupils with SEN are pro-
vided special education in accordance with the Education Act (for a review, see Thy-
gesen 2007).
Special education in Norway can be divided into two categories: part-time, inte-
grated special education and full-time, segregated special education. Part-time, inte-
grated special education comprises individual- or group-based support assigned as
‘in-class’ or ‘out-of-class’ measures. For most of the time, the pupils are taught ‘in-
class’ by the class teacher, and for some time, the pupils receive special education
depending on the characteristics of the needs or learning difficulty. A minority of
pupils receive full-time segregated special education, either at a special education
resource centre, special school or in a special group or class at the municipal level.
In total, about 8.5% of the pupils are supported with special education in 2010–
2011 (GSI statistics). The Norwegian topography and the sparsely populated rural dis-
tricts (one-quarter of Norwegian schools have fewer than 90 pupils, GSI statistics
2010–2011) indicate that qualified support of pupils with SEN differs according to
where the pupils live (Vislie and Langfeldt 1996; Skårbrevik 2005).
Trends in Norwegian education

The term adapted education describes the Norwegian approach to facilitate education
for all pupils irrespective of gender, cognitive level, ethnicity, impairment or disability
(Ministry of Education and Research 2003; Opertti, Bradi, and Duncombe 2009). The
term occurs in policy documents from the 1980s, and has been used to focus on differ-
ent educational aspects by different governments. Adapted education is based on the
idea of providing optimal and appropriate education for all pupils, and is tied both to
ideological aspects and to specific measures and methods. The principle has been
linked to education policy, to the craft of teachers’ work in the classroom, to pupils’
learning and the outcome of schooling, and to pupils’ well-being. In the school
setting, the term is most often understood as a general principle (by teachers often
linked to measures or programmes) to increase pupils’ learning, knowledge and
well-being. To better understand the origin of the different political and practice-
based understandings of adapted education, the following connects the principle to
the trends in Norwegian education.
The provision of public education in Norway can be traced back to 1739. This initial
reform emphasised, among others, an inclusive mindset, stating that schools were to be
established ‘everywhere’ in the countryside, and for the children of ‘everyone’ irrespec-
tive of social standing (Dokka 1988). During the growth of industrialism in the nine-
teenth century, a school system similar to that of other European countries gradually
emerged in the towns, mirroring the social stratification of society. However, at the
time, 90% of the Norwegian population (about 1.5 million people) lived in the
266 R.B. Fasting
countryside, and in the rural districts a more classless social structure existed (Eckhoff
2001). For a sparsely populated and economically poor country (at the time governed
by Sweden), there was no basis for a parallel school system. The fact that Norway, by
European standards, had an egalitarian society, and that nearly all citizens belonged to
the Lutheran Evangelical Church, encouraged the progression towards a unified school
system – a school for all (Dokka 1988).
Education in the sense we see it today, was legislated in 1889 and named The
National School – in towns and countryside alike. The 7-year schooling included,
among others, the subjects geography, natural – and social studies, and was to be
free for everyone. In 1905, the Norwegian alliance with Sweden ended in a peaceful
agreement, and the independence required an economic and administrative reconstruc-
tion of the country. To encourage the process, it was important to unite the people by
both political and educational means. The Norwegian egalitarian society, and the fact
that Norway had no segregated educational traditions as, for example, the English
boarding schools or education rooted in denominations as in the Netherlands, supported
the breakthrough of the unitary school system. An additional matter was the political
pressure to establish a connection between The National School and the Higher (sec-
ondary) School. A budget resolution by the Parliament in 1920 implied that public
financial support would only be provided to Higher Schools that were based on the
completion of The National School. The matter made a vital contribution towards
the development of a common and undivided 7-year school system for children of
all social groups (Dokka 1988; Eckhoff 2001). The principle of a free of charge,
unitary school, has been the foundation for Norwegian education policy ever since.
The national curriculum of 1939 (NC-39) and the following legislations of 1951 and
1955 can be regarded as the next step on the pathway towards adapted education. The
curriculum emphasised that the teaching should be in accordance with the pupils’ abil-
ities and aptitudes, and that all pupils should be trained in independent learning; ideas
that can be traced back to the progressive ideas of Dewey in the mid-1920s. The Nor-
wegian post-war social democratic policy, however, was based on a confidence in the
administrative capacity of the central state. Accordingly, the NC-39 included detailed
instructions on the subject matter which schools were expected to teach (Telhaug,
Mediås, and Aasen 2006). These instructions took the form of what was called
‘minimum requirements’ to be achieved at different grade levels, and the requirements
challenged the variety of pupils. To solve the predominant problems, provision for
state-run special schools for pupils with sensory impairment, behavioural problems
and mental retardation were legislated (1951); these were the first schools based on reli-
gious, social and humanistic initiatives (Befring, Thousand, and Nevin 2000). The 1951
legislation was followed by an amendment to the Public School Act (1955) instructing
local authorities to provide remedial support for pupils who struggled to fulfil the
expectations of the curriculum. The measures paved the way for a ‘two-track’ education
system (Pijl and Meijer 1991): a system of public schools and a system of special
schools and special education – remedial classes. In the effort to make The National
School a school for everyone, someone – and here lies the paradox – had to be
excluded.
During the 1960s, several reforms were attempted and, as the last of the Nordic
countries to do so, a 9-year compulsory school was implemented; i.e. 6 years of elemen-
tary school followed by 3 years at lower secondary. In the latter half of the decade, a
renewed emphasis on social justice arose, and the Norwegian historian Francis Sejer-
sted speaks of ‘new radicalism’ and no less than a ‘mental revolution’ to describe
the processes that took place (Sejersted 2004, 258–9). The processes fuelled the debate
on how to support pupils who experienced difficulties regarding school expectations
and requirements. A white paper released in 1967 broke with the ‘two-track’ education
system (Ministry of Social Affairs 1967), emphasising that the placing of children in
segregated settings should be the exception rather than the rule. The administrative
and ideological turn in how to support and facilitate education for pupils with SEN fos-
tered a debate that still is ongoing.
From segregation to adapted education

The renewed focus on equity and economic growth can be seen as the main objectives
behind the 9-year compulsory school reform (1969). One driving force can be traced to
economic–instrumental objectives, assuming a close association between the level of
education and social welfare (Aasen 1999). From this viewpoint, the post-war gener-
ation was regarded as raw material for the welfare state, implemented through edu-
cation: innovative principles and objectives that can be traced to modernism. On the
other hand, the social objective may be considered to predominate in the 1969–1975
school reform. The 1974 curriculum revision (NC-74) and an amendment to the Edu-
cation Act (1975) underscored that all children, regardless of ability, social factors, eth-
nicity or special needs, had the right to live and grow up with their families and attend
their local classes during compulsory schooling (Haug 1996; Dyson and Millward
1997). The new education ideology, based on the principle of pedagogical differen-
tiation where the strong aided the weak, introduced heterogeneous unstreamed
classes all the way from grades 1 to 9 to facilitate education for pupils who previously
had been placed in segregated settings.
However, the implementation of the reform took time, and reports from the early
1980s showed that the reform had limited effect on education for pupils in special
schools (Basic School Council 1983). Segregated special education was still regarded
as something ‘beside’ the ordinary education system, and most of the special schools
from the 1970s were still running. A white paper titled: ‘Some aspects of special edu-
cation and the educational psychology service’ (Ministry of Church and Education
1984–1985) was a driving force in the abolition of the remaining special schools, and
since the early 1990s only a minor proportion of pupils with SEN (less than 0.5%,
GSI statistics) have been supported in special schools; i.e. pupils with severe and com-
pound disabilities and impairments (Pijl, Meijer, and Hegarty 1997; Skårbrevik 2005).
The term adapted education emerged in the mid-1980s, initially as a guideline for
preparing appropriate challenges for pupils who showed little benefit from teaching. In
the curriculum context, the term was introduced in the 1987 revision (NC-87) under the
heading ‘Equal and adapted education’ (Ministry of Church and Education 1987). One
of the first curriculum chapters emphasised the importance of accommodating the learn-
ing content and conditions to all pupils’ abilities, skills and needs – even though the
term ‘all pupils’ mainly referred to pupils showing little benefit from the schooling,
including language minority pupils. The principle of a pupil-centred ideology, focusing
on collaboration, creative learning and investigative methods, can also be traced to the
implementation of the curriculum at the school level. Every teacher was instructed to
join school-based groups and transform the general guidelines in the NC-87 into
local plans. From this viewpoint, adapted education can be regarded as an overarching
education principle by putting the pupil (or teacher) at the centre through individually
tailored teaching and participant management (Krejsler 2004).
268 R.B. Fasting
Inclusion on the agenda

During the 1970s and 1980s, a strong self-satisfaction with the education system
emerged in Norwegian society. The understanding grew out of studies by international
researchers suggesting that the ‘Nordic education model’ was to be regarded as an ideal
for the western countries (Telhaug, Mediås, and Aasen 2006). This understanding
began to crack when the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational
Achievement (IEA); Second International Science Study (SISS) report revealed that
Norwegian pupils’ academic achievements were mediocre (Rosier and Keeves
1991). The following curriculum revision of 1997 (NC-97) was highly influenced by
the report. The revision broke away from the former school policy which during the
1980s had attached importance to expand the learning opportunities within the edu-
cation programme.
The main characteristics of the NC-97 reform are summarised in the following:
firstly, the curriculum turned once again towards governmental standardisation by
introducing a specific canon of content and activities to be used at each grade and
applied to all pupils. The idea was to combine ‘central management with a social demo-
cratic confidence in a strong state’ without involving the tools of liberalism (Telhaug,
Mediås, and Aasen 2006, 274). Secondly, the revision extended the length of compul-
sory schooling from 9 to 10 years by lowering the age of children’s entrance to school
to 6 years. This significant change was met with limited objections. One of the reasons
may be that the extension included a pre- and post- school supervised playground for
the pupils in grades 1–4.
In addition, the principles of inclusion and adaptation were used as cornerstones in
the curriculum. Inspired by the Salamanca Declaration (UNESCO/IBE 1994), the term
inclusion was introduced as a guideline for school policy and practice with respect to
the diversity of religions, cultures, values and beliefs, so that all pupils could: ‘... take
part in social, academic and cultural communities, equally’ (Ministry of Education
Research and Church Affairs 1996a, 53). Inclusion was given a broad foundation high-
lighted through the following three aspects:
. Inclusion concerns all pupils’ participation in communities of learning where

everyone is given opportunities to achieve one’s own full potential. The principle
requires adaptations with regard to aims, content and materials, working methods
and evaluation.
. Inclusion concerns democracy and cooperation where all pupils have the possi-
bility to take part in common learning activities, and are given responsibility in
accordance with each pupil’s capabilities; where diversity is understood as
enrichment.
. Inclusion concerns the entire school, not just a particular teacher, pupil or groups
of pupils, where everyone has the right to be united parts of the community: aca-
demically, socially and culturally. Consequently, the principle applies to pupils
as well as parents and staff.
Based on the previous discussion, inclusion can be seen as an extension of the ideol-
ogy promoted by the 1967 White Paper (Ministry of Social Affairs 1967) emphasising
that all people are inalienable parts of the society, to ‘. . . inspire individuals to realise
their potential in ways that serve the common good; to nurture humanity in a society in
development’ (Ministry of Education Research and Church Affairs 1996b, 40). The
quotation illustrates the common denominators of inclusion and adapted education

even though there are some differences. Inclusion, on the one hand, has its foundation
in the social and democratic aspects of education, while adapted education, on the
other, focuses to a larger degree on teaching and the educational processes.
Adapted education, a tool to increased knowledge

In spite of a strong scepticism towards measuring education in comparative terms, a change
in the government in the 1980s opened the way for Norway to join the SISS 1984 study.
The report created a certain interest across political parties, and since the 1990s, Norway
has participated in all the IEA programmes. Thus, a second shot across the bow of the Nor-
wegian education self-satisfaction occurred when the IEA–Programme for International
Student Assessment (PISA) report was published. The results from PISA once more
suggested that Norwegian pupils’ results were at the OECD average, and that a dispropor-
tionately high number of pupils were in the left tail of the distribution. In spite of the central
managed unitary school policy, a newly revised curricula focusing academic learning and
an extensive amount of resources spent on education, the PISA-report indicated that the
Norwegian education system had not succeeded in providing learning and knowledge as
intended. Accordingly, a government-appointed ‘Quality Committee’ (Ministry of Edu-
cation and Research 2003) was selected to work out proposals for the improvement of com-
pulsory education. The following international studies Progress in International Reading
Literacy Study (PIRLS), Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study
(TIMSS) and PISA, assessing pupils’ achievements in core subjects at various stages of
schooling, suggested repeatedly that Norwegian pupils academic performance were
lower than most other IEA-countries. The IEA-reports and the ‘Quality Committee’ sug-
gestions cleared the way for the current reform: ‘Knowledge Promotion’, NC-06 (Ministry
of Education and Research 2006). The main characteristics of the reform are summarised as
follows:
. A renewed subject curriculum initiating a shift from focusing a canon of content

and specific learning activities to introduce aims and goals as tools to increase
learning.
. A renewed focus on basic skills (i.e. reading, writing, mathematics, English as a
foreign language and ICT) as prerequisites for learning in all subjects.
. The introduction of national tests and transparency at the school level to provide
information on pupils’ basic skills throughout schooling and their final results at
the end of compulsory school.
The revised NC-06 reform introduced explicit expectations in all subjects, and national
tests to evaluate whether or not the pupils have reached the levels expected. The new
measures, combined with transparency at the school level, have transferred a greater
responsibility to the school and teacher. In addition, the reform has expanded the under-
standing of adapted education, and transformed the understanding of the term into a
general principle for all learning, aiming to realise all pupils’ innate academic potential.
The school shall provide adapted education so that each pupil is encouraged to the highest
possible level of achievement. (Ministry of Education and Research 2006, 1)
Haug (2003) and Bachmann and Haug (2006) have reviewed two main understand-
ings of adapted education, and they use the terms: a broad and a narrow understanding
270 R.B. Fasting
of adapted education as frame of reference to illustrate the different perspectives or pos-

itions. The broad understanding is tied to the collective and ideological aspects of edu-
cation, and includes the ‘craftsmanlike’ competencies teachers use to support learning
in diverse groups of individuals. From this perspective, adapted education embraces
active pupil participation in communities of learning. The narrow understanding of
adapted education, on the other hand, is tied to specific methods and individual prefer-
ences, close to the learning programmes used in special education. Haug and Bachmann
emphasise that the two positions are not dichotomous, but more pivots of how teaching
has to be facilitated for the diversity of all pupils. A balanced approach accentuates the
relationship between contextual factors and individual characteristics, and accordingly
the pedagogical focus has to be widened beyond the individual’s needs to comprise the
context in which all pupils belong.

By the means taken, the reform signals a shift in terms of what learning involves,
how learning should take place and how learning outcomes are to be measured; all
aspects that affect the understanding and implementation of inclusive education. One
remaining question to be asked is whether the reform has affected the way in which
schools organise education for the diversity of pupils?
The use of special education

The following part reports the use of special education in Norway. The data are
obtained from GSI statistics (2010–2011), and include the average percentage of
pupils receiving special education from 2006 to 2007 until 2010–2011 and the pro-
portion of included pupils, grades 1 to 10. The information gives a picture of how edu-
cation is organised in compulsory school at the national level.
Figure 1 shows an increasing number of pupils receiving special education since the
introduction of the Knowledge Promotion reform (2006). Until 2005, approximately
5.5% of the pupils were supported by special education (Fasting 2008). In recent
Figure 1. Special education in primary and lower secondary schools, 2006 – 2011.
years, however, the volume of special education has increased from an average 5.9% in
2006–2007 to 8.2% in 2010. In addition, the chart shows that the percentage of pupils
involved increases as they get older. In lower secondary (grades 8–10) more than 10%
of the pupils receive special education (GSI statistics 2010 –2011) (Figure 2).
The data for segregated special education – special schools – show stable figures
and include about 0.4% of pupils over the last decade. On the other hand, and in spite of
the ongoing debate emphasising adapted education within a unitary school, segregated
special education – special groups and special classes – in mainstream schools has
increased from approximately 0.3% of pupils in 2005 to about 1.2% in 2009 –2010
(GSI statistics 2010 –2011). The data suggest a significant change in the way Norwe-
gian schools cope with the diversity of pupils. It may be questioned whether the
reform’s focus on academic learning and accountability has affected the way teaching
is organised. It seems that pupils who struggle to fulfil the curriculum expectations are
more often placed in homogeneous groups across classes. This kind of segregated prac-
tice represents a new trend in Norway, in spite of policy documents and reports that
question the approach (UNESCO/IBE 2000, 2008; Hattie 2009). It may be that the
reform has affected school leaders’ and teachers’ understanding of the standards for
inclusive classroom practice, and the understanding of how to implement the principle
of adapted education in an inclusive manner.
Discussion
Inclusion rests upon humanistic values and man’s inviolability (Persson 2006), and
implies ‘. . . fundamental changes in educational thinking about children, curriculum,
pedagogy and school organisation’ (Slee 2011, 110). The focus is not merely on the
extensions of ordinary schools in order to increase the recruitment of pupils with differ-
ent backgrounds and abilities, but in addition, inclusion is an ‘ethical project’, involving
all participants in the school community, which invites politicians, staff and scholars to
Figure 2. Special education – segregated settings, 2002 – 2010.

272 R.B. Fasting
think about the world we live in and our role in this context (Slee 2011). Accordingly,
the development of inclusive education has to be considered as a process rather than a
state, including the norms and standards that comprise school policy and practice,
where all human beings are respected as individuals, and where the processes of learn-
ing and interaction are in focus (UNESCO/IBE 1994; Meijer, Pijl, and Hegarty 1997;
UNESCO/IBE 2000).
At the heart of the debate is the understanding of what is ‘expectable’ and whether
‘aberrations’ are social constructions or unchangeable characteristics (Fulcher 1989;
Gallagher et al. 2004; Vehmas 2008). Pupils defined in terms of special characteristics,
special needs or learning difficulties are compared to curriculum expectations and tea-
chers’ understanding of normality. When pupils’ with unexpected characteristics show
up, they challenge our understanding of normality in regard to the standards we all want
our children to experience and achieve. Emanuelsson (2001) pinpoints the mechanism
in force when there is a discrepancy between what the pupil is able to do and what is
expected:
Once children are identified as ‘different’ . . . they become problematic to mainstream

schools and teachers. From within the categorical perspective the process of labelling chil-
dren as ‘having difficulties’, has the effect of investing the source of any difficulty or
problem within the child. Once this process is complete, then it becomes easier to transfer
the responsibility to ‘specialists’ trained to deal with the ‘problems’ exhibited by the child.
(Emanuelsson 2001, 135)
Emanuelsson’s categorical perspective underscores the tendency to explain

inadequate social interaction and inadequate learning solely by individual character-
istics, and the ‘transfer’ model mirrors how schools often deal with pupils who fall
outside the standards of normality. On the other hand, adequate learning (as well as
learning difficulties and interactional problems) has to be regarded as an interplay
between social expectations, contextual factors, the processes of teaching, individual
characteristics and the learning task’s significance for the pupil. To support and
boost pupils who struggle to reach the expectations, schools have developed a series
of programmes for academic and social support. The new trend in Norwegian
schools is more often to respond to unexpected characteristics with special education
– for a growing body provided in segregated settings. The UNESCO/IBE (2008) Inter-
national Conference pointed out inclusive education as ‘The Way of the Future’, and
UNESCO’s member states have made commitments to implement inclusive education
into their education systems. Put another way: ‘there is no serious national educational
agenda organised around exclusive principles in place anywhere’ (Ramirez 2006, 440).
However, in some contexts the principle of an inclusive school is used to promote seg-
regated education, stating that special schools and ability grouping are justified because
they ensure every pupil’s right to education. This expanded understanding of inclusion
also supports special schools and segregated settings as ways towards inclusive edu-
cation. Yet, this argument, often made with reference to commitments like ‘Education
for All’, is the opposite of what UNESCO/IBE emphasises as ‘The way of the future’.
Concluding remarks
The article draws parallels between the revised understanding of the Norwegian principle
of adapted education and the increased use of special education in Norway, and questions
whether the current change in practice is in accordance with the ambition to develop
inclusive schools. The present data indicate that Norwegian school policy is drifting in
the opposite direction. One characteristic is the change in focus from fostering the collec-
tive aspects of education, where learning and interaction are reciprocal connected, to first
and foremost request individual academic performance. The trend is applauded by local
school policy-makers advocating individual tailored teaching for every pupil, a greater
focus on basic subject learning and the use of comparative assessment both nationally
and internationally. This individual-centred ideology is closely related to neo-liberalism,
emphasising that all human beings are mainly consumers and not interacting citizens,
where freedom of choice and individuals opportunities is put in the foreground. Although
the principle of inclusion is a basic premise in Norwegian education policy, the principle
seems to have partly vanished in the name of providing efficient education. The basis of
inclusive education: access, active participation and success at all levels of education to
prevent discrimination and marginalisation (UNESCO/IBE 2008), are currently chal-
lenged by ideologies anchored in the ‘individual benefit principle’. However, the
figures themselves do not provide evidence on the consequences of the reform at the
school level. A next step will be to collect information from schools and teachers to
give an insight into the interplay between the curriculum’s ideology, given requirements
and school practices. From this perspective, it is important to note that special education
comprises a variety of individuals with a broad spectrum of needs and characteristics, and
for some pupils, the teaching has to go beyond traditional schooling and address objects
and goals to obtain successful post-school participation in society (DeSeCo 2005). From
this perspective, it can be useful to recall that the chief use of goals and objects is through
the ‘eyes’ of the individual pupil, because: ‘. . . it is the student work that we want to
improve, not standards or scholars’ ideas about standards’ (Cohen 1995, 155)
Taken together, Norwegian schools and teachers are once more in charge of two
partly contradictory ambitions: the expectation of increasing all pupils’ yield from edu-
cation and the development of inclusive schools – schools for all – where individual
differences are acknowledged and respected. To succeed with these partly contrasting
ambitions, a significant factor seems to be the teachers’ understanding of how to
develop an inclusive classroom that cares for and respects the diversity of pupils.
Note
1. Grunnskolens Informasjonssystem (GSI statistics) provides information about primary and
lower secondary schools on local and national levels; the allocation of pupils, teachers and
resources, special education, bilingual education, etc. The database is provided by Stat-
istics Norway.
Notes on contributor
Dr Rolf B. Fasting is a professor of Special Education at the Department of Primary and
Secondary Teacher Education, Oslo, and Akershus University College of Applied Sciences.
His academic interests include focusing inclusive and adaptive education, special needs
education, educational policy, assessment and didactics perspectives.
References
Aasen, P. 1999. Det sosialdemokratiske prosjektet. Utdanningsreformer i Sverige og Norge i
etterkrigstiden [The social democratic project. Educational reforms in Sweden and
Norway in the post-war period; in Norwegian]. In Både- og. 90-tallets utdanningsreformer
i historisk perspektiv, ed. A.O. Telhaug and P. Aasen, 13 – 64. Oslo: Cappelen Akademisk
Forlag.
274 R.B. Fasting
Bachmann, K.E., and P. Haug. 2006. Forskning om tilpasset opplæring [Research on adapted
education]. Volda: Høgskulen i Volda.
Basic School Council. 1983. Oppfølging av Mønsterplanens intensjoner. Sluttrapport fra OMI-
prosjektet [Implementation of the intentions of the National Curriculum of 1975. Final
report from the OMI project]. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget|.
Befring, E., J.S. Thousand, and A. Nevin. 2000. From normalization to enrichment. A retrospec-
tive analysis of the transformation of special education principles. In Restructuring for
caring and effective education, ed. R.A. Villa and J.S. Thousand, 558 – 74. Baltimore,
MD: Paul Brooks Publishing.
Clark, C., A. Dyson, and A. Millward. 1995. Towards inclusive schools? London: David Fulton.
Cohen, D.K. 1995. What standards for national standards? Phi Delta Kappan 76, no. 5: 151 –7.
DeSeCo. 2005. The definition and selection of key competencies. Paris: OECD, Directorate for
Education. http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/47/61/35070367.pdf (accessed March 26, 2012).
Dokka, H.J. 1988. En skole gjennom 250 år. Den norske allmueskole – folkeskole – grunnskole
1739 – 1989 [The Norwegian school for commoners – national school – compulsory school
1739 – 1989]. Oslo: NKS-forlaget.
Dyson, A., and A. Millward. 1997. The reform of special education or the transformation of
mainstream schools?. In Inclusive education: A global agenda, ed. S.J. Pijl, C.J.W.
Meijer, and S. Hegarty, 51 –67. London: Routledge.
Eckhoff, N. 2001. Einskapsskolens historie i Noreg [History of the Norwegian unitary school].
Oslo: Samlaget.
Emanuelsson, I. 2001. Reactive versus proactive support coordinator roles: An international
comparison. European Journal of Special Needs Education 16, no. 2: 133 –42.
Engen, T.O., and S. Lied. 2011. Strategies of differentiation in a multi-linguistic, multi-religious
and multi-cultural school. Journal of Teacher Education and Teachers Work 2, no. 1: 55 –67.
Fasting, R.B. 2008. Inclusive and adapted education and its implication for pupils with special
education needs and teacher education. In Relationen mellem læreruddannelsen og skoleud-
viklingen, ed. K. Jónsdóttir and u. Jóhannsdóttir. Reykjavik: Island. http://yourhost.is/
images/stories/khi2008/rapport/D6_Fasting.pdf (accessed March 26, 2012).
Fulcher, G. 1989. Disabling policies?: A comparative approach to education policy and disabil-
ity. London: Falmer Press.
Gallagher, D.J., L. Heshusius, R.P. Iano, and T.M. Skrtic. 2004. Challenging orthodoxy in
special education: Dissenting voices. Denver, CO: Love Publishing Company.
GSI statistics. 2010 – 2011. GSI statistics. Information from primary and lower secondary
school. https://www.wis.no/gsi/ (accessed March 26, 2012).
Hattie, J. 2009. Visible learning. A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement.
New York: Routledge.
Haug, P. 1996. Lærerutdanning til ein skule for alle [Teacher education towards a school for all].
Spesialpedagogikk 61, no. 9: 3– 12.
Haug, P. 2003. Qualifying teachers for the school for all. In The challenge of inclusion:
Reforming teacher education, ed. K. Nes, M. Strømstad and T. Booth, 97 –115. London:
Routledge.
Hausstätter, R.S., and M. Takala. 2008. The core of special teacher education: A comparison of
Finland and Norway. European Journal of Special Needs Education 23, no. 2: 121 – 34.
Krejsler, J., ed. 2004. Pædagogikken og kampen om individet. Kritisk pædagogik, ny inderlighed
og selvets tekniker [Pedagogy and the battle for the individual. Critical pedagogy, new sin-
cerity and self technique]. København: Hans Reitzels Forlag.
Matti, T., ed. 2009. Northern lights on Pisa 2006: Differences and similarities in the Nordic
countries. København: Nordic Council of Ministers.
Meijer, C.J.W., S.J. Pijl, and S. Hegarty. 1997. Introduction. In Inclusive education: A global
agenda, ed. S.J. Pijl, C.J.W. Meijer and S. Hegarty, 51– 67. London: Routledge.
Ministry of Church and Education. 1984 – 1985. St.meld. 61: Om visse sider ved spesialunder-
visninga og den pedagogisk-psykologiske tenesta [Some aspects of special education and
educational psychology service]. Oslo: Ministry of Church and Education. http://www.
regjeringen.no/nb/dep/kd/dok/nouer/1996/nou-1996-22/17.html?id=342393 (accessed
March 26, 2012).
Ministry of Church and Education. 1987. Curriculum-87 [Mønsterplan for grunnskolen av
1987]. NC-87. Oslo: Aschehoug.
Ministry of Education and Research. 2003. The Committee for Quality in Primary and
Secondary Education in Norway; report summary. Oslo: Ministry of Education and
Research. http://www.regjeringen.no/en/dep/kd/Documents/Brochures-and-handbooks/
2003/The-Committee-for-Quality-in-Primary-and.html?id=87998 (accessed March 26,
2012).
Ministry of Education and Research. 2006. Knowledge promotion. NC-06. http://www.
regjeringen.no/en/dep/kd/Selected-topics/compulsory-education/Knowledge-Promotion.
html?id=1411 (accessed March 26, 2012).
Ministry of Education and Research. 2007. Early Intervention for Lifelong Learning (Report No. 16).
http://www.regjeringen.no/en/dep/kd/Documents/Brochures-and-handbooks/2006/Summary-
of-Report-No-16-2006-2007-to-the.html?id=499179 (accessed March 26, 2012).
Ministry of Education and Research. 2008. Education in Norway: From kindergarten to adult
education. http://www.regjeringen.no/upload/KD/Vedlegg/Veiledninger%20og%20brosjyrer/
Education_in_Norway_f-4133e.pdf (accessed March 26, 2012).

Ministry of Education and Research. 2009. Action plan for gender equality. 2008–2010. http://
www.regjeringen.no/en/dep/kd/Documents/Reports-and-actionplans/Actionplans/2008/action-
plan-for-gender-equality.html?id=508110 (accessed March 26, 2012).
Ministry of Education Research and Church Affairs. 1996a. Curriculum for the 10-year compul-
sory school. NC-97a. Oslo: Ministry of Education Research and Church Affairs.
Ministry of Education Research and Church Affairs. 1996b. Core curriculum for primary, sec-
ondary and adult education in Norway. NC-97b. http://www.udir.no/Stottemeny/English/
Curriculum-in-English/Core-Curriculum-in-five-languages/ (accessed March 26, 2012).
Ministry of Social Affairs. 1967. (St. meld. nr. 88): About the development of the care for the
disabled. Oslo: Ministry of Social Affairs.
Nes, K., and M. Strømstad. 2001. Creating structures for inclusive development in teacher edu-
cation. In Developing inclusive teacher education, ed. T. Booth, K. Nes and M. Strømstad,
116– 29. London: RoutledgeFalmer.
Opertti, R., J. Bradi, and L. Duncombe. 2009. Moving forward: Inclusive education as the core
of education for all. Prospects 39, no. 3: 205– 14.
Persson, B. 2006. Pathways to inclusion: A guide to staff development. European Educational
Research Journal 5, no. 2: 152 –8.
Pijl, S.J., and C.J.W. Meijer. 1991. Does integration count for much? An analysis of the prac-
tices of integration in eight countries. European Journal of Special Needs Education 6, no.
2: 100 – 11.
Pijl, S.J., C.J.W. Meijer, and S. Hegarty. 1997. Inclusive education: A global agenda. London:
Routledge.
Ramirez, F.O. 2006. Beyond attainment and achievement studies: Revitalizing a comparative
sociology of education. Comparative Education 42, no. 33: 431 –49.
Rosier, M.J., and J.P. Keeves, eds. 1991. The IEA Study of Science I: Science education and
curricula in twenty-three countries. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Sejersted, F. 2004. Sosialdemokratiets tidsalder [The age of social democracy; in Norwegian].
Nytt Norsk Tidsskrift 21, no. 3 – 4: 250 –63.
Skårbrevik, K.J. 2005. The quality of special education for students with special needs in ordin-
ary classes. European Journal of Special Needs Education 20, no. 4: 387– 401.
Slee, R. 2011. The irregular school: Exclusion, schooling and inclusive education. London:
Routledge.
Telhaug, A.O., O.A. Mediås, and P. Aasen. 2006. Nordic models in education: Education as part
of the political system in the last 50 years. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research
50, no. 3: 245 – 83.
Thygesen, R. 2007. Students with learning disabilities: An update on Norwegian educational
policy, practice, and research. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice 22, no. 3: 176 –82.
UNESCO/IBE. 1994. The Salamanca statement and framework for action on special needs edu-
cation: Adopted by the world conference on special needs education: Access and quality.
Paris: UNESCO.
UNESCO/IBE. 2000. Schools for all: Open file on inclusive education. Paris: UNESCO.
UNESCO/IBE. 2008. Inclusive education: The way of the future [A brief look at inclusive edu-
cation issues: Contributions to the workshop discussions]. In International Conference on
Education: The forty-eighth session. Geneva: UNESCO/IBE. http://www.ibe.unesco.org/
276 R.B. Fasting
fileadmin/user_upload/Policy_Dialogue/48th_ICE/CONFINTED_48_Inf_2__English.pdf
(accessed March 26, 2012).
Vehmas, S. 2008. Philosophy and science: The axes of evil in disability studies? Journal of
Medical Ethics 34, no. 1: 21 –3.
Vislie, L., and G. Langfeldt. 1996. Finance, policy making and organisation of special edu-
cation. Cambridge Journal of Education 26, no. 1: 59 –70.
Zelaieta, P. 2004. From confusion to collaboration: Can special schools contribute to developing
inclusive practices in mainstream schools? In Action research for inclusive education:
Changing places, changing practice, changing minds, ed. F. Armstrong and M. Moore,
32– 47. London: Routledge.

International Journal of Inclusive Education

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

International Journal of Inclusive Education

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

This article was downloaded by: [Archives & Bibliothèques de l'ULB]

On: 25 January 2015, At: 18:06

International Journal of Inclusive

Adapted education: the Norwegian

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2012.676083

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Adapted education: the Norwegian pathway to inclusive and

(Received 28 March 2011; final version received 4 March 2012)

Background and aim

# 2013 Taylor & Francis

practices as well as collective and individual aspects of education.

Norway – some characteristics

Trends in Norwegian education

From segregation to adapted education

Inclusion on the agenda

. Inclusion concerns all pupils’ participation in communities of learning where

quotation illustrates the common denominators of inclusion and adapted education

Adapted education, a tool to increased knowledge

. A renewed subject curriculum initiating a shift from focusing a canon of content

of adapted education as frame of reference to illustrate the different perspectives or pos-

context in which all pupils belong.

The use of special education

Figure 2. Special education – segregated settings, 2002 – 2010.

Once children are identified as ‘different’ . . . they become problematic to mainstream

Emanuelsson’s categorical perspective underscores the tendency to explain

Education_in_Norway_f-4133e.pdf (accessed March 26, 2012).

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi