The Inclusive Education Teaching and Research Group emphasises the provision of educational accessibility and equitable learning for all students, regardless of background and abilities.
The group sees the primary role of educators as supporting students and facilitating their schooling, broader educational and lifelong success.
Deakin University’s inclusive education programs prepare graduates to become critically reflective, research-oriented practitioners. Our academic staff are active researchers committed to changing an Australian educational context characterised by the traditional ‘special education/inclusive education’ division.
We work across inclusive education international mandates, their take-up in Australian legislation, state-based policy directives and community expectations, providing teaching and research programs responsive to pedagogy and educational practices that promote learning success for all students.
Courses specifically associated with inclusive education include:
Group members
The following is a list of inclusive education group members who have expertise and experience in a variety of contexts.
Please see their individual profiles for research interests and supervision experience.
Students
HDR students work on a range of research projects across inclusive education research areas.
With expert multidisciplinary supervision across areas in inclusive education and strong connections nationally and internationally, there are a wide range of opportunities for further research.
| How Indonesian teaching policy is enacted in teachers’ practice | Elijah Bajao |
| How young people understand and enact resilience in Victorian regional communities | Andrew Monk |
| How arts-based strategies present in Individual Education Plans are utilised by teacher aides in Victorian primary school classrooms | Jo-Anne Britt |
| Educational inclusivity in Vietnam: Interactions and interpersonal communication | Peng-Sim Eng |
| Female migrant teacher experience in Australia | Reshmi Roy |
| Inclusive education policy enactment in the Maldives | Amathullah Shakeeb |
| A critical examination of psycho-educational reports within inclusive education through the lived experiences of key stakeholders | Joanne Lindelauf |
| Transformative Spaces of Early Childhood Education: Becoming Teachers with [Dis]Abling Conditions | Kim Browne |
Research projects
2017–2019
This project examines educational access for young people on remand at the Parkville Youth Detention Centre, Melbourne.
Research team: Tim Corcoran and Australian-based research colleagues
Funding: $250,000
Read the report
2018
This project explores inclusive education professional learning for secondary school teachers from Hong Kong.
Research team: Tim Corcoran and academic staff from Deakin University’s School of Education including Kim Davies, Claire Spicer and Ben Whitburn
Funding: $155,000
2016–2018
This project involves developing resources about inclusive pedagogies through drama.
Research team: School of Education academics including Ben Whitburn, disabled theatre companies and pre-service teachers
Funding: $20,000
This project examines educational transitions for young people from Youth Detention Centres to community settings in Victoria.
Research team: Tim Corcoran and Australian-based research colleagues.
Funding: $150,000
Collaborations
We collaborate with research centres and universities across Australia.
Research collaboration with industry includes the Department of Education and Training [Victoria] and various community service providers and agencies.
Internationally, we actively collaborate with the University of Sheffield [UK], Aarhus University [Denmark] and the University of Waikato [NZ].
Funding and awards
2016
Tim Corcoran was commissioned by Musica Viva, a Melbourne-based community arts association, to evaluate their school music programs for students with disabilities.
Funding: $8000
2015–2016
Tim Corcoran lead a research team from The Victoria Institute to design a three-year evaluation of the Koori Inclusive School Wide Positive Behaviour Support Pilot Programme.
Funding: $150,000
2015–2016
Ben Whitburn and School of Education academics undertook a pilot study to learn how families with children participating in the recently reformed disability support scheme experienced its impact on their education.
2015
Tim Corcoran, along with Professor Tom Billington [University of Sheffield, UK] and Associate Professor Lise Claibourne [University of Waikato, NZ], conducted the first national seminar series on critical educational psychology.
Funding: $7600
2013
Tim Corcoran lead a research team from The Victoria Institute to evaluate The Whitten Youth Leadership Project, a program designed to promote leadership with youth from diverse communities.
Funding: $7500
Tim Corcoran was commissioned by Deloitte Access Economics [Melbourne] as a research consultant for a federal report involving experiences of education for students with disabilities.
Funding: $ 2250
Contact us
For more information about inclusive education research, please contact Tim Corcoran.
Dr Tim Corcoran
Associate Professor [Inclusive Education]Email Tim Corcoran
+61 3 9246 8417
The teacher in an inclusive school
Exploring teachers’ construction of their
meaning and knowledge relating to their
concepts and understanding of inclusive
education
Hermína Gunnþórsdóttir
Dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of a Ph.D.-degree
The teacher in an inclusive school
Exploring teachers’ construction of their
meaning and knowledge relating to their
concepts and understanding of inclusive
education
Hermína Gunnþórsdóttir
Supervisors
Dr. Dóra S. Bjarnason
Dr. Ingólfur Ásgeir Jóhannesson
Doctoral committee
Dr. Dóra S. Bjarnason
Dr. Ingólfur Ásgeir Jóhannesson
Dr. Julie Allan
Opponents
Dr. Elizabeth B. Kozleski
Dr. Geert Van Hove
Dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of a Ph.D.-degree
Faculty of Education Studies
School of Education, University of Iceland
June 2014
The teacher in an inclusive school
A thesis for a Ph.D.-degree in Education
© 2014, Hermína Gunnþórsdóttir
All rights reserved
ISBN 978-9935-9173-1-7
Printed at: Háskólaprent
Reykjavík,2014
Ágrip
Doktorsritgerð þessi greinir frá rannsókn á hugmyndum grunnskólakennara
um hugmyndafræðina að baki skóla án aðgreiningar og hvernig þær
endurspeglast í faglegum starfsvenjum þeirra og sýn á menntun.
Megintilgangur rannsóknarinnar var að varpa ljósi á hvernig menning og
opinber menntastefna orkar á og mótar hugmyndir og skilning kennara á
kennarahlutverkinu í skólum sem ætlað er að starfa í anda skóla án
aðgreiningar. Rannsóknarspurning verksins í heild lýtur að því hvernig
kennarar móta skilning sinn og þekkingu í tengslum við hugmyndir sínar um
skóla án aðgreiningar. Gögnin eru eigindleg viðtöl, kennsluskráning
[teaching logs], opinber skjöl, svo sem lög, reglugerðir og námskrár, og
fjölmiðlaefni [blaðagreinar]. Félagslegum mótunarkenningum og
sjónarhorni póststrúktúralisma var beitt við greiningu gagnanna.
Niðurstöðurnar eru kynntar í einum bókarkafla og tveimur tímaritsgreinum,
sem hver um sig visar til afmarkaðs þema og viðeigandi
rannsóknarspurninga. Fyrsta þemað fjallar um hvernig íslenskir og hollenskir
kennarar móta þekkingu, skilning og hugmyndir um kennarann í skóla sem
stefnir að því að verða án aðgreiningar. Þema tvö fjallar um orðræðu
íslenskra kennara um skóla án aðgreiningar - möguleika, takmarkanir og
tengsl við hina opinberu orðræðu. Í þema þrjú er áhersla á faglega
starfshætti kennara og sjónarmið í tengslum við hugmyndir þeirra um skóla
án aðgreiningar. Rannsóknin er fræðilegt og hagnýtt framlag til
áframhaldandi umræðu um skóla án aðgreiningar, eðli slíks skóla og
umfang. Vonast er til að þessi rannsókn varpi ljósi á möguleika og mótsagnir
skólastarfs án aðgreiningar og verði þannig til hagsbóta fyrir kennara,
foreldra, fræðafólk og stefnumótendur.
6
Abstract
The teacher in an inclusive school
This PhD research comprises a doctoral study focusing on primary school
teachers’ ideas on the ideology of inclusive education and how these are
reflected in their professional work habits and notions of education. The
general purpose of the study was to explore the interplay between national
education policy and teachers’ perceptions of their role in the inclusive
school. The main research question for the overall project is how teachers
construct their meaning and knowledge relating to their concepts and
understanding of inclusive education. The study is framed within an
interpretive paradigm, informed by the theoretical perspectives of social
constructionism and post-structuralism. Data were collected through
qualitative interviews, teaching logs, document and media article analysis.
The findings are introduced in one book chapter and two research journal
articles, each representing one particular theme with reference to the
research questions. The first theme deals with the social construction of the
teacher in the inclusive school – the cases of Iceland and the Netherlands.
Theme two focuses on Icelandic teachers’ discourse on inclusive education
– its possibilities, limits, and relationship with the official dialogue. In theme
three the researcher explores Icelandic teachers’ professional practices and
perspectives in relation to their ideas about inclusive education. The study
makes a theoretical and practical contribution to the continuing debate
about inclusive education, its nature and extent, for the benefit of teachers,
parents, researchers and policy-makers.
7
Acknowledgements
A long journey has come to an end. I have finished my doctoral dissertation.
This is my piece of work but created with various and valuable support from
other people. My supervisors, Dóra S. Bjarnason and Ingólfur Ásgeir
Jóhannesson, have brought the largest share to the table; their professional
knowledge and experience which I have delved into and will continue to do
in my work as a university teacher and researcher. I was privileged to have
Len Barton and Julie Allan as external examiners at my interim evaluation,
and Julie also joined my doctoral dissertation committee during the final
year of the study. Their valuable critique, guidance and encouragement
convinced me that I could and should finish this process.
This research was supported by the Icelandic Research Fund [RANNÍS]
and twice by the University of Akureyri Research Fund. I am grateful for
their financial support. Apart from my supervisors, Rafn Kjartansson is the
person who has read this work most often as he proofread the dissertation
at various stages and the articles that constitute a major part of it. I am
thankful for his constructive contribution, not forgetting the informal chat
in e-mails during our collaboration. It is also my pleasure to thank my
colleagues at the University of Akureyri for their supportive attitude and
comments.
I owe the most to the participants of this study who offered their
perspectives on a complicated and controversial educational issue. Because
of their contribution, I am able to contribute additional and valuable
knowledge to the educational field.
I am convinced that I would not have been able to complete this journey
except for the support from Arnar, my husband and best friend. He has
created the space I needed for this work. Most importantly he has helped
me maintain my mental health and stay balanced. My children, who are
now young people and adults, have been my role models. Their ability to
adapt and cope with new situations and challenges has been the image I
have looked to when I have faced difficulties and vulnerability. I am
infinitely grateful for my family.
9
Table of contents
Ágrip ............................................................................................................. 5
Abstract ........................................................................................................ 6
Acknowledgements ...................................................................................... 7
List of figures .............................................................................................. 11
List of tables ............................................................................................... 11
1 Introduction of the research .................................................................. 13
1.1 Research questions ......................................................................... 13
1.2 Why this study? .............................................................................. 14
1.3 The Icelandic and Dutch education context ................................... 17
1.3.1 Iceland ................................................................................... 17
1.3.2 The Netherlands .................................................................... 18
1.4 Significance of the study ................................................................. 19
1.5 The structure of the thesis and presentation of findings ............... 19
2 Theoretical background: Concepts and theories ................................... 21
2.1 Historical background and the development of the term inclusive
education ........................................................................................ 21
2.1.1 Perspectives on disability ...................................................... 21
2.1.2 Segregation and schooling ..................................................... 22
2.1.3 Categorising and classification .............................................. 24
2.1.4 Special Education ................................................................... 26
2.1.5 Normalization and integration .............................................. 27
2.1.6 The inclusive ideology: Removing barriers to learning .......... 28
2.1.6.1 International conventions and statements on
inclusive education .................................................... 30
2.1.6.2 Diversity ...................................................................... 31
2.1.6.3 Ideas about participation ........................................... 33
2.1.6.4 Exclusion and othering ............................................... 34
2.1.6.5 Different interpretation – different strategies ........... 36
2.1.6.6 Policy and practice ..................................................... 38
2.1.6.7 Teachers’ dimension of inclusive education .............. 38
2.1.6.8 The current state of inclusive education .................... 40
2.1.6.9 From narrow to broad understanding on inclusive
education ................................................................... 42
2.2 The development of my own understanding of the term
“inclusive education” ...................................................................... 44
10
3 The research ........................................................................................... 49
3.1 Theoretical perspectives used in the research ............................... 49
3.1.1 Interpretivist approach .......................................................... 49
3.1.2 Social constructionism ........................................................... 50
3.1.3 Post-structuralism .................................................................. 51
3.2 Research methodology, design and approach ............................... 53
3.2.1 The purpose and questions of the study ............................... 54
3.2.2 Participants, environment and access ................................... 57
3.2.3 Data collection ....................................................................... 58
3.2.3.1 Data collection – challenges ....................................... 62
3.2.4 Data analysis .......................................................................... 62
3.3 Ethical issues and challenges .......................................................... 64
3.4 The research process – changes ..................................................... 66
3.5 Summary ......................................................................................... 67
4 Research findings ................................................................................... 69
4.1 Overview of the findings ................................................................. 70
4.2 Summary of the articles .................................................................. 71
4.3 Summary and conclusions – Mind the gap! ................................... 72
4.3.1 A space for exclusive thinking and practices ......................... 73
4.3.2 Internal exclusion ................................................................... 74
4.3.3 Who defines and decides? ..................................................... 75
4.3.4 Access alone is a fake ............................................................. 76
4.3.5 The contribution of this work ................................................ 77
References .................................................................................................. 81
APPENDICES................................................................................................ 95
APPENDIX A – Article I, II and III ................................................................ 97
APPENDIX B – Question grids used in interviews with teachers and head
teachers .................................................................................................... 187
APPENDIX C – Researcher prompts in interviews with teachers and head
teachers .................................................................................................... 191
APPENDIX D – Teaching log used by teachers .......................................... 195
APPENDIX E – Interviews in Iceland and the Netherlands – an overview 197
11
List of figures
Figure 1 The dimension/focus of the research aim ..................................... 56
List of tables
Table 1 Data collection by interviews and teaching logs ............................. 60
Table 2 Overview of the findings ................................................................. 70
Table 3 Interviews in Iceland and the Netherlands – an overview ............ 197
13
1 Introduction of the research
This chapter explains the research background and the environment in
which it is rooted. It provides an overview of the aim of the research and
the research questions, and the research topic is placed in a local and
international context. Finally, the structure of the thesis is explained.
This is a qualitative study of primary school teachers´ perceptions of the
ideology of inclusive education and how these are reflected in their
professional work habits and concepts of education. The overall aim of the
study was to explore the interplay between the national education policy
and teachers’ ideas of their role in the inclusive school.
The study is located within an interpretive framework and the data
comprise interviews with teachers and head teachers in five compulsory
schools, three in Iceland and two in the Netherlands; teaching logs from
classroom lessons; documents [Acts of Parliament and curricula] and media
articles. Iceland is the main case in the study; however, the aim of gathering
data in Dutch schools as well was to obtain a deeper and richer perspective
and understanding of the Icelandic issues.
1.1 Research questions
The main research question for the overall project is how teachers
construct their meaning and knowledge relating to their concepts and
understanding of inclusive education.
In accordance with the research aim, the subject matter was further
defined by three themes, each with the following sub-questions:
Theme I – The social construction of teachers’ knowledge, roles and
responsibilities in the inclusive school – the cases of Iceland and the
Netherlands
How do teachers construct their ideas about the teacher in the
inclusive school?
Theme II – Icelandic teachers’ discourse on inclusive education – its
possibilities, limits, and relationship with the official dialogue
What characterises and legitimises teachers´ discourse on inclusive
education?
14
What are the contradictions in teachers´ discourse on inclusive
education as well as those occurring in official dialogue?
How have teachers involved themselves in the discourse?
Theme III – Icelandic teachers’ professional practices and perspectives
about inclusive education
What characterises teachers’ ideas of their professional practice in a
school that is expected to aim for inclusive education?
In what ways do teachers’ perspectives on their students’ learning
and learning potential coincide with ideas about inclusive education?
Each theme refers to one book chapter or article where the subject
matter is analysed. There is a great deal of literature available about
inclusive and special education and schools, but less regarding how
teachers construct their meaning and knowledge about their ideas and
understanding and how this appears in their teaching practices. That will be
explored in this research.
1.2 Why this study?
Why am I interested in issues on inclusive education? There is a story about
that with a beginning in my Master‘s research which was about the
adaptation of two Icelandic children [two of my three children] to a Dutch
primary school. I moved with my family to the Netherlands in the year
2000. The year before I had worked in a primary school in Iceland with a
group of refugee people [parents and children] from Kosovo. I became
interested in the adaptation process they went through during their first
year in a new country, mainly regarding education and schooling.
I decided to do my Master´s research on my children´s adaptation to a
Dutch primary school. My interest and focus was on five factors: Social
connections and relations, learning a new language, learning in a new
language, cooperation between home and school and the role of parents in
learning adaptations. I started to collect data when the family moved to
the Netherlands and soon I realised that I needed to add the sixth factor to
the research focus: The education of children with disabilities. My son who
was a subject in the research was born with spina bifida and hydrocephalus
and suddenly – in this new country and culture – that was an issue in his
schooling.
We lived for four years in the Netherlands and all the time I and his
father had to be on the alert with regard to the school authorities to ensure
15
that he could remain in his neighbourhood school. Even after three years in
the school the school management requested that he should go to a special
school because of his immobility.
My first reaction was anger and astonishment. My son has excellent
walking ability, he has developed normally and has never had any learning
hindrances. During his three years in the school he had adapted particularly
well to the classroom, he was fluent and confident in the Dutch language
and had several friends – boys and girls – who he interacted with inside and
outside the school. He received good and positive comments from his
teachers, both regarding his education and socially. I was, therefore,
puzzled by this decision as there had never been any discussion on behalf of
the school about his future presence there. Then realised that the school‘s
reactions originated in a lack of experience in having children with disability
in regular schools and the teachers and the school feared the consequences
of taking any steps in this direction.
I decided to offer my support – my knowledge and attitude – to the
school and try to convince them that my son belonged there. To make a
long story short I managed to convince them and my son spent his fourth
and last year in the school without significant complications. But there is
another story with the same beginning but a different ending. There was
another boy – a Dutch boy – in the classroom that the school also wanted
to send to a special school – and he lived literally opposite the school door.
His parents were devastated because of the school‘s decision but were not
capable of challenging it and he left his classmates and went to a special
school in another district.
Since I had this personal and professional experience on institutional
exclusion, I have been committed to issues on inclusive education and ideas
presented in social models of disability. This experience was also a
milestone in deepening and broadening my understanding on inclusive
education in two ways. Firstly, I realised that access alone is a fake if it is
not accompanied by a responsible attitude, a commitment to the students
and a willingness to seek solutions within the school. Secondly, I realised –
although much later when reading scholars as Julie Allan, Roger Slee, Len
Barton and Deborah Youdell on, for example, social and educational
exclusion, inequality, social capital and disability – how forces like power,
status and social capital affected the educational future of the two boys
mentioned above. I became concerned about students whose parents are
not capable of challenging exlusionary decisions and procedures within the
16
school systems and how important it is for students that teachers are able
to recognise and understand forces that create educational inequalites.
Thus, the origin of the study is partly based on my personal experience
gained by living abroad with my family. During those seven years we lived in
the Netherlands and Germany I learned about the Dutch and German
school systems and the educational practices in the schools where we lived
and was able to compare them to what I knew from Iceland, my home
country. I learned that despite international and public policies and
conventions concerning inclusive education, the reality in schools is
sometimes far removed from policy decisions. I became interested in
European school systems in general and how different countries interpret
and implement policies and statements on inclusive education. As a
foreigner I was able to use different lenses to ‘read’ the culture in Germany
and the Netherlands, and as time passed I looked more critically at the
Icelandic system. As a mother of three children I got to know many
teachers, especially my son’s teachers. It became quite clear from my point
of view that too many children with disabilities or additional needs were
dependent upon teachers’ goodwill and endorsement regarding their
attendance in regular schools. These concerns are further identified in my
Master’s degree research [Gunnþórsdóttir, 2003] which I conducted in the
Netherlands. The above mentioned issues relate to policy, as well as the
teacher, and are the main motives for the rationale of this research.
The study has undergone some modifications since its beginning. Two
main changes have occurred. Initially my intention was to compare the
perspectives of Icelandic and Dutch teachers regarding issues on inclusive
education. As time passed I found it more interesting to place the Icelandic
data at the forefront and use the Dutch data as a prism to see further and
deeper into the Icelandic issues. Thus, the use of data gathered for this
research has changed, and in a few instances additional material has been
collected. The research issue of inclusive education, however, has remained
the same. Secondly, the format of the thesis has altered, in accordance with
the changes mentioned above, from being a monograph to becoming an
article based study where the research findings are introduced in one book
chapter and two research journal articles [see further in chapter 1.5 – The
structure of the thesis and presentation of findings].
The term “inclusive education” is discussed in further detail in chapter 2.
The discussion is complex as the concept can refer to various aspects within
the school as an organisation, as well as to policy. Basically, the concept
requires changes in the whole school environment, including how we think
17
about education in general, as well as teacher education. In recent years,
moreover, research indicates considerable failures in the implementation of
policy and there are doubts in some quarters about the fundamental
principles of policy-making.
The guiding light in my own definition is based on the philosophical
vision that quality education should be the standard for all students where
democracy and social justice is a prerequisite for practice. This is based on
the vision that inclusion is an active process, involving values applicable to
all learners. School inclusion is for me a task where the aim is to overcome
barriers which have led to all forms of marginalisation, exclusion and
underachievement.
1.3 The Icelandic and Dutch education context
1.3.1 Iceland
Unlike its Dutch counterpart, the Icelandic education system is an example
of a homogenous system [Eurydice, 2006b, 2008] with an emphasis on
equal opportunities and an appropriate education for all children, no
matter what their physical or mental capabilities may be, their social
emotional situation or linguistic development [Lög um grunnskóla nr.
66/1995]. The compulsory school is obliged to attempt to educate all
children in a successful way. By the Compulsory School Act from 1974 the
tone for future development was set. The law prescribed ten years of
compulsory schooling and an emphasis on equal opportunities to education
[Lög um grunnskóla nr. 63/1974]. In the 1980s and ‘90s special education
within regular schools increased rapidly, among other things because of the
primary school Act from 1974 [Jónasson, 2008]. An important change
occurred in 1996 when the municipalities took over the management of the
compulsory schools from the state. This transformation has given the
compulsory schools more freedom to develop in different directions, e.g.
concerning ideology and pedagogy, and has reduced schools’ homogeneity
[Jónasson, 2008; Sigþórsson & Eggertsdóttir, 2008]. By the turn of this
century some special schools were closed down, but special units within
some of the regular schools have since been established. New legislation on
education for all school levels was enacted in 2008. In the Primary School
Act [Lög um grunnskóla nr. 91/2008] the word “inclusive school” is used for
the first time to describe the Icelandic compulsory school [Article 17].
It can be argued that during the past few years the development has
been towards inclusion, taking into account the policy changes in the
18
system [see e.g. Eurydice, 2008; Fræðslumiðstöð Reykjavíkur, 2002]. There
is, however, evidence which shows that teachers are not satisfied with
current arrangements and many of them think they have reached the end
of their tether in handling the diversity of students in Icelandic primary
schools [Bjarnason & Persson 2007; Björnsdóttir & Jónsdóttir, 2010;
Marinósson, 2007; Morthens & Marinósson, 2002].
1.3.2 The Netherlands
The main characteristic of the Dutch school system is division [Eurydice,
2006a]. There is a long history of special schools for children with various
kinds of disabilities, social- and educational difficulties, as well as wide
range of schools based on religious- or ideological specialities. The number
of special schools increased tremendously in the 20th century as in most
countries in Europe, but during the past few years, the Dutch authorities
have tried to reduce the segregation within the school system. A turning
point in this direction was a new law on primary schools, passed 1998
under the slogan “Weer Samen Naar School” [Together to school] which
emphasises that it is desirable that children from the same neighbourhood
attend the same school [Eurydice, 2008/9; Eurydice, 2009; Leeuwen, van
Schram & Cordang, 2008; Leeuwen, Thijs, & Zandbergen, 2009; Ministerie
van Onderwijs, Culture en Wetenschap, 2007]. However, these types of
schools – regular and special – continued alongside each other, although all
the expertise, special knowledge and service was based in the special
schools and their staff. Hence there was slow progress in developing expert
services within the regular schools and to counteract this a new law was
passed in 2003, called the ‘backpack’ [het rugzak] [Ministerie van
Onderwijs, Culture en Wetenschap, 2006a, 2006b]. This law stipulated that
the parents of children with special educational needs could apply for a
special budget [personal budget] for the extra support they needed for
their education. Their parents or custodians could then choose to what kind
of school the child went with the budget; to a special or regular school. The
basic idea was that the budget would travel with the child but would not be
restricted to a certain type of school [Eurydice, 2009; Fletcher-Campbell,
Pijl, Meijer, Dyson, & Parrish, 2003]. ‘The backpack system’ was originally
meant to minimise segregation; however, research shows that it has
worked in the opposite direction and induced increased segregation and
tremendous expansion in the psychological and medical diagnosis of
students [Pijl & Veneman, 2005; Spies, 2007].
19
The newest policy introduced in 2005-2006, called passend onderwijs [e.
appropriate education] will take place in steps starting in 2011. It specifies
that each child should be found an appropriate place in the school system
[Passend onderwijs, 2009]. School boards will have the responsibility of
finding each student an appropriate place at school. The offer does not
need to be at the local school, but the idea is to avoid students being
referred to special schools by offering appropriate education as soon as
possible [Eurydice, 2008/9]. A critique of this approach argues that the idea
of passend onderwijs is not based upon fully inclusive thinking where the
child’s needs are central. Moreover, it does not presuppose that the regular
schools are the most effective means for all children [Schuman, 2007].
1.4 Significance of the study
In this research I intend to shed light on teachers’ ideas about inclusive
education in order to gain a better understanding of the term, the most
important aspect being how it is possible to make use of teachers’ views in
order to develop and promote inclusive practices?
I have chosen as data sources two countries with different educational
systems, culture and history. This helps identify similar, as well as different,
factors in teachers’ ideas and practices in relation to inclusive education.
Thus, I hope to identify issues that will help to understand the nature of the
hindrances as well as the potential for making schools and education more
inclusive.
1.5 The structure of the thesis and presentation of findings
The thesis is divided into following chapters. Chapter 1 is a general
introduction of the research, its aim and questions and my motive for
embarking on it. In chapter 2, I explain the theoretical background and the
main concepts and theories in order to create an understanding of the term
“inclusive education”. Chapter 3 outlines the theoretical perspectives used
in the research and here the research methods are explained. The findings
of this doctoral thesis are introduced by the publication of one book
chapter and two research journal articles. An overview of the findings is
provided in chapter 4 as well as summary of the general findings and
conclusion, followed by the book chapter and the articles in APPENDIX A.
21
2 Theoretical background: Concepts and theories
This chapter explains the theoretical framework behind the research and
the main concepts and issues of the research. The chapter constitutes a
summary intended to explain the principal elements that compose the
notion of inclusive education, as it appears to me as a researcher. The
summary is partly historical in order to sharpen the background and
highlight how the term inclusive education and its meaning have developed
through time.
2.1 Historical background and the development of the term
inclusive education
During the past decades much has been written about school inclusion and
different definitions have been put forward [Armstrong, Armstrong &
Spandagou, 2010, 2011; Artiles, Kozleski & Waitoller, 2011; Avramidis &
Norwich, 2002; Ferguson, 2008; Marinósson, Ohna & Tetler, 2007]. Recent
publications discuss and analyse the problems and confusion involved when
the term is put to use [Allan, 2008; Benjamin, 2002]. Inclusive education is a
term, which has developed from different disciplines, such as the special
educational needs sector, the vision of human rights and democracy,
sociology and psychology. The confusion is, therefore, partly linked to the
fact that the term can refer to different things depending on the context
and definition applied. Thus, inclusive education covers a wide array of
political and human rights issues [value dimension], as well as how to serve
children with additional needs in regular settings [resource dimension].
What follows is an attempt to explore the various concepts attached to the
discussion and understanding of inclusive education.
2.1.1 Perspectives on disability
At the outset of this chapter I consider it important to introduce two main
perspectives that are explanatory as to how the following concepts and
ideas are understood in a social and cultural context. These are
perspectives of the way disability is understood in societies and how
different understandings and standpoints create different approaches to
reactions and practices.
22
The former is a biomedical perspective where disability is medicalised
[usually referred to as the “medical model of disability”]. A biomedical
understanding of, and approach to, disability sees it as a feature of the
person caused by a health condition; hence the individualistic view that the
‘problem’ lies within the person but not in environmental factors and social
barriers [Rizvi & Lingard, 1996; Shakespeare, 2004]. By viewing disability
through this medical lens “disabled people are treated as objects rather
than as authors of their own lives” [Goodley, 2011, p. 8].
The latter perspective – a social perspective on disability – draws
attention to what the medical model lacks, that is to take account of the
environment to understand disability [Goodley, 2011; Tøssebro, 2004]. A
social approach to disability focuses on the dynamic interaction between a
person and the environment and seeks to look at shared experiences,
identity and the cultures of disabled people instead of focusing on the
impairment as is the case in a medical understanding of disability. A clear
distinction is made between the impairment as the functional limitations
within the individual caused by the physical, mental or sensory impairment
and the disability as the loss or limitation of opportunities to take part in
the normal life of the community on an equal level with others due to
physical and social barriers [Disabled People's International, 2013; Goodley,
2011]. The social approach advocates the responsibility of each society to
offer disabled people, as well as other members of society, meaningful and
respectful living standards [Barnes, Mercer & Shakespeare, 1999;
Traustadóttir, 2006].
These two perspectives create different approaches in education
regarding implications for policy and practice. While the pure medical
perspective creates policy where the aim is prevention or treatment for the
individual, the social perspective aims to change the environment and
remove barriers to enable the individual to be an active participant in
society.
2.1.2 Segregation and schooling
Schools are traditional and complicated organisations. The systems and the
schools take their forms from various parts of society and are kind of a
mirror of the societies that create them. Therefore, we see differences
between the school systems of different countries. Each system takes shape
from the environment and the needs of its society and these needs can vary
between countries. Schools, as we know them today, are a product of a
society, which created schools for its elite children; for children who were
23
able to learn and behave in a certain manner and within certain structures.
The history of education shows us that from the very beginning there was a
selection. Only ‘certain’ children were allowed to seek education, i.e. boys
from wealthy families, girls were excluded as well as children from poor
families [Guttormsson, 2008]. Children with disabilities were not considered
‘educable’. As time went by, certain ‘groups’, previously excluded, gained
access to the public school system, although black and disabled children still
have to face not gaining access to public schools. The official ‘language’ in
our modern world is that all children have equal rights to education, but
nevertheless we see a selective school system, which restricts access, and
equal opportunities. It seems that this selection is deeply integrated within
the system.
The ideology of the inclusive school has, among other things, developed
from various types of provision for children with special needs and
disabilities. It is mainly driven by the fact that despite every effort to offer
this group of children an education built on equal opportunities and social
justice as prescribed for the majority of pupils, it seems that the system in
itself, provides for these children way out of the mainstream [Jóhannesson,
2006; Marinósson, 2007, 2011].
Segregation has always been part of every education system. The
creation of the modern school and mass education for the public at the end
of the 19th century in Europe and America, involved a selection based upon
gender, religion, colour, class and disability. A historical example from the
United States shows how public schools have over time incorporated
various groups of children previously excluded because of race, religion,
colour, social status or disability. The last group – disabled people – became
though the last group to be included and had the longest way to go for the
right to seek their education on equal terms with others [Libsky & Gartner,
1996, p. 146].
The form of special segregated educational provision has, therefore, a
history as long as or longer than compulsory education. Advocates both for
and against segregated settings argue in the best interests of children,
although from a different viewpoint. Barton [2004] has listed the ideological
assumptions which justify and criticise this form of schooling.
Justification of special schools:
Such schooling is essential in order to provide the type of education
and curriculum these children need.
Disabled children and young people need protection from the harsh
and cruel realities of the world, including those to be found in
24
mainstream schools; their size, the attitudes of staff and pupils, and
verbal and physical abuse.
Normal pupils need to be protected from the damaging influences
that disabled pupils will have on their development, especially their
academic achievements.
Special schools are staffed by teachers who have those special
qualities of patience, dedication, and love. Such schools provide good
interpersonal relationships with staff and the small and necessary
staff-pupil ratios.
Special schools are necessary on administrative efficiency grounds.
Thus, special teachers, equipment, and support services are most
effectively deployed.
Criticism of special schools:
Special schools are part of the disabling barriers within society and
therefore need to be removed. This is a human rights issue.
Segregated provision tends to encourage negative labels, suspicion,
stereotypes, fear, and ignorance of a reciprocal nature.
Pupils within such schools receive an education that is inferior to that
of their non-disabled peers and the low expectation of teachers is a
significant factor in this outcome. The rhetoric of ‘caring’ and
‘supporting’ often obscures this fact.
Such provision legitimates the notion of ‘professional’ as ‘expert’ and
encourages passive dependency on the part of pupils [Based on
Barton, 2004, p. 68–69].
Educational authorities in many countries have decided not to restrict
their policy to one of these two strands by running both segregated and
integrated systems [see e.g. Eurydice, 2003] and leaving it to parents to
choose what they think is the best setting for their child. This is in line with
the neoliberal and marketing ideologies, with the notion of parental choice
currently dominating western educational systems [Slee, 2011; Tomlinson,
2005].
2.1.3 Categorising and classification
Categorisation of some kind has always been part of human life. In any
aspect of society we see categorisation, e.g. race, gender, religion,
occupation and socio-economic class. In fact this is an important tool in our
human society:
25
Categories and classification are relative to human practices,
they are embedded in various discourses, and they re-present
the world in manners that are relevant for a certain activity.
They enable shared understandings among people operating in
social practices, who can communicate efficiently by
identifying objects and events in standard terms. [Hjörne &
Säljö, 2004, p. 3–4]
For institutions, categories are among the main factors, which clarify
their work as structural units. Schools are social institutions and their work
is heavily based on categories, such as age, abilities, academic subjects, etc.
In the past twenty years, the use of categories in schools has increased
tremendously, especially in terms of special needs and disability, in order to
manage enhanced heterogeneity within the regular compulsory school
[Christensen, 1996; Hjörne & Säljö, 2004]. Increased emphasis on marketing
principles in governing the educational system has encouraged the use of
categories in order to control, e.g. special education. In the analysis of the
Icelandic educational system regarding special education, Jóhannesson
[2006] focuses on the construction of school students as “diagnosable
subjects”. His discussion is in line with what other researchers have pointed
out, namely:
The reason for this construction is that the discourse and
practices about special educational needs has been highly
medicalized by using clinical methods to define and determine
the particular special educational needs of children. … The
construction of a student as a diagnosable subject also means
that the student becomes a consumer of service so that his or
her special educational needs are met. [p. 112]
Categories are integral to society, both at personal and organisational
levels. What has been criticised is how schools use categories as a tool to
resolve educational problems, which, too often, results in biomedical
diagnosis. Hjörne & Säljö [2004] found in their longitudinal study on ADHD
in Swedish schools
that school staff and professionals use, in this case, a
neuropsychiatric category of ADHD/DAMP as a tool to resolve an
educational problem, “This category seems to close the gap between the
Data were gathered by documenting Pupil Welfare Team meetings during 1 year
in order to report on how schools use categories like ADHD in practice.
26
descriptions of children’s behaviors and the probable causes in a
satisfactory manner for the team members” [p. 18]. In general there was a
lack of argumentation, critical analysis and professional pedagogical
discussion as well as discussion on the social background and family
conditions of the children in question.
2.1.4 Special Education
The effort to assist children who need additional support in school
[normally referred to as special education] developed parallel with
increased public education in the Enlightenment period and grouping of
students [Björnsdóttir, 2009; Goodley, 2011; Marinósson, 2011; Richardson
& Powell, 2011; Rizvi & Lingard, 1996; Tideman, 2005]. It was not until the
first half of the twentieth century, however, that special education
gradually came to be considered as a distinctive field of study. According to
Rizvi & Lingard [1996], “the basic tenets of special education have been the
search for a better knowledge base and an implicit moral commitment to
the welfare of students with disabilities” [p.9]. Critics have, on the other
hand, pointed out that too little attention has been paid to moral premises
within this field and this is attributed to the fact that special education
developed as a technical field within the positivist framework [Rizvi &
Lingard, 1996] where the medical-model dominated the ideology and
influenced segregated services such as special schools and sheltered
workshops [Tideman, 2005; Traustadóttir, 2006].
Through the twentieth century special education expanded in steps with
the multiplication of special schools. Throughout Europe different types of
special schools were established to educate children who ‘did not fit’ in
with the regular, public school system. This development was notable after
the end of World War II when educational systems in most Western
countries were reconstructed on the basis of faith in the systematic
categorisation of pupils for educational intervention and treatment
[Marinósson, 2011].
Goodley [2011] highlights the fact that mass public education was never
designed with disabled learners in mind and all attempts to include those
students who historically were not meant to fit in to regular schools are
marked by this inherent technical paradigm. Special education, either
practised in special schools or regular schools, therefore views the “special
child” through the lens of functionalism; it is a learner that has failed to fit
in and learn. Despite international agreements and a right-based legislation
emphasising social and relational ideas on disability and society, the
27
practices of special education have continued to focus on the individual
impairment and the failure of the student [Richardson & Powell, 2011]. The
reason for this is that if a child is defined as having special needs it gives the
school a licence to exclude the child from regular education “if resources
deemed necessary are, for a number of reasons, not in place” [Vlachou,
1997]. The term special needs – as a feature of the school environment – is
then transferred from the school into the child.
2.1.5 Normalization and integration
In the period after the mid-twentieth century in the wake of demands for
more civil rights, [e.g. for black people in the US] people started to question
the current system of special schools which resulted in segregation and the
labelling of children attending segregated educational settings. The term
normalization – originated in Scandinavia between 1950–1960 [Brodin &
Lindstrand, 2007] – became part of the discussion. The Dane Bank-
Mikkelsen first introduced this concept in relation to human rights issues,
society and disability in the years between 1970 and 1980. He looked at
normalization simply as the idea that all persons should be entitled to as
normal a life as possible and that all citizens should have the right to enjoy
a normal living standard [Bjarnason, 1991, 2007]. The concept was then
developed further by Bank-Mikkelsen himself, the Swede Nirje and by
Wolfensberger in the US [see e.g. Wolfensberger, 1980]. Very close to
normalization is the notion of integration, which is based on the idea that
joint participation of disabled and non-disabled persons in society is a
fundamental right of all human beings. Therefore, society should promote
public service, which meets the needs of all people. In terms of education
integration was about the right of the disabled children to be educated in
their local schools [Goodley, 2011]. Theories on educational integration
emphasise a system which unifies rather than segregates [Bjarnason, 1991,
2007; Margeirsdóttir, 2001; Meekosha & Jakubowicz, 1996]. However, new
practices and categories that emerged from the idea of integration, such as
special educational needs [SEN] and the conception of special educational
needs co-ordinators [SENCOs] in UK was meant to identify and work with
students who required extra support in regular schools – but did not
manage to unite diverse groups within the school culture. “Too often
SENCOs were the sole agitators in schools and they, like their SEN children,
were marginalised by the wider school culture” [Goodle, 2011, p.140].
In terms of schooling, the idea of educational integration involves more
than the idea that disabled children should receive their education in
28
regular schools where their special needs would be met. Furthermore, they
should take part in social activities as far as possible. The rationale for the
integration policy was based on both educational and moral premises,
rooted in social justice and equal opportunities. Rizvi & Lingard [1996] have,
however, pointed out that:
the nature of the relationship between this political
commitment to social justice and the dilemmas of educational
practice was seldom examined. As a result, practices on
integration varied a great deal from school to school, and
segregation and integration continued to exist alongside each
other [p.10].
Current critiques and concerns about the inclusive ideology introduced
at the outset focuses on this relationship between a political commitments
and practices in schools. Although integration was meant to equip regular
schools with tools to reach students that were not seen to fit into the
regular school, integration practices focused too much on resources and
technical issues controlled and organised by special personnel inside and
outside schools.
2.1.6 The inclusive ideology: Removing barriers to learning
It can be argued that changes in schools linked to ideas on integration
offered many children new opportunities to education, but the criticism
was directed at schools and their practices. Many countries have developed
their educational policy towards integration, but the practices have too
often been simply providing access for disabled students to regular schools
without making a sufficient effort to change the dominant culture within
the schools whereby disabled students will experience recognition and
respect [Rizvi & Lingard, 1996]. This criticism reflects the contrasting
perspectives which appear, respectively, in the medical and social
approaches to disability discussed above. It has been noted that is seems to
be a ‘resistance’ inherent in the school system – and built into the practices
of special education, with too much focus on ‘the special’ and ‘the problem’
within the child. Jóhannesson [2001] has clarified this in the following
manner:
Children are categorised by using modern, clinical methods and
then there is a ‘solution’ or treatment to remove or at least
minimise as much as possible individual ‘otherness’, since it
29
will be expensive if legal provision is to be followed on that
everyone should receive an education and upbringing proper
to its uniqueness [p.13, Hermina's translation].
With such practices, the educational system promotes a dualism
towards students, i.e. the majority who are healthy/whole and those who
are not, who are imperfect. Thus, the school considers the education of
those who are ‘able’ as normal but the education of those who are disabled
as ‘something else’ which needs to be treated differently [Christensen,
1996]. Such responses indicate failure in the school system and researchers,
scholars and parents have pointed out that the current system is not
working properly and, moreover, it is not serving the children it should be
serving. Libsky and Gartner [1996] summarize some USA findings which
show a negative picture of education for children with special educational
needs [SEN] and disabilities:
High dropout rates.
Low graduation rates – only 45 per cent of the students with
disabilities leave school with a diploma.
Limited success in post-secondary education. Special education
graduates go on to post-secondary education at less than half the
rate of general education graduates.
High rates of unemployment; persons with disabilities have the
highest unemployment rate of any population subgroup.
Lack of success in community living, with too many parents reporting
their children continuing to live at home [p.148].
These negative facts in the education of children with SEN and
disabilities have much to say in the shift from the ideology of integration
[where children were expected to adjust to unchanged school] to inclusion
[which requires school to adjust to its pupils, irrespective of their different
needs] and calls for a changed school culture and a reformation of the
whole education structure. The following chapters are meant to give an
insight to the discussion around this shift in ideology. I will also explore
concepts and ideas I consider crucial to build an understanding of the
inclusive school and education.
Börn eru dregin í dilka með nútímalegum aðferðum klínískrar greiningar og síðan
fundin “úrlausn” eða meðferð til að útrýma eða a.m.k. draga eins og kostur er úr
“öðruvísileika” einstaklinga, enda kostnaðarsamt ef á að uppfylla lagaákvæði um að
hver og einn skuli fá kennslu og uppeldi við hæfi á forsendum sérstöðu sinnar.
30
2.1.6.1 International conventions and statements on inclusive
education
International policy documents like UNESCO statements have for the past
two decades placed an emphasis on equal rights to education for all
children and promoted increased quality in all fields of education. A starting
point in this process was the Salamanca Statement [UNESCO, 1994] based
on a World Conference on Special Needs Education in Salamanca, Spain
1994, that represented the provision and recommendations of 92
governments and 25 international organizations. The Salamanca Statement
is a declaration signed by countries committed to work towards Education
for All. The fundamental vision of the Salamanca Statement is listed in
article 2 and states the fundamental right of every child to education and
who must be given the opportunity to achieve and maintain an acceptable
level of learning. Education systems, schools and educational programmes
should be designed in such a way that they take into account the wide
diversity of unique characteristics, strengths and needs of every child. In
addition, the statement emphasises that a child-centred pedagogy and
regular schools are considered to be the most effective means of combating
discriminatory attitudes, creating welcoming communities, building an
effective education for all children and improving the efficiency and
ultimately the cost-effectiveness of the entire education system [UNESCO,
1994]. Other UNESCO campaigns, such as Education for All [EFA] [UNESCO,
2001], the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities [United
Nations, 2006], the Right to Education for Persons with Disabilities: Towards
Inclusion [UNESCO, 2004], The United Nations Convention on the Rights of
the Child [United Nations, 1989] and the United Nations Standard Rules on
the Equalization of Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities [United
Nations, 1994] create the international landscape which is supposed to
guide the world’s nations towards adopting more inclusive school systems.
Many countries have chosen to use the Salamanca statement as well as
other guidelines mentioned above in reconstructing their educational
systems. The aim of the statement, however, does not only refer to the
inclusion of all children; it also calls for reforming the nations’ school
systems so that inclusion can take place. This, in turn, requires a major
policy and resources shift in most countries of the world, the setting of
national targets, and a partnership between all the national and
international agencies involved [UNESCO, 1994].
Depending on each education system and culture, these changes vary
and within Europe we see different strategies at work, e.g. Italy with radical
31
integration, the Netherlands and Denmark running parallel segregated and
integrated systems, and Norway and Iceland defined as having highly
inclusive systems with very few special schools [Eurydice, 2003]. In spite of
various steps having been taken towards more inclusive systems, it seems
that the implementation at local level – action in schools – is encountering
resistance in many countries, including Iceland and the Netherlands
[Bartolo & Lous 2005; Bjarnason & Persson, 2007; Marinósson, 2011].
2.1.6.2 Diversity
The notion of diversity as a social, cultural and educational fact in modern
society has been widely used within the field of inclusive education to
indicate the role of the regular school in welcoming all children, also those
who are ‘different’, [see e.g. Benjamin, 2002; Youdell, 2006]. The Index for
Inclusion [Booth & Ainscow, 2002] which provides resource material to
support inclusive developments in schools, emphasises the importance of
diversity to promote inclusion, e.g. by valuing all students and staff equally,
“by restructuring the cultures, policies and practices in schools so that they
respond to the diversity of students in the locality” and by “viewing the
difference between students as resources to support learning, rather than
problems to be overcome” [p.3]. In this view disability is therefore not seen
as an indicator for special education but there could however been cultural
reasons for hindrances to education. In general, the idea of diversity in
education has been used to describe the ideal school which celebrates
human differences of all kinds and at the same time rejects categorisation
which results in a pejorative and negative image for certain groups of
students. In a nutshell, the notion of diversity “suggests that everyone is
different, everyone is unique, and everyone is valuable for who they are”
[Benjamin, 2002, p. 309]. In her article, ‘Valuing diversity’: a cliché for the
21st century?, Benjamin [2002] doubts the real function of valuing diversity,
although its meaning is clear. She argues that ‘valuing diversity’ has become
an empty term and refers to e.g. “the dangers associated with the use of
valuing diversity as a legitimating and explanatory narrative”. She
continues: “The contradictory nature of these twin aims – of improving the
school’s overall score in terms of examination results whilst seeking to
become more ‘inclusive’ …“ [p.311]. Her overall conclusion is that the
problem with valuing diversity is a systemic one, linked to socio/political
values and practices and the fact that diversity, in educational discourse, is
situated within identified groups or individuals. Conversely, we have the
standard agenda demands which require homogeneity and academic
success [ibid, p. 320].
32
As stated above, diversity is a complicated term with reference to social
and personal factors and as an educational concept it has a strong relation
with the concept of social justice in education. Youdell has written
extensively on educational inequalities and how to understand them in
order to deal with educational exclusion and discrimination. As discussed in
this research the discourse on inclusive education has for the past few years
revolved around how we think about and understand diversity, how schools
acknowledge and deal with diversity in the student population. Youdell
[2006], in her analysis, uses the work of the US philosopher Judith Butler
which is framed by Foucault’s concepts of productive power and
subjectivation and her aim is to explain how and why social and educational
inequalities endure despite political agreements, legislation on equal
opportunities and “apparent public goodwill” [p.36]. In so doing, she makes
use of Butler’s definition of ‘discursive performatives’ and how they appear
through spoken and written language, e.g. as marked subjects. The
complexity with discursive performatives is that they are not always as
obvious as biographical categories like, girl, boy, student, teacher, they can
also be translated through bodily gestures, acts and, what is perhaps most
difficult to observe, through silence; what is unspoken and what is not done
[ibid]. Youdell suggests that we pay more attention to discursive
performatives and how students come to be performatively constituted in
the minutiae of school life. Only by doing so we can learn to understand
and act upon educational exclusion and inequalities, as it has been shown
that inclusive policy alone doesn’t seem to work in establishing and
maintaining diversity [Youdell, 2006]. In their analysis of the Swedish school
system, Göransson, Nilholm & Magnússon [2012] argue that because of
increased demands of eligibility for upper secondary education, the number
of students eligible for special support will probably increase in the nearest
future. As a consequence, they argue that labels will continue to be
important and therefore it could be even harder to celebrate differences.
Another related factor that might work against more diversity is increased
demand for school choice “which might have the consequences that
children in need of special support will tend to end up in the same schools”
[Göransson, Nilholm & Magnússon, 2012, p.170]. Jónsson [2011] has
pointed out, in his discussion of values and rationality and the difficulties in
assimilating those to reality that official documents such as national
curricula do not allow for diversity – as the focus in such documents is on
the normal student.
33
2.1.6.3 Ideas about participation
Some of the main differences between ideas of integration and inclusion
come together in the term participation. Integration is about access to
regular schools, the right to go to the local school alongside with other
children from the same neighbourhood. Such an idea does not expect the
schools to change their structures, rather, a child is supposed to adapt to
his or her school. Conversely, inclusion is an active term, insisting upon
active participation from both sides the school and the student. But what
does active participation mean?
As an example we can make use of ideas derived from disability studies
and the priority of people with disabilities, which centres on the right to live
an ordinary life as the majority of people [Bjarnason, 2004, 2006; Van Hove,
2003; Rizvi & Lingard, 1996]. For a long time, people with disabilities have
been portrayed as passive receivers of care, dependent upon other
people’s goodwill. This view is the dominant one in the so-called medical-
model of disability, [as discussed in chapter 2.1.1] which fosters ideas that
consider impairment and disability to be the same thing where the
‘problem’ lies within the individual himself and his or her limitations. A
different perspective, which has gradually gained more attention, is to look
at the impairment and disability as two different things; impairment as part
of human diversity but disability as a social phenomenon. The main point is
that although individuals may have a certain inherent or acquired biological
deviation, this should not be used to legitimise prejudice, inequality or any
kind of exclusion [Bjarnason, 2007]. This social approach assumes that
people with disabilities act and take control over their own lives as
members in a democratic society [Barton, 2001]. According to Dewey
[1961] the salient goal of democracy is:
more than a form of government; it is primarily a mode of
associated living, of conjunct communicated experience. The
extension in space of the number of individuals who
participate in an interest so that each has to refer his own
action to that of others, and to consider the action of others to
give point and direction to his own, is equivalent to the
breaking down of those barriers of class, race, and national
territory which kept men from perceiving the full import of
their activity. [p.87]
To be an active citizen in a democratic society involves, therefore,
interaction between people that can create a sense of belonging, which is
34
one of the core ideas of inclusive education. According to Todd [2007] one
way to achieve this aim is through collaborative work of children and young
people in schools and services, partnership of parents with schools and with
practitioners who work in services external to schools and cooperation
between professionals and agencies.
Todd´s key assumption is that inclusive education requires ways to hear
the voices of children, young people, parents and professionals for action to
be taken. Education, therefore, cannot respond to diversity unless the
system is able to hear unfamiliar voices. One way of increasing children’s
participation in schools is to involve them in decision making where they
experience collaboration. According to Todd, there is still a long way to go:
There have been major moves to consult with children and
young people and to involve them more in schools and
services. However, the child´s voice is often absent from
educational decisions that concern them. It is rarely heard in
the deliberations of teachers, other professionals and policy-
makers when trying to fashion education in a more inclusive
guise. [p.5]
According to Jónsson [2011] the idea of democracy as cooperation and
togetherness includes considering how people live together and especially
what opportunities individuals have to conduct their own lives.
2.1.6.4 Exclusion and othering
A crucial feature in building an understanding of the term inclusive
education lies in its opposite term exclusion [Barton, 2012]. Slee [2011]
argues that we need to seek that understanding “from the perspectives of
those who are devalued and rendered marginal or surplus by the dominant
culture of the regular school” [p. 107]. Exclusion can take various forms,
both intended and unintended. It is for example probably not an initial
intention to exclude children who receive special education in regular
schools, but if the necessary resources are not in place the child could
experience exclusion [Vlachou, 1997].
It lies in the very nature of the traditional school as an organization and
its original purpose to have social control over children who need to fit into
a certain prescribed structure of the education delivered by the school
[Garðarsdóttir, 2008; Marinósson, 2011]. This idea in itself creates a
distance between those who can cope within such a system and those who
cannot. In this distance or gap the space for exclusion appears and the
35
group others comes into existence. The concept othering refers to a social
process that includes individuals or groups which endeavour to secure their
own image and position by identifying, excluding and oppressing other
individuals or groups [Bjarnason & Marinósson, 2007]. This behaviour or
attitude was defined earlier by Goffman [1963] in the term stigma which
refers to similar social construction and leads to marginalisation and
dehumanisation of the stigmatised person. Disability and special needs are
an example of a characteristics used to categorise individuals that creates
stigmatized groups. According to Goffman [1963] a stigma is a discrediting
attribute assigned to those who differ in some manner from society’s
expectations, customs and mores. It results from a social categorisation
process that allows for the quick identification of those who are similar and
those who are different and can therefore be considered as ‘others’. It is
not simply the act of categorization that results in stigmatisation of certain
groups, but, rather the coupling of negative value judgments with particular
characteristics that results in an adverse reaction to difference. Since
Goffman´s definition the concept has been applied to various circumstances
and research fields though mainly within sociology and psychology.
Recently, Link and Phelan [2001] developed a conceptual framework for
stigma that addresses the role of power in discrimination. They apply the
term when “elements of labelling, stereotyping, separation, status loss and
discrimination co-occur in a power situation that allows the components of
stigma to unfold” [p.367]. In their framework, stigma is conceptualised as a
five stage process: 1] people distinguish and label human differences; 2] the
dominant cultural beliefs link differences to negative stereotypes; 3]
labelled persons are placed in distinct categories, separate from the
dominant culture; the creation of ‘us’ and ‘them’; 4] labelled persons
experience status loss and discrimination leading to unequal status; 5]
discrimination becomes possible when a power differential exists between
the labeller and the labelled [pp. 367–375]. At stage three the distinction
between ‘us’ and ‘them’ is confirmed when the labelled is thought to ‘be’
the thing he is labelled by. For example, by referring to people as being
disabled, being special education students, being slow learners etc. rather
than having physical impairments or additional learning needs. Thus the
focus is on the person not the impairment or disability. The fact that people
are categorized in two groups ‘us’ and ‘them’ calls for the ethical question
whether or not some people are more valid than others. In terms of
education, Allan [2008] offers some insight into this in comments from
parents who have experienced humiliation from the school faculty because
of their children’s special needs or disability. Most of the comments refer to
36
the idea that the children concerned are not valued the same as ‘other’
children. Comments from teachers in a study on the impact of reform on
students with disabilities express this view as well:
Teachers don´t want them. If my job depends on their test
scores and they are reading at a first- or second-grade level
and I am teaching fourth grade … I don´t want those kids. I do
because I am a teacher and went into teaching to help kids.
But if my job depends on it … my care payments depend on it
… my apartment payment depends on it … I don’t want those
kids. [p.17]
Jónsson [2011] explores the reason for such attitude; why does the
teacher not want to have children with special needs or disability in his
classroom? He offers two answers; the former is practical and is about
inadequate circumstances in schools that make it impossible for teachers to
respond to all students. The second is theoretical and lies within teachers´
perspectives on the teacher’s roles in regular schools; a vision that does not
suppose that teachers should teach all students. This perspective accounts
for segregation; general schools are for normal students, those who are not
normal for some reasons do not fit in and should be educated elsewhere.
The consequences of any form of exclusion and othering attitudes are
mostly noticeable in terms of social attitude and actions. Less focused on,
but even more significant, is how this affects what kind of education ‘the
others’ or those who are excluded receive from the school system. Jónsson
[2011] discusses this in relation to educational organisations that fail to
instil democratic attitudes among their students. Such an organisation
could hardly been considered a proper educational organisation. In this
regard, Jónsson [2011] suggests the distinction between training and
education. As a consequence, the question can be asked whether the
education of the others is seen as training, but as for those considered to
be normal, they receive an education.
2.1.6.5 Different interpretation – different strategies
The concept [of] inclusive education has different meanings in different
contexts. This can cause complexity and confusion, making it more difficult
to decide upon how it is implemented. In cross-cultural dimensions the
complexity appears in how countries deal with inclusion in different ways,
depending on the legislation, history and culture in each country. Another
dimension of the complexity is the different terminology used in various
37
countries. In the Icelandic language, for example, three words are used for
the English term, that is, skóli án aðgreiningar. A direct translation would be
a school without segregation. In the Netherlands the English term has been
used as inclusief onderwijs, but in 2005–2006 another term, passend
onderwijs, was introduced by the Dutch government. This term, which can
translate as appropriate education, means that an appropriate place for
each child should be found in the school system [Passend onderwijs, 2009].
Ainscow [2005] has pointed out how in England there is considerable
confusion as to what inclusion means. His work with supporting English
LEAs [Local Educational Authorities] developing a definition of inclusion has
demonstrated that each LEA’s definition of the term varies, because of the
need to take into account local circumstances, culture and history [Ainscow,
2005]. Thus different definitions of inclusive education emerge both
internationally and at local levels. The UNESCO definition of the term
inclusive education is for example policy-related as it defines a desirable
aim for nations of the world to work towards by creating educational
systems that seek to reduce or eliminate social exclusion and secure basic
human rights through education. It is, however, up to each educational
authority to interpret and implement these international agreements.
Clark, Dyson and Millward [1995] have pointed out that inclusive education
can be discussed within the following six dimensions:
Policy dimension: national and local policy, relationship between
policy and practice at school and classroom level.
Organizational dimension: the characteristics of schools that enable
them to respond to diversity.
Teacher development dimension: the characteristics of teachers who
can respond positively to diversity in the classroom
Resource dimension: how educational resources [material and
human] can be so managed as to promote inclusion.
Pedagogical and curricular dimension: to do with what is taught and
by what means.
Values dimension: a philosophical stance regarding human rights,
discrimination and the interplay of language with these issues.
These dimensions refer to the main layers of education and schooling
and the complexity of creating a unified definition which implies each
dimension relates to how each sector operates and connects to students
and their learning.
38
2.1.6.6 Policy and practice
The education system is a particular unit of the structure of every national
system. It is indeed one of the most expensive systems in modern societies.
In the past few decades there have been educational changes among
industrialised countries that move along similar lines. These changes
influenced by globalisation and neo-liberalism are rooted in the concepts of
market ideologies, cost effectiveness, efficiency, standards, measurable
outputs and competition [Barton, 2004; Evans & Lunt 2002; Jóhannesson,
Geirsdóttir & Finnbogason, 2002; Lunt, 1999; Tomlinson, 2005].
Globalisation can be explained by how the individual nation-state is
influenced by the international world order. This can happen in various
spectrums but mainly at economic, cultural and political levels which all are
then shaped by technological and communication-relate processes. The
consequences of these developments have reduced the potential of
individual nation states to maintain their national and local characteristics
with regard to the main governance factors. Markets, governments and
independent political groups within specific nation states have therefore
become ‘more sensitively adjusted’ to each other [Olssen, Codd & O´Neill,
2004, p. 4, cited by Held, 199, p.145]. These developments have influenced
educational legislation and policy in many Western countries, for example
by replacing principles of equity, social progress and altruism [Evans & Lunt
2002, p. 2]. Evans and Lunt [ibid] report on consequences which manifest
themselves in tension between two opposing points of educational view.
There is tension between striving for effectiveness, on the one hand, and
pressure for inclusiveness, on the other [p.2]. International research shows
that this appears to be what most school systems in the Western world are
dealing with today [Tomlinson, 2005].
2.1.6.7 Teachers’ dimension of inclusive education
In the international literature on inclusive education there is a growing
concern about the role of teachers in moving inclusive practices forward
[see Allan 2008; Bartolo & Lous 2005; Elhoweris & Alsheikh 2006; Ferguson,
2008; Lawson, Parker & Sikes, 2006; Marinósson, 2011; Tetler, 2005].
As discussed above, the implementation of inclusive education has
proved to be problematic and controversial in many countries. The
discourse has been directed towards how inclusive education is understood
by policy makers, teachers, parents and the public, and what and where the
barriers are to its implementation [see Bartolo & Lous, 2005; Bunch, Lupart
& Brown, 1997; Gartner & Libsky 1987; Marinósson, 2011]. It has become
39
apparent that teachers are the ones who have the power to bring inclusion
forward [Avramidis, Bayliss & Burden, 2000]. But at the same time there is a
growing heterogeneity of the student body and diversity within regular
classrooms and consequent professional demands upon teachers are
increasing. These demands call for practical answers to questions such as
how can teachers be expected to teach all students, including those with
diagnosed special educational needs? Although student teachers may go
through the same or similar training programmes, their way of interpreting
and assimilating learning theories and teaching methods is highly personal.
This process is partly shaped by teachers’ personal backgrounds and
cultures and these, in turn, shape their attitudes to school policy as well as
their practices. International as well as Icelandic research indicates that
teachers claim to lack the knowledge and resources to deal with the
changing role of the teaching profession in the postmodern world
[Aðalbjarnardóttir, 2007; Bartolo & Lous, 2005; Jóhannesson, 2006].
A host of research shows that teachers’ beliefs are far from being
homogeneous towards inclusive education - on the contrary they appear to
be multiple and complex [Avramidis & Norwich, 2002]. There are two main
categories that have been identified and can be used to explain and
interpret teachers’ beliefs: The former is linked with traditionalism in the
sense that it expresses a set of educational beliefs which focus on ultimate
truths and principles, the intellectual aspects and standards of education,
subject matter, spiritual and moral values, tradition, discipline and the
authority of the teacher, as well as education as preparation for further
education and for life. The latter is a progressive perspective and includes a
set of educational beliefs characterised by emphasis on the needs and
interests of the child, the freedom of the child and the teacher,
permissiveness, life experiences as being educative, the qualities of teacher
and student, democratic citizenship, and physical, emotional, and social
development; in brief, the education of the whole child [Bunch, Lupart &
Brown, 1997].
Research focusing on the attitudes of regular and special needs teachers
[Elhoweris & Alsheikh, 2006] found some differences between those two
groups of teachers. Their attitudes were influenced by three factors. Firstly,
legalism, where the importance is placed on the fairness of inclusion as a
legal issue and it is viewed as beneficial for everybody; Inclusion is a civil
rights issue. The second factor is related to environmentalism, as teachers
believe that the environment of the general education classroom could
meet the needs of all students. The third one is conservatism. Teachers who
adhere to this factor have some concerns about inclusion and it is viewed as
40
an inappropriate approach for academic, as well as social success, for all
students. It seems that teachers’ attitudes and beliefs become more
complex when they are concerned with the term inclusion. Avramidis and
Norwich [2002] have, to a large extent, reviewed research on attitudes to
integration/inclusion [see discussion on the terms in chapters 2.1.5 and
2.1.6] in the years 1980-2000. Their findings show that a positive attitude
towards integration is combined with the nature of the disability or
educational problem; thus teachers’ show willingness to include students
with disabilities in line with the degree of the impairment. Teachers are
more positive towards students with mild and physical disabilities than
towards those who have complex needs [p. 142]. With regard to the term
inclusion, research shows more complex outcomes linked to several
interrelated factors influencing teachers’ beliefs. These are variables related
to the child, the teacher and the educational environment. On the basis of
these various sources of international research, Avramidis and Norwich
[ibid] emphasise the fact that no variable alone can be used to explain
teachers’ attitudes and it should be noted, furthermore, that the outcomes
vary according to national level and educational settings. Their findings
show, however, that teachers hold a more positive attitude when inclusion
is carefully prepared and planned and teachers have been provided with
adequate resources and support. This is actually a crucial factor when it
comes to the question of what confirms and what changes teachers’
attitudes and beliefs and, even more importantly; how this is linked to
practices? An important teacher-variable in this context is the experience of
contact [Avramidis & Norwich, 2002] and personal experience [Lawson,
Parker & Sikes, 2006] of children with special needs or disabilities. Lawson,
Parker & Sikes [2006] report that in cases where inclusive practices were
inherent in teachers’ work it was because “[p]eople’s experiences of
inclusive practices in the schools where they worked had become part of
their biographies and informed their views” [p.64] This research is
concerned with the teachers’ dimension of inclusive education in a policy
context and seeks to address how teachers construct their ideas on
inclusive education and what role the national education policy may
exercise in that respect.
2.1.6.8 The current state of inclusive education
It can be argued that the ideology of integration and inclusion has changed
the way we think about education and its meaning for all children. It has,
for example, opened doors for many children who otherwise would not
have had the chance to receive any education. It has, moreover, made
41
education meaningful to many minority children and marginalised children.
As discussed earlier, inclusion, in terms of education and schooling can refer
to different aspects of school and society and even have different meanings
from country to country. While UNESCO emphasizes the importance of
access to education in the developing countries, many Western countries
maintain the debate about separate or integrated provision, pull-out
programmes and extra resources for children with special needs and
disabilities.
Countries that have moved towards inclusive school systems and
educational policy for the past three to four decades, such as Norway and
Iceland, are facing new challenges. This springs from how to manage the
diversity within the ‘school for all’ which has been used as a synonym for
the inclusive school. In Norway, which is considered to have a highly
inclusive education system, with no state special schools [except for the
deaf] since 1999, children receive special education in their local schools.
Stromstad [2004] has, on the other hand, reported that teaching based on
individual solutions in Norwegian schools has grown from expected 1.5% to
6% and “… 10% of pupils receive special education, and the school allocates
25-30% of the total time resources for special education” [Stromstad, 2004,
p. 121]. These arrangements are an example of developments within the
local schools as a provision for minority and special needs students, since
the regular school took over the task of special schools. An example from
the current state in Norway is offered by Kari Nes [2004]:
The organizational arrangement for teaching “special
education” students varies from a few support lessons in or
out of class, individually or in groups, to an almost complete
separate and parallel system within the school. There are even
examples of small separate units for the “special” pupils in or
outside the school area that have developed [or continued as
previously established], all in a country where special schools
do not “officially” exist. The extent of this kind of “internal
segregation” is difficult to assess since it is decided and
administered locally and since there is little agreement on
what to count. [p.128]
The Norwegian case is far from being an exception and the findings of
this research show a similar trend. It seems that there is a growing
tendency to create a parallel system within the local school to cater for
“special” children who are not seem to fit in with the mainstream – which
42
means that factors such as segregation and exclusion are still at work but
now under different preconditions.
There has not been much research in Iceland focusing on inclusive
education. However, available evidence, mainly in Master’s theses,
indicates lack of clear procedures aimed at inclusive education [e.g.,
Árnadóttir 2010; K. Axelsdóttir 2012; R. Axelsdóttir 2010; Bjarnadóttir 2011;
Finnbogadóttir 2011; Gunnbjörnsdóttir 2006]. Research relating to students
with developmental disabilities also indicates that the implementation of
inclusive teaching depends to a large extent on teachers´ confidence rather
than school-wide decisions. It has been suggested that the main reasons
here are the conservatism of the schools, the traditional paradigm of the
‘normal’ and the tendency to treat all variations as a problem needing to be
fixed [Marinósson 2007, 85]. In Iceland, as well as in many other countries
[see above], the term inclusive education has come to signify different
things and it is uncertain what teachers think and feel about inclusive
education, although there are indications suggesting mixed opinions
[Capacent Gallup, 2007; Karlsdóttir & Guðjónsdóttir, 2010; Marinósson
2011]. Recent comprehensive research on teaching and learning in Icelandic
compulsory schools has shown evidence of teachers´ concerns that current
classroom organisation may not suit students with a foreign background or
behaviour difficulties. The initial published results of this study indicate that
the ideology of the inclusive school is not well-established in the minds of
most of the teachers. Further, 83% of participants in the research [825
teachers, including special education needs [SEN] teachers, head teachers
and other staff of 20 schools] agree that teachers do not have the
preparation needed to support and care for all children [Björnsdóttir &
Jónsdóttir, 2010].
2.1.6.9 From narrow to broad understanding on inclusive education
As the summary above indicates, the development of the term “inclusive
education” embodies a reference to varied social and educational ideas and
concepts. Through this process, waves of definitions of inclusive education
have appeared, with both a narrow and broad focus on the term,
depending on the time and focus of the discussion. Armstrong, Armstrong
& Spandagou [2010] have for example pointed out that different
understandings of inclusion means that we will get different answers to the
questions, “for whom is inclusion and what is the purpose?” Armstrong
and colleagues offer the following definitions that invite different answers
to those two questions:
43
Inclusion is about all students with disabilities participating in all
aspects of the school life within the regular school to provide them
with access to the same educational experiences as other students
and full citizenship in an inclusive society.
Inclusion refers to students with disabilities and special education
needs and their increased participation within the education system,
with the aim of providing an education that responds to their
individual needs and preparing them for life after school.
Inclusion refers to all students actively participating in schools that
are organised in such ways that all students are valued and which
constantly problematize notions of inclusion and exclusion and of
different ways of being [Armstrong, Armstrong & Spandagou, 2010,
p. 31].
According to Armstrong and colleagues [2010], these three approaches
lead to three different pathways towards inclusive education. The first,
although presenting a narrow definition regarding the groups referred to,
involves the idea that a fundamental change has to take place in the
education system regarding e.g. values, attitudes, the organisational
structure, curriculum and criteria for achievement. According to the first
definition, it is likely that schools that are committed to these ideas would
respond to the needs of disabled students as well as the needs of other
students who experience exclusion, emphasising general education reforms
for the benefit of all students. The second definition is also narrow, focusing
on specific groups of students, but does not involve radical changes in
existing educational policy and practice. This definition is in harmony with
many policy documents on education, but has been criticised for being too
close to ideas about integration suggesting individualised teaching and
learning. [Armstrong, Armstrong & Spandagou, 2010]. The third definition is
broader than the other two and refers to all students. Inclusion is defined
as an open-ended project where individual differences are the normal
criteria. The explanation is rejected that exclusion and inclusion are fixed
once and for all, but rather seen as a process of continuous interaction
between these ideas [Armstrong, Armstrong & Spandagou, 2010, pp. 31–
32].
The narrow view presents inclusive education as being about disability
and accommodation, e.g. in ideas about integration [Slee, 2011]. The
broader view introduced by, for instance, Artiles, Kozleski & Waitoller
[2011] considers inclusive education to be a global movement comprising a
broad range of groups vulnerable to marginalisation for various reasons.
44
They conceptualise inclusive education as “a means to provide students
with educational access and opportunities to participate in society” [p.9]. In
this study I apply the broader understanding of inclusive education [see
chapter 1.2 The context of the study] and see it as the task of all
educational stakeholders to overcome barriers to learning and to provide
all students with quality education.
2.2 The development of my own understanding of the term
“inclusive education”
When I look back and try to put a finger on how I first understood inclusive
education when I started to read about the concept around the year 2000, I
think the words equality and equity can best describe my understanding.
My ideas were grounded in a human rights view to the effect that no
person is more valuable than another and that schools should provide
students with high-quality education, regardless of their background,
circumstances or ability. I am not certain, however, that I was aware of the
multilateral and complex references these words and ideas have in relation
to inclusive education – that understanding came much later when I
explored the issues for this doctoral research and is related to what is noted
in the UNESCO document Educational Equity and Public Policy: Comparing
Results from 16 Countries [2007] namely that the term equity is subject to
variety of interpretations and “opinions diverge about what aspects of
education should be distributed “equitably” to whom and about what levels
of disparity are “equitable” or “inequitable”” [p.15]. At first, my ideas were
concerned with access to education [equality of access] – and although I
have explored inclusive education from other viewpoints – education
access is still an important component in my understanding of inclusive
education. The same is iterated in the above mentioned UNESCO
document: “education access is the most basic equity concern because
learning, regardless of the quality, cannot occur without access” [p.23] as
well as in the Policy Guidelines on Inclusion in Education [UNESCO, 2009].
Article 26 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights [United Nations,
1948] defines the right to education as one of the fundamental rights of all
humans. It is then the obligation of governments and educational
authorities to enable their citizens to have access to education. Access – in
its literal meaning – is not enough, however, since there are more layers
involved in the idea of access that I gradually understood to be
fundamental factors in how I understood educational inclusion. One
dimension is participation and quality – everyone has to be able to fully
45
participate in education to equally benefit from inclusion. There can be
hindrances – structural or ideological – that prevent students from using
various existing educational facilities and opportunities. In a new UNESCO
Handbook on Education Policy Analysis and Programming [2013] it is
highlighted that equity is an important aspect of education policy and the
level of equity in the provision of education affects access to education and
participation in education [p.27]. This is particularly important with regard
to the question whether education services are provided equally to all
groups of students, paying special attention to the actual access and
participation by sub-groups. Earlier in this chapter [2.1.2 Segregation and
Schooling] it is mentioned how certain groups of students, previously
excluded, gained access to the public school system. This development has
continued and public schools in many Western countries now include a
spectrum of students with various and multiple needs which schools are by
law required to cater for. When access to education is increased, this calls
for more and different resources of various kinds. This has become most
evident through the process of meeting students in regular schools whom
the schools have identified as being in need of special education. When
access is expanded it has to be ensured that the level of participation and
the quality of education do not fall short of basic quality standards. Equity
in education therefore includes the exploration of “whether education
services are provided equally to all groups, and involves paying particular
attention to the actual access and participation by sub-groups” [ibid, p.27].
The summary in the chapters above describes how concepts on inclusion
have developed from various ideas that include issues along the axis of
both inclusion and exclusion. They therefore appear in various forms. This
has not occurred in a linear way, as all these ideas can be active in one
culture at the same time. Kozleski, Artiles and Waitoller, [2011] talk about
waves of inclusive education based on “country’s historical commitment to
inclusive education and its attendant historical legacies about difference”
[p.7]. When I started to read and think about inclusive education, my ideas
and attitudes towards difference and diversity were already shaped by my
upbringing, education and culture. I grew up in a small village in the
countryside and in my school and classroom there were children with
developmental and physical impairments. They also took part in the
“summer work camp” [vinnuskólinn/unglingavinnan] organised by the
municipality for teenagers during the summer. Furthermore, there were in
my village people who for various reasons were seen to be different, but
nevertheless belonged to the community. As for “waves” and the
development of ideas about inclusive education and my background, I saw
46
it as normal from a very young age that people with a disability or “this and
that” belonged to the community – school and society – but were not kept
apart.
Some ideas have a greater impact on us than others and in my case I
guess it was when I first read about the perspectives of the social and
medical models of disability [see discussion about the perspectives in
chapter 2.1.1 Perspectives on Disability]. I was in no doubt in which channel
my ideas should run, the social perspectives were consistent with my view
of life at that time.
My understanding has, therefore, developed according to what is
described in the chapter above; that is, from a narrow to broad
understanding of inclusive education. Part of this process is the continuing
struggle with words, concepts, ideas and theories. This is a positive struggle
in the sense that without it we take things for granted and would hardly
move forward in our search for a better education for everyone.
The toughest challenge is to be critical of our own position, how words
are used and how we interpret ideas. Without constant and critical
reflection, we risk becoming so accustomed to our own ideas that we do
not hear or see anything else. Allan and Slee [2008] offer a discussion
among researchers in inclusive education on the role of ideology in their
researches and quote a colleague who said: “Ideology is like sweat: you
can’t smell your own” [p.54]. The same applies to how we use words and
our awareness of this. When I went through the interim review of this
doctoral project, one of the external examiners commented on my use of
terms, for example the difference between “children with SEN” [which I
used in my text] and “children diagnosed as having SEN” and he asked: Is
the use of SEN language counter-productive to the realisation of inclusive
thinking and practice? This discussion has reference to how we determine
and locate “difficulties” that students are considered to have. Historically,
evidence indicates that students’ difficulties are their problems – their inner
characteristics – that need to be responded to, for example by
categorisation and then, for example, special education. This approach
includes a medical approach towards students which sees the student – the
child – as the problem and implies the use of clinical methods to define
student’s special needs and thus “seeing students as diagnosable subjects
assumes that they are in “need” of something – they are regarded as
“defective”. [Jóhannesson, 2006, p.113]. An opposite view – which I adhere
to – is to look at education through an inclusive lens which “implies a shift
from seeing the child as the problem to seeing the education system as the
47
problem” UNESCO, 2009, p. 14]. It is the responsibility of the system/the
school to identify barriers and difficulties that students face and respond to
them by non-discriminating means with a focus on quality. This approach
requires that we simultaneously explore exclusion as well. Exclusion is
another example of a concept that moved and developed my ideas about
inclusive education and broadened my understanding. I totally agree with
Allan and Slee [2008] when they say: “Reducing educational exclusion and
moving towards more inclusive futures for students disadvantaged by the
complex interactions of poverty, disability, race, language, geographic
location, sexuality and gender with pedagogy, curriculum and the
organisation of schooling is at the centre of our educational project” [p.11].
Exclusion is much more than the visible action of excluding someone from
certain place or area. It has – as inclusion – references to all layers of the
education system and moreover “in different societies different individuals
and groups become more vulnerable and susceptible to exclusion” [Slee,
2011, p.35]. An inclusive approach to education requires that we constantly
and critically explore the dominant culture of the school from the
perspective of those who are somehow marginalised by the system.
49
3 The research
This chapter provides an overview of the research process in two main sub-
chapters. First the theoretical perspectives are introduced and explained.
Then the research methodology, design and approach is outlined followed
by a description of the purpose and the main questions of the study, the
research site and participants introduced and how the data was generated
and analysed. Finally I address ethical concerns and explain changes that
occurred during the research process
3.1 Theoretical perspectives used in the research
In this chapter I will introduce the theoretical framework underpinning the
methods used in this qualitative research. The approach is located within
the interpretivist tradition and informed by social constructionism and post-
structuralism.
3.1.1 Interpretivist approach
The research is qualitative in character which means that its primary aim is
to understand the meaning of human action [Schwandt, 2007]. The
ontological assumption is characterised by the vision that reality is
subjective and multiple as seen by the participants in the study. The
researcher therefore seeks to embrace the idea of multiple realities
[Creswell, 2007]. The research is framed within an interpretive paradigm
[Berger & Luckmann, 1966; Bogdan & Biklen, 1992] that has its origin in the
hermeneutic tradition with its roots in the late nineteenth and early
twentieth century philosophy and hermeneutics of Droysen and Dilthey
[cited in Hitchcock & Hughes, 1995, p. 227; Schwandt, 2000] who were
concerned with the interpretative understanding of human sciences which
have been described as Verstehen [a German term for understanding]. The
Verstehen sociology developed as a critique of the 19th century dominant
philosophy of positivism. The Verstehen approach claimed that human
sciences were a different paradigm from natural sciences, aiming to
understand human actions instead of offering causal explanations of certain
phenomena as practised under positivism. According to the Verstehen a
lived experience is considered to be essential and inherently meaningful
[Hitchcock & Hughes, 1995, p. 227].
50
A researcher who follows and works according to an interpretivist
paradigm – where the aim is to understand a particular social action – thus
endeavours to acquire an understanding and the meaning of what
constitutes the action. Schwandt [2000] has explained how different
philosophical strands within interpretivism can offer disparate approaches
to the process of interpreting or understanding; that is achieving Verstehen.
Firstly, the researcher needs to grasp the subjective consciousness or intent
of the actor from the inside in order to understand the meaning of human
actions – empathic identification. Secondly, the researcher makes use of
phenomenological sociology, which is concerned with understanding how
the everyday, intersubjective world [the lifeworld] is constituted. The third
approach to interpretive understanding is borrowed from the idea of
analysing language games [how we play with language], which draws
attention to how complex our use of language actually is. Furthermore,
these language games constitute a different meaning in different cultures,
as each of these games has its own rules and criteria that make the game
meaningful to its participants [p.191–193].
The interpretivist approach, explained above, is used in this research to
analyse and understand how teachers construct their ideas on inclusive
education and what role national education policy may exercise in that
respect. I make use of two broad theoretical perspectives, which I consider
useful to explore and interpret the data and the overall approach to the
research. These perspectives serve as tools to unravel the complex social,
historical and cultural environment that shapes teachers’ ideas, their roles
and work. These are social constructionism and post-structuralism. These
perspectives embrace aspects of the understanding of human actions, but
from a different viewpoint, which I will now explain.
3.1.2 Social constructionism
Social constructionism is an epistemological strand, which focuses on the
making of meaning and power where the aim is to understand how
phenomena are socially constructed. The focus is on how meaning is
constructed in social contexts, and the world we live in is considered to be
the product of social and cultural processes, intersubjectivity and
interaction [Berger & Luckmann, 1966]. With our diversity, distinct
experience and background, we construct the social world around us on the
basis of a world already constructed in particular way. This is a process that
occurs through steps of externalisation – objectivation – and
internalisation. In this view, meaning is considered to be activated as
51
individuals transform various impressions, which they convert into new
knowledge [Schwandt, 2000, 2007].
An important feature inherent in this process is the importance of
culture and context in order to understand what occurs in society and how
we understand the world; that is, the categories and the concepts we use
[Bjarnason, 2006; Gergen, 1994]. In terms of the main concept in this
research – inclusive education – social constructionism offers tools to look
at how social phenomena around inclusive education are externalised,
objectified, internalised or institutionalised; accepted or rejected. It helps
to ask and seek answers to what constitutes our ideas on inclusive
education and how new ideas around inclusive school and education are
constructed. It gives scope to explore if and how we need to reconstruct
our ideas on education and learning parallel to the construction of ideas on
the inclusive school?
3.1.3 Post-structuralism
Post-structuralism involves theories and ideas, which have their origins in
the disciplines of philosophy and sociology. It does not have a strict
definition and is often confused with postmodernism as some of the basic
tenets would be the same. Indeed post-structuralism is probably best
described as a ‘movement’ of ideas or a set of theoretical positions, which
developed as responses to structuralism. The central criticism of
structuralism was its notion of defining an inner, universal structure, such
as how society develops, the structure of language, how children learn a
language, etc. structuralism does not account for historical or cultural
circumstances; in contrast post-structuralism considers for instance that
our human nature develops through our relationship with others. People
are social beings because we have relations with other people. Those
relations are historical and social in nature, but not based on universal
structures [Jóhannesson, 2010b; Peters & Wain, 2003, pp. 60-61]. The
essence of post-structural thinking can be explained by the words of Bredo
[2006]: “If there is no fixed or neutral place, no center or basic foundation
from which to gain a full perspective on other perspectives, then diverse
perspectives and/or epistemologies gain coequal status” [p. 19]. This
understanding derives from the idea that reality is fragmented and diverse.
A constructed practice of education and learning is, for example, how
education has most of the time been organised in a traditional way with a
group of students, each sitting quietly at a table in a classroom and listening
to the teacher, who without any doubt controls the lesson; learning and
52
communication. In this situation education means pure academic
knowledge obtained from schoolbooks and the teacher. From the mid
twentieth century this view on education has been challenged by
educational scholars and today we have multiple definitions of education
and learning [Slee, 2011; Tomlinson, 2005]. For those who adhere to post-
structuralism it is, contrary to the traditional view, considered normal that
there are multiple truths about things, the world is not two-sided – black or
white – as reality is far more complex. Ideas from post-structuralism are,
therefore, useful for critically examining how knowledge is produced
around educational issues, which rest on divergent foundations. According
to Lee [1992, p.7] post-structuralism is valuable for educational research for
the following reasons:
because it takes social complexity seriously and attempts to work
with it rather than reduce and marginalise it; that is, it addresses
practice;
because it refuses the opposition between the individual and the
social and has ways of investigating the relation between them;
because it theorizes power and allows an explicitly politically
informed research practice.
Post-structuralism is more than a way of thinking as it also offers tools
used by post-structuralist researchers. From this toolbox I make use of –
when analyzing the data – a technique developed by the twentieth century
philosopher Jacques Derrida [1930-2004] who introduced the concept of
deconstruction. The concept is used as a tool to analyse a particular text
where the main aim is to challenge the foundations of the text and draw
attention to contradictions. The practice of this approach may include
creating new links and conjunctives, using elements of the original text.
These procedures involve the exploration of symbols and discourse, the
form of the narrative, which could be characterised by a certain ideology or
view [Allan, 2008; Sigurðardóttir, 2009]. Derrida´s philosophy of
deconstruction is, therefore, a way to rethink the system, which surrounds
us and shapes all our thinking. Language or discourse is seen as the
fundamental factor which shapes the system, because all intellectual and
significant interpretations happen within language and discourse. By
criticising and rethinking the pluralism which lies behind the discourse it is
possible to unwind the system of power, which is built into the discourse
[Sigurðardóttir, 2009]. The main purpose of using such discourse
procedures is to analyse power, mainly normalised power, i.e. the hidden
power, which is there without being noticed because it is not applied. The
53
hidden impact of a text on our way of thinking makes us actively complicit
in becoming the same as the others [Jóhannesson, 2010a]. In terms of
inclusive education, these post-structural ideas are used to understand how
power is exercised upon teachers and how they are controlled and
constrained to behave in particular ways [Allan, 2008].
3.2 Research methodology, design and approach
Interpretive research has been defined as the study of the immediate and
local meanings of social actions for the actors involved [Creswell, 2007,
2012] as explained at the beginning of the chapter. The subject matter of
such research is – people – who have ideas about their world and attach
meaning to what is going on around them. This research takes shape of
Creswell´s [2007] approach to qualitative research which involves the
following key characteristics, seen as fundamental to the whole research
process: The researcher collects data in natural settings – in the field where
the participants experience the research issue. The researcher is the key
instrument, which means that he is the one who gathers the information.
There are multiple forms of data, including interviews, observations and
documents. The data analysis is inductive, that is, the researcher builds the
patterns, categories and themes from bottom-up. “This inductive process
involves researchers working back and forth between the themes and the
database until they establish a comprehensive set of themes” [p. 38–39].
The interpretive focus is at the forefront in all the process and emphasis is
placed on the participants´ meaning by understanding and learning the
meaning that the participants hold about the issue. The research process is
not fixed, it is an emergent design and the initial plan – actually all phases
of the process – may change or shift, including the questions and the forms
of data collection. A qualitative researcher may use a theoretical lens to
view his study, such as certain concepts from various perspectives. The
researcher endeavours to develop a complex picture of the research issue
by reporting multiple perspectives and interactions of related factors [p.
38–39]. Drawn together, the focus in qualitative research is on studying
things in their natural settings, attempting to make sense of, or interpret,
phenomena in terms of the meanings people bring to them [Denzin &
Lincoln, 2000].
Qualitative research can adopt various approaches, that is, it can take
different forms, such as narrative research and phenomenology. Whatever
its form may be, the emphasis is on the process of research as “flowing
from philosophical assumptions, to worldviews and through a theoretical
54
lens, and onto the procedures involved in studying social or human
problems.” [Creswell, 2007, p. 37]. The framework used in this research is a
combination of a case study and ethnographic approach. A case study is a
common method of conducting a qualitative inquiry. It is a strategy
preferred:
when the inquirer seeks answers to how or why questions,
when the object of study is a contemporary phenomenon in a
real-life context, when boundaries between the phenomenon
and the context are not clear, …. [Schwandt, 2007, p.28]
A case study is either seen as a methodology or a research strategy
[Creswell, 2007]. In this instance it is used as a design or framework for a
qualitative research project.
As the research focus and questions refer to the individual within society
and culture, I have chosen an ethnographic approach to focus upon the
socio-cultural context, time and space. Ethnographical research methods
have their origins in the field of anthropology and involve an intensive study
of the features of a culture and the patterns in those features [Gall, Borg &
Gall, 1996, p. 607]. One of the main characteristics of this type of research
is the focus on a group that shares a culture and by looking at each
individual in more depth information on the larger culture can be obtained
[Gall, Borg & Gall, 1996; Robson, 2002; Tedlock, 2000]. Another
characteristic of ethnographic research is the emphasis on the perspective
of the members of the culture [emic] that is the participants’ viewpoint and
how they define their own reality and experiences [Gall, Borg & Gall, 1996].
This focus in useful as my aim is to look at individual teachers in their own
cultural context and try to understand how the existing culture and
education policy shapes teachers’ ideas of inclusive education.
3.2.1 The purpose and questions of the study
As mentioned in chapter 2.1.6.7, Teachers’ dimension of inclusive
education, there is a growing concern about the teacher’s role in moving
inclusive practices forward. In this research, as stated in chapter 1–
Intoruduction of the research – the overall aim of the study was to explore
the interplay between national education policy and teachers’ perceptions
of their role in the inclusive school. Thus my research subject is dependent
on a range of complex and interrelated, social and cultural factors – for
example, education acts and curriculum, teachers’ work habits and culture,
55
teachers’ attitudes as well as general attitudes to education – which cannot
be seen as separate influencing factors.
The research questions are introduced in chapter 1.1. Research
questions, but repeated here for convenience:
The main research question for the overall project is how teachers
construct their meaning and knowledge relating to their concepts and
understanding of inclusive education.
The following themes and sub-questions emerged from the data:
Theme I – The social construction of teachers’ knowledge, roles and
responsibilities in the inclusive school – the cases of Iceland and the
Netherlands
How do teachers construct their ideas about the teacher in the
inclusive school?
Theme II – Icelandic teachers’ discourse on inclusive education – its
possibilities, limits, and relationship with the official dialogue
What characterises and legitimises teachers´ discourse on inclusive
education?
What are the contradictions in teachers´ discourse on inclusive
education as well as those occurring in official dialogue?
How have teachers involved themselves in the discourse?
Theme III – Icelandic teachers’ professional practices and perspectives
about inclusive education
What characterises teachers’ ideas of their professional practice in a
school that is expected to aim for inclusive education?
In what ways do teachers’ perspectives on their students’ learning
and learning potential coincide with ideas about inclusive education?
My interest in the research topics is reflected in the above themes and
questions; thereby the issues have a reference to teachers and how existing
culture, society and education policy affect the way teachers construct their
concepts and knowledge relating to inclusive education. In theme I, my aim
was to understand how teachers construct their ideas about the teacher in
the inclusive school. Does it, for example, relate to their education, the
leadership of the head teachers or the school culture? How and why do
they have certain ideas? In theme II, I wanted to approach the teachers
themselves by exploring teachers´ discourse on inclusive education in order
56
to understand – at least to obtain a picture of – the complexity of teachers´
personal and professional expressions on inclusive education with regard to
the official dialogue. Theme III, then, refers to teachers’ professional
practices and perspectives in relation to their ideas about inclusive
education; here I was interested to learn whether issues on inclusive
education were somehow included in teachers’ ideas about their own
professional work. Figure I below shows how I approached the research aim
and questions by analysing separate components – as explained above –
relating to “the teacher” and “society” in order to obtain a holistic picture
of the research issues.
Figure 1 The dimension/focus of the research aim
The person
Personal
experience
Education
Work
experience
Education policy and
Culture
National context
Local environment
Structure of the
education system
Teachers’ ideas and knowledge
Teachers’ roles
Work habits
Policy
Culture
57
3.2.2 Participants, environment and access
The research project was built around five regular primary schools. Three
schools are located in Iceland [Schools A-IS, B-IS, C-IS] and two in the
Netherlands [D-NL, E-NL]. The research participants are fourteen regular
teachers, four in the Dutch schools and ten in the Icelandic schools, and
four head teachers, two in each of the Dutch schools and two in two
Icelandic schools [B-IS, C-IS]. The head teacher in school A was not
interviewed. The teachers in the Dutch schools and two of the Icelandic
schools [B-IS, C-IS] were all responsible for teaching 11-12 years old children
when data collection took place. This age cohort was chosen because by
this age, teachers claim that things start to become ‘difficult’ in terms of
social and educational inclusion/exclusion according to a pilot interview
[see 3.2.3.] taken with one teacher at an Icelandic primary school, prior to
the main interviews. The six teachers in school A-IS taught children from 6-
16 years old. All the research participants had the experience of having in
their classroom [the school year 2006/2007 or 2007/2008] at least two
students identified with special education needs or disability, according to
the criteria in the country concerned.
The three Icelandic schools are located in one school district in Iceland.
The total student population in the district is approximately 2700 in ten
compulsory schools. The age range is 6–16 [grades 1–10]. Within the three
schools there are special units, one for children diagnosed with autism, one
for children diagnosed with hearing impairments and one for children with
Icelandic as second language. One special school belongs to the district. It is
a school with approximately 25 students, and intended for students
identified with significant, behavioural difficulties as well as diagnosed with
social- and emotional difficulties. The placement in the school is a
temporary resort when the regular schools have done all they think they
can.
The two Dutch schools are located in the province of North Holland.
They are run by a foundation which in total runs 23 schools [21 regular and
two special schools for children identified with learning difficulties and
behavioural difficulties]. These schools have a total of 7000 students. The
schools belongs to a school type which in Dutch is called “bijzondere
scholen” [different/special but not in the meaning of SEN] which means
that schools emphasise a certain ideology, religion or particular educational
philosophy. The two schools in this research are both Christian schools,
school D-NL has 275 students which is close to the average in most Dutch
schools and school E-NL has around 300 students in the age range 4–12
58
[grades 1–8]. Although the Icelandic and Dutch schools in this research are
different in nature they are similar in that sense that they are rooted in
Christianity and inclusive ideology is a part of the education policy.
Different approaches were used to access the schools. In Iceland, the
local education authority was approached and asked to name three
schools, which would be likely to fit in with the research according to the
description of the project. The schools were contacted and the head
teachers asked if they would like to take part in the research. They were all
positive and gave their permission to conduct the research in their schools,
provided that individual teachers were willing to take part. A letter
explaining the research, its procedures and what was expected of the
research participants was sent to the schools and the teachers.
Contact with the Dutch schools was established at a conference on
inclusive education in the Netherlands. At the conference, several schools
were introduced, their vision and curriculum. At one such introduction I
found a Dutch school where teachers explained the inclusive procedures in
the school. Contact with another one was arranged by the head teacher of
the first school. The same procedures were used to introduce and explain
the research as for the Icelandic schools. In school A-IS [six teachers] I asked
for teachers who were teaching students in all grades 1–10 [age 6–16] as I
wanted to reach teachers with various levels of experience in terms of
students’ age. I asked if the head teacher could provide me with two
teachers from each level [youngest - grades 1–4, middle – grades 5–7 and
oldest – grades 8–10]. He contacted his teachers and asked who would be
willing and able [with respect to the time schedule of the interview] to take
part. The other eight teachers were self– chosen as there were only two
teachers in each school teaching 11–12 year old students.
3.2.3 Data collection
The research aims at providing an in-depth understanding of the area
covered by the research questions and the focus is on the meaning of
particular phenomena – inclusive education – to the research participants.
Data sources are fourfold:
Firstly, pilot interviews were conducted with six Icelandic students aged
6–16. The purpose of these interviews was to collect information about
students’ ideas relating to issues on inclusive education and exclusion. At
the beginning of the project my intention was to include students’
perspectives on inclusive education as well as those of the teachers. After
the pilot interviews with students I decided to focus only on teachers but
59
used the student interviews to develop the final questions. For the same
reason, a pilot interview was taken with one Icelandic regular teacher. With
reference to these interviews, themes were generated and a question grid
designed, [see appendix B] based on the themes, and intended as a
blueprint for the main interviews.
Secondly, data collection by interviews with fourteen teachers and
teaching logs from eight of the fourteen teachers took place from February
to September 2007. Six Icelandic regular teachers [school A-IS] were
interviewed once for about 30–60 minutes. These teachers taught students
from 6–16 years of age. Eight teachers both Icelandic and Dutch [two in B-
IS, two in C-IS, two in D-NL and two in E-NL] were interviewed twice, first
according to the questions grid mentioned above [about one hour for each
interview] and then after they had filled out a teaching log for five days
regarding one or two students identified in their classrooms with special
needs or disabilities. The latter interview took about 30 minutes and
centred on the teaching log and the former interview. The purpose of
asking teachers to fill out the teaching logs in their classrooms [see
Appendix D] was to obtain a detailed picture of what the labelled students
did in each lesson and why.
Four head teachers, [one in each of the schools B-IS, C-IS, D-NL, E-NL]
were interviewed once for about thirty minutes according to the same
questions grid as for the teachers. The purpose of interviewing the head
teachers was to learn about their ideas regarding their own and the
teachers’ roles in the inclusionary process. All the interviews were semi-
structured, but further progress was then strongly dependent upon the
interviewers’ responses. Prompts and probes [see appendix C] were used
when necessary [Drever, 1995; Robson, 2002]. Table 3 [see appendix E]
gives an overview of the interviews. The language of the interviews in
Iceland was Icelandic. In the Netherlands, teachers could choose to speak
either in Dutch or English. The interviews were transcribed verbatim and
each teacher was assigned a capital letter for a pseudonym. Table 1 gives
an overview of the data collection by interviews and teaching logs.
60
Table 1 Data collection by interviews and teaching logs
2 teachers
1 head
teacher
2 teachers
1 head
teacher
2 teachers
1 head
teacher
2 teachers
1 head
teacher
My third source of data was written documents, including policy documents
both national and local, such as information about the Icelandic and Dutch
61
school systems; documents from local educational authorities; curricula and
legislative acts on equality as well as local documents from each of the
schools. By analysing policy documents I focused on the national and local
educational environment and looked for continuities/discontinuities
between documents, policy and teachers´ ideas. These data were collected
parallel with other data and later on as well [see. article 2].
The fourth type of data used in this research [see further in article 2] are
Icelandic media articles [newspapers and radio and television transcripts]
on education which were collected to cover the period of 16 months prior
to and concurrent with the research interviews, from the beginning of
January 2006 to the end of April 2007, in order to identify public views on
education and to locate teachers’ discourse within the social, cultural and
public context. These data was added to the data at later stages in the
research process in order to be better able to answer the research
questions on theme II.
The media articles are available from a database offered by the company
Fjölmiðlavaktin/CreditInfo [n.d.]. When searching the database, the
following key words were used [the Icelandic search words in parentheses]:
inclusive school [skóli án aðgreiningar], school for all [skóli fyrir alla], special
needs [sérþarfir], school [skóli], education [menntun], special education
[sérkennsla]. The search resulted in a total of 352 articles on education out
of which 196 were analysed for the purpose of this research. The distinctive
feature of these 196 articles was the focus of the subject matter, which
related to inclusive education and special needs, rather than, for example,
the issue of the length of the secondary school. Special attention was given
to pieces written by teachers but 30 of the 196 articles turned out to have
been written by authors who identified themselves as teachers.
As can be read in the introductory chapter [1.3 The Icelandic and Dutch
education context], there is considerable difference between the Dutch and
Icelandic school systems and consequently the schools differ. My aim was
to try to find Dutch schools that would not be too different from the
Icelandic ones in terms of vision and ideology. The main criterion was that
all the schools must be described as working towards inclusion. In order to
learn more about the Dutch and Icelandic education policy and practice in a
broader context I attended conferences on [inclusive] education in Iceland
and the Netherlands as well as in other countries.
By gathering data of these four types I acquired a comprehensive
database that gave an insight into diverse aspects of teachers work. The
interviews offered the teachers´ personal and professional ideas, and by
62
referring to the teaching log parallel with the interviews helped me to look
at teachers’ practices together as an integral process. The media articles
then relate teachers and their work to the society and culture, and the
current official discourse about teaching and education. I also wanted the
teachers and schools to be part of my project, if they preferred, thereby the
research data gathered could be useful for them as well as for my work. The
schools and the teachers could, for example, keep the teaching logs and the
interviews for further use. One of the Icelandic schools, for example,
planned for the following year, after the interviews and the teaching logs, a
co-teaching programme in one of the participants’ classrooms. The schools
aim was to develop a co-teaching programme by integrate the special
teacher in the classroom together with the regular teacher.
3.2.3.1 Data collection – challenges
The research issue – inclusive education – is a complex matter and can have
various implications in different countries as chapter 2 indicates. It was,
therefore, a challenge to collect data in two countries, using three
languages. This called for awareness as to the use of words, concepts and
terms when designing the question grids and the form for the teaching log,
as well as regarding my general use of language in the interviews and
communication with the schools. It is important to highlight the role of
language in the research process as it can increase the level of complexity –
the messiness of the research – According to Nind et al [2005] “A way
forward for researching inclusive school cultures must […] address not only
the shared language that helps to identify the culture but also the different
levels of culture” [p.196]. An example of this is the use of the words
integration and inclusion and what they mean to people; for some they
have the same meaning, for others not. Another example of how levels of
culture can reflect a certain understanding is that to some people inclusion
has a strong reference to disability and dealing with students with disability
in regular schools. For others inclusion does not refer to certain groups of
students [as discussed in chapter 2 – Theoretical background: Concepts and
theories].
3.2.4 Data analysis
The texts were analysed in order to understand the background of the
teachers’ ideas and practices. I see my task as a researcher in the analysis
process is to understand the multiple social constructions of meaning and
knowledge that appear in the various data with an emphasis on the
63
interviews with teachers; thus to hear and understand the teachers’ voices
and their interpretations of their own realities [Silverman, 2000].
I used discourse analysis, [mainly in article 2] a technique often used by
researchers who apply a poststructuralist approach to analyse the data.
Discourse analysis has in recent years been used in various fields such as
within social- and educational sciences. It has its roots in the humanities
such as philosophy, literature and history but has been developed as a tool
in research methodology, where the aim is to create knowledge which
better reflects human society and behaviour. This methodology seeks to
increase the understanding of human society rather than discovering facts
[Björnsdóttir, 2003].
The term discourse is actually interplay between talk and text, a public
and private experience, a silence, words and functions. By adopting this
post-structural thinking the researcher endeavours to deconstruct
important issues related to the subject in order to understand it from a new
perspective. In order to let that happen the researcher needs to look for
hidden impacts, an obscure power which can be concealed – at least is not
obvious – behind the text and therefore remains abstruse to the reader.
This is one of the definitions of the term discourse where the correlation
between the hidden power and the obvious power and how we become
familiar with this exercise is in the forefront [Jóhannesson, 2010b; Peters &
Wain, 2003; Todd, 2007].
Researchers who adopt discourse analysis to scrutinise their data see
language as the main key in analysing peoples´ social reality and
understanding. The idea that participants´ account of an event reflects
mainly their inner experience is denied as we are part of particular culture
and tradition, which shapes us as persons and our understanding at each
time. This reality places constraints on how we think and, therefore, which
understanding is possible at each time. This pragmatic approach accounts
for language as communication formed by a complex interplay of power
which results in a specific mode of expression. By focusing on this typical
mode of expression the researcher can identify prevailing attitudes and
values. Thus, the discourse is seen as a creative process where phenomena
are constructed but not as a static phase [Jóhannesson, 2010a].
Interviews in Icelandic and English were transcribed by myself and the
Dutch interviews by a native Dutch speaker. The transcripts of the
interviews were analysed in several ways. First, all interviews both the
Dutch and Icelandic were analysed according to the themes discussed in the
interviews [see appendix B] to obtain a picture of each teacher. Then each
64
data set was analysed as an independent unit. The data analysis is further
explained in the method sections of the relevant book chapter or articles.
In this research, the Dutch data is used as a prism for exploring the
Icelandic issues which means that I am deeply embedded in cultural
similarities and differences impacting schools, socialisation and society. This
does not suggest, however, that I am equally competent at interpreting
nuances of meaning in my data as the Icelandic language and culture is
more likely to predominate my way of seeing and listening.
3.3 Ethical issues and challenges
It is the character of qualitative research to involve the individual and the
interpretation of his environment. Research in the educational sector is
especially sensitive in this regard as education is something everyone seems
to have strong opinions about. Teachers may have their professional views
on certain subjects, but they are also individuals with different
backgrounds, feelings and beliefs. Thus it is essential to respect people’s
private views and values, a point of particular importance when
investigating foreign school systems and their local cultures.
One of the challenges I faced was teachers’ different attitudes and
beliefs about schooling and education in the two countries explored in the
research. Sometimes it was challenging for me to listen to teachers
expressing opinions totally opposite to my own, such as that they did not
want to have students with disabilities in their classroom. An important
technique in such situations was going back to the research aim and
questions as well as the theoretical tools and lenses applied to the research
and ask questions as to what these views actually meant for my
understanding of inclusive education. These opposite views supported the
understanding that inclusive education is an active process that includes
discourses and practices which legitimate ideas based on segregation and
discrimination. This applies to the special needs discourse as well as
inclusive education. Thus, those opposite views influenced my
understanding of what inclusive education might entail in a given context
and contributed to the process of building an awareness of inclusive
education as a multiple and complex issue where meanings and definitions
are not fixed, but varied and fluid [see for example Allan, 2012; Barton,
2004, 2012; Slee, 2003].
Another challenge was the different use of language and concepts
among the teachers in the two countries, for example on integration and
65
inclusive education. My task was to try to understand what these terms
meant to teachers within their own local and professional field.
When the research process changed from doing a monograph to an
article based dissertation [see further in chapter 1.2 Why this study?] a new
challenge followed when I decided to write two of the articles with my
supervisors. The collaboration with supervisors is in general based on a
classical learner–mentor relationship but to write a joint article in a peer
reviewed journal added some new dimensions to that relationship. This
meant that our target was the same; to write an article that would be
accepted for publication. The subjects of the articles were based on themes
I, II and III [as first introduced in chapter 1.1 Research questions]. After the
decision on the subjects which was taken by all three of us, each step in the
writing process had to be discussed and accepted from both sides. The
collaboration was essentially successful and we encountered no serious
conflicts or tensions. This was much rather an enormous learning curve for
me in many ways. Firstly, it was useful for the future to learn and go
through the technical approach from finding a journal and having an article
accepted by means of a peer review process. Secondly, it necessitated
discussing and explaining the research issue from different viewpoints than
mine which helped to evolve the meaning of the project.
Some ethical issues relate to the fact that I was the one who collected
the data and to involve my co-authors in the research issue, I had to ask
them to trust my data analysis, as well as having to give them an insider
perspective on my data without breaking the anonymity of my
interviewees. To be engaged in such collaboration opened an avenue for
more extensive and deeper dialogue on the complex and contentious field
of inclusive education than if I had been the sole author of the articles, as
mentioned above. The co-authors had to understand my thinking and
writing – which they sometimes did not – and then I had to come up with
better explanations for them and for myself. Such a dialogue helped to
sharpen the focus and create a shared meaning of the research issue.
Finally, I would like to mention an ethical matter that arose alongside
the creation of the findings; this was a kind of a struggle between my
personal self as an Icelandic person and a teacher, and the self as a
researcher. My findings are perhaps not very positive and even
uncomfortable or upsetting for the Icelandic school community in terms of
the inclusive image of the Icelandic school system. My findings indicate that
there is a reason to seriously question the inclusiveness of the Icelandic
school system since it appears to fall short of the ideal presented in official
66
documents. When dealing with these ethical issues it was, therefore, a
benefit to me as a novice researcher to have the opportunity to co-write
with experienced researchers – my supervisors – and question my own
findings; this is what I found, how do I know?
Informed consent is essential in all research and insists that all research
participants must have been properly informed about the aims and
purposes of the research and that their participation is fully voluntary
[BERA, 2004]. Another code of ethics has to do with privacy and
confidentiality with respect to the people who participate in research. This
means that the researcher agrees to protect personal data against misuse
and the access of extraneous parties. Unlike Dutch society, the population
of Iceland is small and interconnected and therefore it is difficult to hide the
Icelandic schools. I therefore made a point of not explaining too much
about the Icelandic schools. Nevertheless, it is possible that someone might
find out about the geographical location of the schools, but I have gone to
lengths to hide the research participants’ identities by referring to them in
the articles by using capital letters or pseudonyms in the articles and the
book chapter published, and giving them all female pronouns although
some of them are male. For the same reason, I refer to students by female
pronouns. I am deeply grateful to those who participated in the study, gave
their time and shared their perspectives, beliefs, hopes and frustrations
with me.
3.4 The research process – changes
Conducting PhD research is a journey where the researcher has certain
notions about where to go, but the route is somehow blurred. The process
is not predictable, nor should it be, as directions shift on the way and as
does the research focus and relevant questions. My research journey –
which actually was on hold for a time – is characterised by a number of
alterations and reconstruction phases which had a particular impact on the
final outcome.
There are some milestones on the route which marked a watershed
where the research project changed and moved forward in larger steps
than were normally taken throughout the process.
The first milestone worthy of mention was that I started out with the
intention of writing a monograph where I would compare the perspectives
of Icelandic and Dutch teachers regarding issues on inclusive education.
This first step was taken at the Institute of Education, University of London
where I commenced my doctoral study in January 2006. When I began to
67
analyse the data, however, I found it more interesting to turn the focus on
the Icelandic issues and allow those more space than I had originally
planned. This decision caused some complications which followed me
through the whole process, because I had gathered the data with a
comparison in mind. This is addressed in more detail in chapter 1.2 Why
this study?
The second milestone occurred when I decided to change from a
monograph to an article based dissertation. This decision was taken after I
had transferred my studies to the University of Iceland, in January 2011,
and was allocated two new supervisors. This development partly solved the
problem mentioned above, regarding the Icelandic and Dutch data, as I
decided to write articles where I presented one specific theme in each
article. Theme I – presented in the book chapter – thus reflects my original
idea of comparing the Icelandic and Dutch data.
The third milestone was reached close to the end of the process,
followed by the interim evaluation of this doctoral project. I received highly
useful comments from the external examiners, although one observation
was particularly unexpected. They suggested that I should leave out the
fourth and last theme on gender and inclusive education. My intention was
to explore the role mothers play, as seen by teachers in inclusive schools.
The examiners, however, concluded that the theme was not well enough
related to the overall thesis and too comprehensive a theme, in addition to
the other three, which called for exploring different concepts and theories
than I had done with respect to the other three themes. Acting on my
supervisors’ recommendation I agreed to remove this fourth theme from
the thesis – but keep it for later times. This last main change differed from
others on this journey in that it speeded up the project instead of delaying
it as I was used to when major changes occurred. Most importantly, it
provided space for a more holistic and integral focus on the central
research issue.
3.5 Summary
In this chapter I have described the elements of the research process. The
rationale for using theoretical perspectives based on an interpretivist
approach, social constructionism and post-structuralism is explained, as
well as the research methodology, design and approach. In the chapter on
participants, environment and access, I report on the background and the
environment of the research site and explain how schools and participants
were chosen and why. The approach and methodology of data collection
68
and analysis is then clarified. Finally I have addressed ethical issues and
challenges connected with the research and the chapter concludes by a
summary on changes that occurred during the research process.
69
4 Research findings
In this chapter, the research findings from this doctoral study are
summarised and its significance discussed. The findings are presented in
three articles [one book chapter and two journal articles, referred to as
article I, II and III] that have been published or submitted internationally.
Each publication refers to one theme explored in this research, as first
introduced in chapter 1.1 Research questions. The data used for this
research are for the most part from 2007. In articles II and III there is a note
on this, explaining how the economic collapse of autumn 2008 in Iceland
had unexpected consequences for the researcher’s educational and
financial plans and caused delays in the study. The researcher and the co-
authors of the articles have taken advantage of this fact, and in the findings
[the articles] it is noted that the interval is seen to have sharpened and
highlighted some of the conclusions and enabled us to look more critically
at the current situation. It should be noted, furthermore, in this regard, that
in the meantime no significant changes have occurred in the Icelandic
school system.
The structure of this chapter is as follows: First, there is an overview of
the findings with an explanation of how they relate to the overall research
in terms of themes, authors and publication. This is shown in table 2 below.
Then there is a brief summary on the content of the articles printed in their
original version in APPENDIX A. In the last chapter –conclusion– the main
themes and common threads of the overall findings are drawn together,
along with a discussion on the contribution of this work to policy and
practice of inclusive education.
70
4.1 Overview of the findings
Table 2 Overview of the findings
Title/proposed
title of article
Publication/proposed
avenue for submission
Article I
Single-
authored.
Theme I – The
social
construction of
teachers’
knowledge, roles
and
responsibilities in
the inclusive
school – the
cases of Iceland
and the
Netherlands.
The Teacher in
an Inclusive
School:
Influences on
the ideas of
Icelandic and
Dutch
compulsory
school teachers.
Gunnthorsdottir, H.
[forthcoming]. The
teacher in an inclusive
school: Influences on
the ideas of Icelandic
and Dutch compulsory
school teachers. In B.
Boufoy-Bastick [Ed.],
International Cultures of
Educational Inclusion
[pp.... ]. Strasbourg:
Analytrics.
Accepted 09
May 2012 for
publication.
The book is
planned to be
published in
2014.
Article II
Written with
Ingólfur Ásgeir
Jóhannesson
co-supervisor.
Theme II –
Icelandic
teachers’
discourse on
inclusive
education – its
possibilities,
limits, and
relationship with
the official
dialogue.
Additional
workload or part
of the job?
Icelandic
teachers’
discourse on
inclusive
education.
International Journal of
Inclusive Education.
Published
online 03 June
2013.
Article III
Written with
Dóra S.
Bjarnason
supervisor.
Theme III –
Icelandic
teachers’
professional
practices and
perspectives
about inclusive
education.
Conflicts in
teachers’
professional
practices and
perspectives
about inclusion
in Icelandic
compulsory
schools.
European Journal of
Special needs
Education.
Submitted for
a review on 07
February 2014
and after
changes on 24
April 2014.
Accepted for
publication on
8 may 2014.
71
4.2 Summary of the articles
Article I
Gunnthorsdottir, H. [forthcoming]. The teacher in an inclusive school:
Influences on the ideas of Icelandic and Dutch compulsory school teachers.
In B. Boufoy-Bastick [Ed.], International Cultures of Educational Inclusion
[pp.... ]. Strasbourg: Analytrics.
The purpose of this chapter is to address how teachers construct their
ideas on inclusive education in terms of their national education policy. For
this I have chosen two countries, Iceland and the Netherlands – both of
which I know personally. I was born and raised in Iceland and lived in both
of them with my school-aged children. Through my examination of this I
identify how national education policy shapes teachers’ ideas about
inclusive education.
The chapter reports findings from a qualitative study conducted in four
regular compulsory schools, two in Iceland and two in the Netherlands. The
aim of the overall study was to address how teachers construct their ideas
on inclusive education and what role national education policy may exercise
in that respect. The differences and similarities between the teachers in the
two countries are highlighted. The findings show that there are
considerable differences between teachers’ ideas in those two countries,
which can be explained by differing educational structures and policies.
Further, the findings show that teachers’ ideas of inclusive education and
the implementation of inclusive practices are sometimes characterised by
contradictions in terms of their ideas on education in general, on the one
hand, and ideas on inclusive education on the other. This, in turn, means
that school staff find it difficult to distinguish between procedures that lead
to discrimination and exclusion of students, and those that do not.
Article II
Hermína Gunnþórsdóttir & Ingólfur Ásgeir Jóhannesson. [2013].
Additional workload or part of the job? Icelandic teachers’ discourse on
inclusive education. International Journal of Inclusive education, 17[10], 1–
21. DOI:10.1080/13603116.2013.802027
The aim of this article is to examine the discourse of Icelandic
compulsory school teachers on inclusive education. From 1974 and
onwards education policy in Iceland has been towards inclusion and Iceland
is considered to be an example of a highly inclusive education system with
few segregated resources for students with special educational needs. In
72
particular, the article focuses on what characterises and legitimises
teachers’ discourse on inclusive education, the contradictions in the
discourse and how teachers have involved themselves in the process. We
use the approach of historical discourse analysis to analyse the discourse as
it appears in interviews with teachers and in media articles on education, as
well as in key documents issued by Parliament. The article provides an
insight into the complexities of this topic and draws attention to underlying
issues relevant to inclusive education.
Article III
Hermína Gunnþórsdóttir & Dóra S. Bjarnason. [in print]. Conflicts in
teachers’ professional practices and perspectives about inclusion in
Icelandic compulsory schools. European Journal of Special Needs Education.
Inclusive education policy, now the norm in many parts of the world
including Iceland, is highly dependent on teachers for its successful
implementation. Research on inclusion often attempts to identify teachers’
attitudes of inclusion [against/for]. This article takes a different approach. It
focuses on teachers’ perspectives of their professional practices; that is,
how teachers understand what it means to be and practise as a teacher.
We interviewed 10 Icelandic compulsory school teachers and also examined
teaching logs and associated documents. The findings suggest that the
teachers participating in this study have conflicting expectations towards
their professional practice. They have unclear ideas about the inclusive
ideology, and external factors influence teachers’ perception of their
professional practice more than reflective practices. We suggest that these
findings may well be applicable beyond the Icelandic context, and that they
have implications for the overall inservice and preservice education offered
to teachers.
4.3 Summary and conclusions – Mind the gap!
This piece of work is about inclusive education. The main research question
for the overall project is: How do teachers construct their meaning and
knowledge about their concepts and understanding on inclusive education?
The findings were introduced by three themes, each of which was given an
“independent life” in a relevant book chapter and journal article. I shall not
repeat the findings in this chapter, instead I would like to focus on a
common thread that was detected in the overall findings – in all themes –
that is, the notion of exclusion.
73
As this work reveals, inclusion is a multiple, complex and multi-layered
concept. The same principles apply to the concept of exclusion which is an
indispensable adjunct when exploring inclusion. This summary will
emphasise how the concept of exclusion appears in the data used in the
research and is presented in the findings in more detail than in the articles.
It will be discussed by four headings indicating the context. When referring
to the findings, those will be categorised according to articles I, II and III.
4.3.1 A space for exclusive thinking and practices
The findings from all the themes indicate how both the structure of a school
system and teachers’ attitudes create a space/scope for exclusionary
thinking and practices which then affect and hinder students’ opportunities
to education. Some examples are presented below.
Theme I refers to a comparison where differences and similarities
between teachers in two countries are highlighted. As noted in article I, the
two school systems involved – Iceland and the Netherlands – are quite
different in character and have taken divergent standpoints towards
inclusive education; the Icelandic system presents Acts of Parliament and a
curriculum emphasising equity and equal opportunities and an appropriate
education for all children, whereas the Dutch system has a long history of a
segregated school system and special schools. In the findings from theme I
it is noted how the divided Dutch system made it easier for the teachers to
keep a certain distance between the normal child and one not considered
normal. The Dutch teachers say they were trained as teachers of a normal
child but not of children who need some extra contribution above and
beyond those who are considered to be normal. Thus, the long history of
the existence of special schools, as well as the division in teachers’
education [special and regular], enables teachers to distance themselves
from the “not normal” students. Although the Icelandic school system does
not comprise a similar division as the Dutch one in terms of special versus
regular schools, the data show, nevertheless, how teachers’ belief in the
existence of the normal student creates a space/scope for exclusionary
thinking and practices.
In the journal article on theme III, teachers’ “mind map” of their
students is introduced as a dichotomy of normal and not-normal students.
In the article it is argued that in attempting to respond to individual needs
according to the ethos of individualised learning, teachers constructed
almost mutually exclusive student groups both within and outside their
classrooms. Such segregated thinking can happen when teachers focus
74
more on their students’ weak sides than their strong sides and, as a
solution, students receive additional support provided in segregated
groups.
4.3.2 Internal exclusion
The findings from this research which pertain to exclusion indicate how the
schools, as an institutional setting, manage the diversity of their students by
maintaining approaches of categorisation and exclusionary thinking
adopted in the 20th century, when new groups of previously excluded
students entered the school [Slee, 2011]. It can be argued that instead of
former external exclusion, internal exclusion has taken place and is
becoming inherent in the system. Hjörne and Säljö [2004] iterate that
„categorization in the school context should be studied as a practice; it is
something that people do to manage their daily chores“ [p.6].
In this research, the findings [see article II and III] indicate a similar
trend; that segregation is seen as an appropriate option in an inclusive
system, for example special units for students with certain impairments;
taking students out of their classroom to receive special education; special
needs are in a pecking order; the othering discourse according to which
students described as having additional needs are defined as “an addition”
to the regular class. These findings actually reflect Hjörne and Säljö‘s claim
that „The problem of how to handle diversity is a prominent feature of
modern schooling“ [2004, p. 1].
In her analysis of diversity and inequality, Youdell [2006] has highlighted
the importance of understanding and identifying “ways of interrupting,
abiding educational exclusions and inequalities” [p.33] as well as making
sense of “the process through which students come to be particular sorts of
subjects of schooling” [p.33]. The findings from this study indicate that
there is too much emphasis on students as subjects of failure, and exclusive
discourses and practices have come to be regarded as common sense which
appears to be taken for granted by its users [Slee, 2011]. The danger is that
if means such as segregation and categorisation are used uncritically, simply
to solve institutional dilemmas in handling student diversity, the
consequences for students will be damaging. This creates a process where
students are marked as subjects, certain types of learners, and some are
marked as impossible learners [Youdell, 2006] and this is taken for granted.
75
4.3.3 Who defines and decides?
Complacent attitudes and practices can limit and dilute our understanding
of what inclusive education and the inclusive school stands for. It would be
interesting, for example, to explore further why exclusion in its various
forms is such a prominent feature in the findings of this research, given the
fact the Icelandic schools involved are described and defined as
representative of inclusion. Is it acceptable that such schools practise and
present exclusion in some form or another? Who defines what is inclusive
and what is not? Nind, Benjamin, Sheehy and Hall [2005] bring up similar
questions in terms of methodological challenges in researching inclusive
school culture, as there are no universal and standardised criteria available
to identify what inclusive education really is. Thus, it could be a challenge,
when collecting and analysing data, to determine how we look for inclusive
cultures and practices and how we recognise them [ibid, p. 195].
The latter title of this chapter is “mind the gap”. This is a phrase that
reminds me of the phrase “mind your step” that people hear when coming
towards the end of an escalator at Schiphol airport in Amsterdam [which I
often went through when I lived in the Netherlands]. It is played out at
every single escalator so you cannot possibly miss the information that
there is a gap coming up ahead and you should mind your step. When I was
writing the chapter on exclusion, this metaphor of „mind the gap“ came to
me and I saw it as illustrating how educational segregation appeared to me
in Iceland and the Netherlands. In the Netherlands the segregation is quite
obvious in terms of the divided system – it is spoken aloud as in the airport.
Iceland is the opposite; it is educationally a homogenous system and the
segregation is not obvious. The results of this research show, however, that
segregation and exclusion are at work in the Icelandic schools studied in the
research. It is therefore important – and in fact necessary – that we should
learn to mind the gap which is not spoken aloud in public; in other words,
that we learn to identify where segregation and exclusion take place and
how it is produced and structured. We have to learn to see differently. I
therefore agree with Youdell [2006, p. 42], that we need to learn to:
see new possibilities for dislodging the familiar links between
class, race, gender, sexuality, ability and disability and
educational inclusions and exclusions, experiences and
outcomes. [...] Such changes do not take place through
legislation and policy development [although such reforms for
equity remain welcome], rather they occur through practising
76
differently in the everyday, from moment to moment, across
school spaces.
To be able to see differently is a process of learned and practised
behaviour acquired through critical reflection and examination of people’s
own ideals, values and ideas on difference in terms of education and
schooling. Such critical reflection is, according to Carrington [1999], a
prerequisite for creating an inclusive school culture where definitions and
decisions are based on ideas informed by inclusive principles.
4.3.4 Access alone is a fake
The heading of this chapter refers to my personal experience of educational
exclusion as mentioned in chapter 1.2. Why this study? What I experienced
is in harmony with what many scholars have pointed out regarding
integration and inclusion, that is, physical access to a school or education
needs to include an attitude of the school community which is
characterised by a moral and educational willingness to offer all students
quality education.
In article III teachers’ understanding on inclusive education is discussed
and it is argued that this is most often confined to what Söder [1991] called
situational integration; that is, the idea that all students should be together
in the same location, irrespective of their needs or impairment. An
understanding which is limited to such a definition creates the danger that
students´ learning is not seen as a continuum. However, if the principles of
inclusive education are to be an integral part of teachers’ thinking and
actions, the structure of the curriculum has to accommodate the notion of
a wide variety of learners and emphasise that diversity is a welcome and
normal element in the classroom.
In article I where I explore the social construction of teachers’
knowledge, roles and responsibilities in the inclusive school, the Icelandic
data reveal how the head teachers assumed that their teachers knew and
practised inclusive education. The findings however show the opposite, and
in some cases teachers express very low ambitions towards students who
are considered by their teachers’ academically slow learners. Access needs
to be discussed to its logical conclusion; it has to be clear how the school
and the teachers will respond to students’ learning in order to fulfil their
learning needs. Effective leadership is thus essential for the success of
students as well as teachers and schools [Day, 1995].
77
When I argue that access alone is a fake I am referring to how students
are deprived of their right to a meaningful education if their educational
needs are not met. In my view this is one form of exclusion, originating in
the assumption that some students are valued more than others as a result
of a dominating attitude and understanding that sees difference as a social
deviance. The result of continued emphasis on difference as deviance
places the focus of the teachers on students’ inadequacies rather than their
strengths and abilities.
4.3.5 The contribution of this work
This study was intended to provide an understanding of how teachers
construct their meaning and knowledge about their concepts and
understanding on inclusive education. It supports the findings of many
other research projects, where issues on inclusive education are explored,
i.e. that inclusive education is a complex and contested concept [Artiles,
Kozleski & Waitoller, 2011; Slee, 2011; UNESCO, 2013]. It refers to various
aspects of schools and their activities and there is no general agreement on
what inclusive education is. The study also supports findings that highlight
the importance of a commitment of the whole school community to a
successful implementation and to the entrenchment of inclusive practices
[Bourke, 2010; Eggertsdóttir & Marinósson, 2005; Marinósson, 2011]. Key
promoters in that process are strong leaders; school managers and teachers
[UNESCO, 2004, 2013].
The findings of this study show, however, that within an education
system which, according to law and curriculum, presents inclusion as its
main value and ideology, internal exclusion exists in various forms as
articles I, II and III illustrate. These varying manifestations of internal
exlusion appear both because of contradictions in policy [see article II and
discussion below] and as a result of teachers’ practices [see article I and III].
A solution of this problem is not suggested here, although the findings
reveal certain possibilities. Further research is needed at all levels, from
policy to practice.
I would like to finish by highlighting some implications for policy and
practice emanating from this work. As chapter 2.1 Historical background
and the development of the term inclusive education shows, it is difficult,
and perhaps impossible, to pinpoint a certain starting point for inclusive
education as clusters of influence have contributed to the field [Armstrong,
Armstrong & Spandagou, 2010; Slee, 2011]. In view of this, I argue that a
78
definition of inclusive education needs to be characterised by flexibility
instead of a fixed categorisation of certain students and their situation.
I believe the most powerful way to understand and articulate issues
about inclusive education is to focus on and explore how and why exclusion
appears as a factor in students’ education. Our task is to recognise and
remove hindrances – whatever they may be – to students’ education. In
order to address exclusive issues faced by students it is crucial that the
focus be not solely on students; parents’ and teachers’ views and
experiences need to be addressed to obtain a wholistic picture.
The policy – both at national and local level – must not issue misleading
messages regarding students’ rights to education. It is not acceptable that
in one document their right to education is stated [Lög um grunnskóla nr.
91/2008; The Ministry of Education, Science and Culture, 2012], but
restricted in the next document [Reglugerð um nemendur með sérþarfir í
grunnskóla nr. 585/2010]. There ought to be agreement on the
fundamental values laid down in the policy and clear messages to schools
about their responsibility to find solutions and ways for all students to
achieve from their education. The policy must be followed by providing
guidelines and direction for school districts, schools, head teachers and
teachers regarding the implementation of inclusive ideology and practices.
A strong leadership characterised by the mission of inclusion is the first step
in creating an inclusive environment and practices. The leadership is not
limited to head teachers, however; it must also be clearly visible at national
and district levels, indicating inclusive priorities and directions in policy and
curriculum. Teachers – as the key promoters – must be equipped with and
ensured appropriate and effective means to understand and create
inclusive school practices.
Important role of policy makers and school managers is to provide ways
for teachers to examine and understand assumptions about difference and
inclusive education parallel with concepts about the purposes and goals of
education and schooling. One way of achieving inclusion is to understand
the elements of exclusion in policy and practice. It can be argued – and
perhaps it is unavoidable – that policy involves contradictions as it must
refer to various groups and stakeholders that have different priorities. The
findings from this research show, however, that such contradictions cause
problems to teachers because they are not discussing those conflicts and
the consequences for students’ learning.
Inclusive practices require teachers to reflect critically upon their current
practices and analyse them in terms of the concepts of inclusion and
79
exclusion [Allan, 2008; Allan & Slee, 2008; Slee, 2011]. In order to do that,
time and situation has to be arranged within teachers’ working day to
explore fundamental issues on inclusive education, as well as personal
beliefs about teaching and learning, difference and disability. The findings
from this research show that teaching is directed at the so-called normal
student and students who fall at either end of the academic continuum
seem to be a challenge for many classroom teachers. As a result, those
students are not receiving the support they need to maximise their
learning.
The sum of the argument is this; in spite of a highly ambitious policy,
supporting school districts and enthusiastic school managers, it is the
teachers who have the power to make changes and let inclusive education
become reality in the classroom. In article III, I report on findings showing
that the teachers’ professional portrayals of themselves do not indicate
principles of inclusive education. I argue that in order to become inclusive
teachers, principles of inclusive education need to be part of how teachers
see themselves as professionals. There has to be congruence between what
teachers say they believe and intend to do, based on their ideals and
beliefs, and their actual behaviour and actions in classrooms.
Having explored Icelandic teachers’ ideas about inclusive education, it
seems to me that there is still a long way to go before the Icelandic
education system is capable of creating inclusive schools. The PISA results
for 2012 [The Ministry of Education, Science and Culture, 2013] show that
the attainment of Icelandic students has been falling in the past decade. An
interesting result in terms of the findings of this research is that from 2009–
2012 an increased number of students are categorised in the PISA results as
the weakest students and a decrease occurs among those categorised as
the very best students. This is in line with what seems to be the case in the
findings of this research and mentioned above; that students at either end
of the academic continuum are not receiving relevant support to learn to
their benefit. Inclusive education is a powerful tool to improve students’
learning and achievement. The positive thing is that we know from
evidence-based research that some approaches are more useful than
others in creating an inclusive learning environment and culture [see for
example Bartolo, et al., 2007; Eggertsdóttir and Marinósson, 2005]. The
starting questions are: Where do we want to be – and how do we get
there?
81
References
Aðalbjarnardóttir, S. [2007]. Virðing og umhyggja. Ákall 21. aldar [Respect
and caring. A call of the 21st century]. Reykjavík: Heimskringla,
háskólaforlag Máls og menningar.
Ainscow, M. [2005]. Developing inclusive education systems: what are the
levers for change? Journal of Educational Change, 6, 109–124.
Allan, J. [2008]. Rethinking inclusive education. The philosophers of
difference in practice. Dordrecht: Springer.
Allan, J., & Slee, R. [2008]. Doing inclusive education research. Rotterdam:
Sense.
Allan, J. [2012]. The sociology of disabiltiy and the struggle for inclusive
education. In M. Arnot [ed]. The Sociology of disability and inclusive
education. A tribute to Len Barton [pp.75–91].
Armstrong, A.C., Armstrong, D., & Spandagou, I . [2010]. Inclusive
Education: International Policy & Practice. London: Sage.
Armstrong, D., Armstrong, A. C., & Spandagou, I. [2011]. Inclusion: By
Choice or By Chance?. International Journal of Inclusive Education,
15[1], 29–39. doi:10.1080/13603116.2010.496192
Artiles, A.J., Kozleski, E.B., & Waitoller, F.R. [Eds.]. [2011]. Inclusive
education. Examining equity on five continents. Cambridge,
Massachusetts: Harvard Education Press.
Avramidis, E., Bayliss, P., & Burden, R. [2000]. A Survey into Mainstream
Teachers´ Attitudes Towards the Inclusion of Children with Special
Educational Needs in the Ordinary School in one Local Education
Authority. Educational Psychology, 20[2], 191–21. doi:
10.1080/713663717
Avramidis, E., & Norwich, B. [2002]. Teachers' attitudes towards
integration/inclusion: a review of the literature. European Journal of
Special Needs Education, 17[2],129–147.
Axelsdóttir, K. [2012]. Aðeins orð á blaði? Um sýn reykvískra
grunnskólakennara á menntastefnuna skóli margbreytileikans [Only
82
words on paper? On the vision of Reykjavik compulsory school teachers
with regard to the educational policy of the school of diversity]
[Unpuplished M.Ed.-thesis]. Reykjavík: University of Iceland.
Axelsdóttir, R. [2010]. Raddir barna – barnafundur. Hlustað á sjónarmið
barna um margbreytileika, möguleika og hindranir í skóla- og
félagsstarfi [The voices of children – children´s meetings. Listening to
children’s perspectives on diversity, opportunities and obstacles in
schools and after-school activities] [Unpuplished M.Ed.-thesis].
Reykjavík: University of Iceland.
Árnadóttir, A.K. [2010]. Þetta snýst allt um viðhorf : stjórnun og skipulag
kennslu barna með sérþarfir á yngsta stigi grunnskólans [All this is
linked to attitudes: The administration and organisation of children with
special needs in the first year of primary school] [Unpuplished M.Ed.-
thesis]. Reykjavík: University of Iceland. Retrieved 12 April 2012 from
//hdl.handle.net/1946/5884
Barnes, C., Mercer, G., & Shakespeare, T. [1999]. Exploring disability. A
sociological introduction. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Bartolo, P., & Lous, A.M. [2005]. European teachers' concerns and
experiences in responding to diversity in the classroom. ATEE
[Association for Teacher Education in Europe] 30th Annual Conference.
Amsterdam.
Bartolo, et al. [2007]. Responding to students diversity: Teacher’s handbook.
Malta: University of Malta.
Barton, L. [2001]. Disability, struggle and the politics of hope. In L. Barton
[Ed.], Disability, politics & the struggle for change [pp.1–10]. London:
David Fulton Publishers.
Barton, L. [2004]. The Politics of special education: A Necessary or irrelevant
approach. In L. Ware [Ed.], Ideology and the politics of [In] exclusion [pp.
63–75]. New York, Peter Lang Publishing.
Barton, L. [2012]. Response. In M. Arnot [Ed.], The sociology of disability
and inclusive education. A tribute to Len Barton [pp.114–121]. London
and New York: Routledge.
Benjamin, S. [2002]. 'Valuing diversity': a cliché for the 21st century?
International Journal of Inclusive Education, 6[4], 309–323.
83
BERA [British Educational Research Association]. [2004]. Revised ethical
guidelines for educational research. British Educational Research
Association.
Berger, P., & Luckmann, T. [1966]. The social constructionism of reality: A
treatise in the sociology of knowledge. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Bjarnadóttir, I.B. [2011]. Er komið til móts við alla nemendur í skólastarfinu?
Eigindleg rannsókn um hvernig námi og kennslu nemenda með CP er
háttað í almennum bekk í grunnskóla [Are the needs of all children in
the schools met? Qualitative study on the learning and teaching of
students with CP in regular compulsory school classrooms][Unpuplished
M.Ed.-thesis]. Reykjavík: University of Iceland.
Bjarnason D., & Marinósson, G.L. [2007]. Kenningaleg sýn [theoretical
vision]. In G.L., Marinósson [Ed.], Tálmar og tækifæri. Menntun
nemenda með þroskahömlun á Íslandi [Hindrances and opportunities.
The education of pupils with developmental handicaps in Iceland]
[pp.47–58]. Reykjavík: Háskólaútgáfan.
Bjarnason, D. [1991]. Á blöndun og normalisering við um alla? Tilraun til
skýringar á hugtökum [Is integration and normalizering suitable for all?
An effort to explain concepts]. Þroskahjálp, 13[1], 8–15.
Bjarnason, D. [2004]. New Voices From Iceland: Disability and Young
adulthood. New York: Nova Science Publishers Inc.
Bjarnason, D. [2006]. From the toolbox of theory: Which theoretical tools
are useful for understanding inclusive practice in Icelandic schools?
Paper presented at The 8th International Conference on Education,
Research on Education in Athens, Greek, 25–28 May, 2006. Retrieved
from //vefir.hi.is/dsb/?page_id=23
Bjarnason, D. [2007]. Örlagadísirnar spinna en við sláum vefinn [The Fates
spin the thread but we weave the cloth]. In K. Aðalsteinsdóttir [Ed.],
Leitin lifandi: Líf og störf sextán kvenna [A living search: the lives and
work of sixteen women] [pp.201–216]. Reykjavík: Háskólaútgáfan.
Bjarnason, D., & Persson, B. [2007]. Inkludering i de nordiska
utbildningssystemen. In Psykologisk Pædagogisk Raadgivning
Temanummer: Inkludærende Pædagogik i Norden, 44[3], 202–224.
Björnsdóttir, K. [2009]. Resisting the reflection: social participation of young
adults with intellectual disabilities [Unpuplished doctoral dissertation].
Reykjavík: University of Iceland.
84
Björnsdóttir, A., & Jónsdóttir, K. [2010]. Starfshættir í grunnskólum. Fyrstu
niðurstöður úr spurningakönnun meðal starfsmanna [Teaching and
learning in Icelandic primary schools: First results from a staff survey].
Menntakvika: Conference Proceedings. 2010. Menntavísindasvið
Háskóla Íslands. Retrieved from:
//netla.khi.is/menntakvika2010/alm/001.pdf
Björnsdóttir, K. [2003]. Orðræðugreining [Discourse analysis]. In S.
Halldórsdóttir & K. Kristjánsson [Eds.], Handbók í aðferðafræði og
rannsóknum í heilbrigðisvísindum [pp.237–248]. Akureyri: Háskólinn á
Akureyri.
Bogdan , R.C., & Biklen, S.K. [1992]. Qualitative research for education: An
introduction to theory and methods. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Booth, T., & Ainscow, M. [2002]. Index for Inclusion: Developing learning
and participation in schools. Bristol: Centre for Studies on Inclusive
Education.
Bourke, P.E. [2010] Inclusive education reform in Queensland: Implications
for policy and practice. The International Journal of Inclusive Education,
14[2], 183–193.
Bredo, E. [2006]. Philosophies of Educational Research. In J.L. Green, G.
Camilli, P.B. Elmore with A. Skukauskaite, & E. Grace [Eds.], Handbook
of Complementary Methods in Education Research [pp. 3–31].
Washington, D.C.: American Educational Research Association and
Mahwah, New Jersey: LEA.
Brodin, J., & Lindstrand, P. [2007]. Perspectives of a school for all.
International Journal of Inclusive Education, 11[2], 133–145. doi:
10,1080/13603110500375549
Bunch, G., Lupart, J., & Brown, M. [1997]. Resistance and acceptance:
educator attitude to inclusion of students with disabilities. Canada: York
University Toronto [Ontario], Acadia University Wolfville [Nova Scotia],
Calgary University [Alberta].
Capacent Gallup. [March, 2007]. Vinnustaðagreining í Grunnskólum
Reykjavíkur [Workplace analysis in Reykjavík primary schools]. Retrieved
from
//www.reykjavik.is/Portaldata/1/Resources/skjol/svid/menntasvid
/pdf_skjol/utgafur/grunnskolar/kannanirogskimar/vinnustadagreining_
Capacent.pdf
85
Carrington, S. [1999] Inclusion needs a different school culture.
International Journal of Inclusive Education, 3[3], 257–268.
Christensen, C. [1996]. Disabled, handicapped or disordered: 'What's in a
name?' In C. Christensen & F. Rizvi [Eds.], Disability and the dilemmas of
education and justice [pp. 63-78]. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Clark, C., Dyson, A., & Millward, A. [1995]. Towards Inclusive Schools?
London: David Fulton Publishers.
Creswell, J.W. [2007]. Qualitative inquiry & research design. Choosing
among five approaches [2nd ed.]. Thousand Oaks, London, New Delhi:
Sage publications.
Creswell, J.W. [2012]. Educational research. planning, conducting, and
evaluating quantitative and qualitative research [4th ed.]. Boston:
Pearson.
Day, C. 1995. Leadership and professional development: Developing
reflective practice. In H. Busher and R. Saran [Eds], Managing teachers
as professionals in schools [pp. 109–130]. London, Philadelphia: Kogan
Page.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y.S. [2000]. Introduction: The discipline and
practice of qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln [Eds.],
Handbook of qualtitative reserach [pp. 1–28]. London: Sage
Publications.
Dewey, J. [1961]. Democracy and Education. New York: The Macmillan
Company.
Disabled People's International. [2013]. Constitution of Disabled People's
International. Retrieved March 12 from
//www.dpi.org/Constitution
Drever, E. [1995]. Using semi-structured interviews in small-scale research.
A teacher‘s guide. Glasgow: SCRE.
Eggertsdóttir, R., & Marinósson, G.L. [Eds]. [2005]. Pathways to inclusion. A
guide to staff development. Reykjavík: Háskólaútgáfan.
Elhoweris, H., & Alsheikh, N. [2006]. Teachers' Attitude Towards Inclusion.
International Journal of Special Education, 21[1], 115–118.
Eurydice. [2003]. Special Needs Education in Europe. Retrieved September
4, 2006, from //www.eurydice.org.
86
Eurydice. [2006a]. Eurybase. The Information Database on Education
Systems in Europe. The Education System in the Netherlands
[2003/2004]. Retrieved August 28, 2006, from
//www.eurydice.org.
Eurydice. [2006b]. Eurybase.The Information Database on Education
Systems in Europe. The Education System in Iceland
[2004/2005].Retrieved August 23, 2006, from http://www.eurydice.org.
Eurydice. [2008]. National summary sheets on Educational systems in
Europe and ongoing reforms. Iceland. Retrieved, March, 22, 2010 from
//eng.menntamalaraduneyti.is/media/MRN-PDF
Althjodlegt/National_summary_sheet_2008.pdf
Eurydice. [2008/9]. Organisation of the education system in the
Netherlands. Retrieved March, 22 2010 from
//eacea.ec.europa.eu/education/eurydice/documents/eurybase/e
urybase_full_reports/NL_EN.pdf
Eurydice. [2009]. National summary sheets on Educational systems in
Europe and ongoing reforms. The Netherlands. Retrieved, March, 22,
2010 from
//eacea.ec.europa.eu/education/eurydice/documents/eurybase/n
ational_summary_sheets/047_NL_EN.pdf
Evans, J., & Lunt, I. [2002]. Inclusive education: are there limits? European
Journal of Special Needs Education, 17[1], 1–14.
Ferguson, D. L. [2008]. International trends in inclusive education. The
continuing challenge to teach each one and everyone. European Journal
of Special Needs Education, 23[2], 109–120.
Finnbogadóttir, K.E. [2011]. “Kannski sinnum við þeim bara öðruvísi”.
Vinnubrögð tveggja grunnskóla vegna nemenda með hegðunar- og
tilfinningavanda [“Maybe we just treat them differently”. Guidelines
and procedure of two primary schools dealing with students with
behavioural and emotional problems]. [Unpuplished M.Ed.-thesis].
Reykjavík: University of Iceland.
Fjölmiðlavaktin/CreditInfo. [n.d]. Fjölmiðlavaktin [Media watch.]. Retrieved
from //www.creditinfo.is/fjolmidlavaktin/].
Fletcher-Campbell, F., Pijl, S.J., Meijer, J., Dyson, A., & Parrish, T. [2003].
Distribution of funds for special needs education. The International
Journal of Educational Management, 17[5], 220–233.
87
Fræðslumiðstöð Reykjavíkur. [2002]. Stefna fræðsluráð Reykjavíkur um
sérkennslu [The Reykajvík Educational Authority Policy on Special
Education]. Retreived from
//www.reykjavik.is/Portaldata/1/Resources/skjol/svid/menntasvid
/pdf_skjol/stefnur/stefna_um_serkennslu_lokaskjal.pdf
Garðarsdóttir, Ó. [2008]. Félagskerfi skólans [The social structure of the
school]. In L. Guttormsson [Ed.], Almenningsfræðsla á Íslandi 1880-
2007, fyrra bindi. Skólahald í bæ og sveit 1880-1945. [pp. 247-265].
Reykjavík: Háskólaútgáfan.
Gall, M.D., Borg, W.R., & Gall, J.P. [1996]. Educational research: An
introduction [6th ed.]. New York: Longman.
Gartner, A., & Libsky, D.K. [1987]. Beyond Special Education: Towards a
Quality System for All Students. Harward Educational Review, 57[4],
367–395.
Gergen, K.J. [1994]. Realities and Relationships. Soundings in Social
Construction. Cambridge: Mass, Harward University Press.
Goffman, E. [1963]. Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity.
Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall.
Goodley, D. [2011]. Disability studies. An interdisciplinary introduction. Los
Angeles: SAGE.
Gunnbjörnsdóttir, R. [2006]. Að taka þátt í starfi bekkjarins: rannsókn á
hlutverki einstaklingsnámskráa fyrir nemendur með sértækar þarfir
[Participating in classroom activities: Examination of the role of
individual curricula for students with special needs] [Unpuplished
M.Ed.-thesis]. Akureyri: University of Akureyri.
Gunnþórsdóttir, H. [2003]. Aðlögun barna að erlendu námsumhverfi.
Rannsókn á aðlögun tveggja íslenskra barna að hollenskum grunnskóla
[Children's adaptation to a foreign learning environment. A study of the
way two Icelandic children adapted to a Dutch primary school]
[Unpuplished M.Ed.-thesis]. Reykjavík: University of Iceland.
Guttormsson, L. [2008]. Fræðsluhefðin: Kirkjuleg heimafræðsla. [The
Schooling Tradition: Home education by the Church]. In L. Guttormsson
[Ed.], Almenningsfræðsla á Íslandi 1880-2007. Fyrra bindi. Skólahald í
bæ og sveit 1880-1945 [p. 21–35]. Reykjavík: Háskólaútgáfan.
Göransson, K., Nilholm, C., & Magnússon, G. [2012]. Inclusive education in
Sweden – past, present and future issues. In T. Barow & D. Östlund
88
[Eds.], Bildning för alla! En pedagogisk utmaning [pp. 161–174].
Kristianstad: Kristianstad University Press.
Hitchcock, G., & Hughes, D. [1995]. Research and the teacher. A qualitative
introduction to school-based research. [2nd ed.]. London and New York:
Routledge.
Hjörne, E., & Säljö, R. [2004]. "There Is Something About Julia": Symptoms,
categories, and the process of invoking attention deficit hyperactivity
disorder in the Swedish school: A case study. Journal of Language,
Identity, and Education, 3[1], 1–24.
Jóhannesson, I. Á. [2001]. Salamancahugsjónin, einstaklingshyggja og
sjúkdómavæðing: Nemendur sem viðfangsefni greiningar á sérþörfum.
[The Salamanca ideal; individualism and medicalisation: students as the
subject of special needs diagnosis ]. Glæður, 11[2], 13–20.
Jóhannesson, I. Á. [2006]. "Strong, Independent, Able to Learn More ... ":
Inclusion and the construction of school students in Iceland as
diagnosable subjects. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of
Education, 27[1], 103–119.
Jóhannesson, I. Á., Geirsdóttir, G., & Finnbogason, G.E. [2002]. Modern
Educational Sagas: Legitimation of ideas and practices in Icelandic
education. Scandinavian Journal of Educational research, 46[3], 265–
282.
Jóhannesson, I.Á. [2010a]. The politics of historical discourse analysis: a
qualitative research method? Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics
of Education, 31[2], 251–264.
Jóhannesson, I.Á. [2010b]. Historical discourse analysis as professional and
political reflexivity. In J. Kauko, R. Rinne, & H. Kynkäänniemi [Eds.],
Restructuring the truth of schooling—essays on discursive practices in
the sociology and politics of education. A festschrift for Hannu Simola
[pp. 133–149]. Research in Educational Sciences 48. Helsinki: Finnish
Educational Research Association [FERA].
Jónasson, J.T. [2008]. Skóli fyrir alla? [A School for All]. In L. Guttormsson
[Ed.], Almenningsfræðsla á Íslandi 1880-2007, síðara bindi. Skóli fyrir
alla 1946-2007 [pp. 272–291]. Reykjavík: Háskólaútgáfan.
Jónsson, Ó.P. [2011]. Lýðræði, réttlæti og menntun. Hugleiðingar um skilyrði
mennskunnar [Democracy, justice and education. Considering the
conditions of humanness]. Reykjavík: Háskólaútgáfan.
89
Karlsdóttir, J., & Guðjónsdóttir, H. [2010]. Hvernig látum við þúsund blóm
blómstra? Skipulag og framkvæmd stefnu um skóla án aðgreiningar
[How do we make a thousand flowers bloom? The organisation and
implementation of an inclusive school policy]. Menntakvika: Conference
Proceedings. 2010. Retrieved 7 March 2012 from
//netla.khi.is/menntakvika2010/016.pdf
Kozleski, E.B., Artiles, A.J., & Waitoller, F.R. [2011]. Equity in inclusive
education. Historical trajectories and theoretical commitments. In A.J.
Artiles, E.B. Kozleski, & F.R Waitoller [Eds.], Inclusive education.
Examining equity on five continents [pp. 1–14]. Cambridge,
Massachusetts: Harvard Education Press.
Lawson, H., Parker, M., & Sikes, P. [2006]. Seeking stories: reflection on a
narrative approach to researching understandings of inclusion.
European Journal of Special Needs Education, 21[1], 55–68.
Lunt, I. [1999]. Can effective schools be inclusive schools? London: Institute
of Education, University of London.
Lee, A. [1992]. Poststructuralism and educational research: Some categories
and issues. Issues in Educational Research, 2[1],1–12. Retrieved January
26, 2010 from //www.iier.org.au/iier2/lee.html
Leeuwen, B., van, Schram, E., & Cordang, M. [2008]. Samen leren … [maar]
op maat van de leerling [Learning together … [but] meeting the needs
of the pupil]. Enschede: SLO. Retrieved March 23, 2009 from
//www.slo.nl/organisatie/recentepublicaties/00009/
Leeuwen, B., van, Thijs, A., & Zandbergen, M. [2009, 27 January]. Inclusive
education in the Netherlands. Enschede: SLO. Retrieved March 23, 2009
from //www.european-agency.org/agency-projects/assessment-
resource-
guide/documents/2009/01/Inclusive_Education_Netherlands.pdf/view
Libsky, D. K., & Gartner, A. [1996]. Equity requires inclusion: the future for
all students with disabilities. In C. Christensen & F. Rizvi [Eds.], Disability
and the dilemmas of education and justice [pp. 145–155]. Buckingham:
Open University Press.
Link, B.G., & Phelan, J.C. [2001]. Conceptualizing stigma. Annual Review of
Sociology, 27, 363–85.
Lög um grunnskóla nr. 63/1974 [The Compulsory School Act No. 63/1974].
Lög um grunnskóla nr. 66/2005 [The Compulsory School Act No. 66/2005].
90
Lög um grunnskóla nr. 91/2008 [The Compulsory School Act No. 91/2008].
Margeirsdóttir, M. [2001]. Fötlun og samfélag. Um þróun í málefnum
fatlaðra. [Disability and society. About the developments in disability
matters]. Reykjavík: Háskólaútgáfan.
Marinósson, G.L. [2011]. Responding to diversity at school. An ethnographic
study. Saarbrücken, Deutschland: LAP Lambert Academic Publishing.
[Original work published in 2002].
Marinósson, G.L. [Ed.]. [2007]. Tálmar og tækifæri. Menntun nemenda með
þroskahömlun á Íslandi [Hindrances and opportunities. The education of
pupils with developmental handcaps in Iceland]. Reykjavík:
Háskólaútgáfan.
Marinósson, G.L., Ohne, S.E., & Tetler, S. [2007]. Delagtighedens
paedagogik. Psycologisk Pædagogisk Raadgivning. Tema: Includerende
Pedagogik I Norden, 44[3], 236–263.
Meekosha, H., & Jakubowicz, A. [1996]. Disability, participation,
representation and social justice. In C. Christensen & F. Rizvi [Eds.],
Disability and the dilemmas of education and justice [79–95].
Buckingham: Open University Press.
Ministerie van Onderwijs, Culture en Wetenschap. [2007, August 24]. Weer
samen naar school [WSNS]. Retrieved March, 23 2010 from
//www.minocw.nl/wsns/502/Over-Weer-Samen-Naar-School.html
Ministerie van Onderwijs, Culture en Wetenschap [The Dutch Ministry of
Education, Culture and Science]. [2006a]. Speciaal [basis]onderwijs,
rugzakje en weer samen naar school [Special Education, backpack and
"Going to School Together"].Retrieved August 28, 2006, from
//minocw.nl/factsheets/478.
Ministerie van Onderwijs, Culture en Wetenschap [The Dutch Ministry of
Education, Culture and Science]. [2006b]. Algemene Informatie over het
rugzakje [General Information on the Backpack].Retrieved August 28,
2006, from //www.minocw.nl/factsheets/404.
Morthens, A., & Marinósson, G.L. [2002]. Árangursríkt skólastarf og skóli
fyrir alla [Effective schools and inclusive education]. Written for
NordSpes 30.10.2002.
Nes, K. [2004]. Quality versus equality. In L. Ware [Ed.], Ideology and the
Politics of [In] Exclusion [pp. 125–140]. New York: Peter Lang Publishing.
91
Nind, M., Benjamin, S., Sheehy, J.C. & Hall, K. [2005]. Methodological
challenges in researching inclusive school cultures. In K. Sheehy, M.
Nind, J. Rix, & K. Simmons. Ethics and Research in Inclusive Eduation.
Values into practice [pp. 192–204]. London: Routledge Falmer.
Olssen, M., Codd, J., & O´Neill, A.M. [2004]. Education policy. Globalization,
citizenship & democracy. London, Thousands Oaks, New Delhi: Sage
publications.
Passend onderwijs. [2009]. Retrieved 21 February, 2009 from
//www.passendonderwijs.nl/
Peters, M.A., & Wain, K. [2003]. Postmodernism/poststructuralism. In N.
Blake, P. Smeyers, R. Smith, & P. Standish [Eds.], The Blackwell guide to
the philosophy of education [pp. 57–72]. Malden, MA: Blackwell
Publishing.
Pijl, S. J., & Veneman, H. [2005]. Evaluating new criteria and procedures for
funding special needs education in the Netherlands. Educational
Management Administration and Leadership, 33[1], 93–108.
Reglugerð um nemendur með sérþarfir í grunnskóla nr. 585/2010
[Regulation on students with special needs in compulsory school no
585/2010].
Richardson, J.G., & Powell, J.J.W. [2011]. Comparing special education.
Origins to contemporary paradoxes. Stanford, California: Stanford
University Press.
Rizvi, F., & Lingard, B. [1996]. Disability, education and the discourse of
justice. In C. Christensen & F. Rizvi [Eds.], Disability and the Dilemmas of
Education and justice [pp. 9–26]. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Robson, C. [2002]. Real world research. A resource for social scientists and
practitioner-researchers [2nd ed]. Malden, Oxford: Blackwell publising.
Schuman, H. [2007]. Passend Onderwijs – pas op de plaats of stap vooruit?
Tijdschrift voor Orthopedagogiek, 46, 267–280.
Schwandt, T.A. [2000]. Three epistemological stances for qualitative
inquiry. Interpretivism, hermeneutics, and social constructionism. In
N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln [Eds.], Handbook of Qualitative Research [p.
189–213]. Thousand Oaks, London & New Delhi: Sage Publications.
Schwant, T.A. [2007]. The Sage dictionary of qualitative inquiry [3rd ed]. Los
Angeles, London, New Delhi, Singapore: Saga Publications.
92
Shakespeare, T. [2004]. Social models of disability and other life strategies.
Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research, 6, 8–21.
Sigurðardóttir, S. [2009]. Afturgöngur og afskipti af sannleikanum.
Reykjavík: Þjóðminjasafn Íslands.
Sigþórsson, R., & Eggertsdóttir, R. [2008]. Skólaþróun og skólamenning
[School development and school culture]. In L. Guttormsson [Ed.],
Almenningsfræðsla á Íslandi 1880-2007, síðara bindi. Skóli fyrir alla
1946-2007 [pp. 294–311]. Reykjavík: Háskólaútgáfan.
Silverman, D. [2000]. Doing qualitative reserach. A practical handbook.
London: Sage Publications.
Slee, R. [2003]. Teacher education, government and inclusive schooling: The
politics of the Faustian waltz. In J. Allan [Ed.], Inclusion, participation
and democracy: What is the purpose? [pp. 207–44]. Dordrect: Kluwer.
Slee, R. [2011]. The irregular school. Exclusion, schooling and inclusive
education. London and New York: Routledge.
Spies, R. [2007]. "Leren en erbij zijn" Inclusie als mogelijk invulling voor
Passend Onderwijs bij de Agora scholen. Een onderzoek naar cultuur,
beleid en praktijk. [An unpublished MLE research].
Stromstad, M. [2004]. Accounting for ideology and politics in the
development of inclusice practice in Norway. In L. Ware [Ed.], Ideology
and the Politics of [In] Exclusion [pp.146-165]. New York: Peter Lang
Publishing.
Tedlock, B. [2000]. Ethnography and ethnographic representation. In N.K.
Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln [Eds.], Handbook of qualitative research [2nd ed]
[pp. 455–486]. Thousand Oaks, London, New Delhi: Sage Publications.
Tetler, S. [2005]. Tension and dilemmas in the field of inclusive education.
In A. Gustavsson, J. Sandvin, R. Traustadóttir, & J. Tøssebro [Eds.],
Resistance, reflection and change. Nordic disability research [pp. 265–
276]. Lund: Studentlitteratur.
The Ministry of Education, Science and Culture. [2012]. The Icelandic
national curriculum guide for compulsory school: general section.
Reykjavík: The Ministry of Education, Science and Culture. Retrieved
from
//brunnur.stjr.is/mrn/utgafuskra/utgafa.nsf/RSSPage.xsp?docume
ntId=C590D16CBC8439C500257A240030AE7F&action=openDocument
93
The Ministry of Education, Science and Culture. [2013]. Niðurstöður úr PISA
rannsókn fyrir 2012 liggja fyrir [The results for PISA 2012]. Retrieved
December 15, 2013 from
//www.menntamalaraduneyti.is/frettir/forsidugreinar/nr/7826
Tideman, M. [2005]. A relational perspective on disability: an illustration
from the school system. In A. Gustavsson, J. Sandvin, R. Traustadóttir, &
J. Tøssebro [Eds.], Resistance, reflection and change. Nordic disability
research [pp. 219–246]. Lund: Studentlitteratur.
Todd, L. [2007]. Partnership for Inclusive Education. A critical approach to
collaborative working. London and New York: Routledge.
Tomlinson, S. [2005]. Education in a post-welfare society. Berkshire: Open
University Press.
Traustadóttir, R. [2006]. Í nýjum fræðaheimi. Upphaf fötlunarfræða og átök
ólíkra hugmynda [Disability: Ideas and methods in a new field of study].
In R. Traustadóttir [Ed.], Fötlun: Hugmyndir og aðferðir á nýju
fræðasviði [Disability: Ideas and methods in a new field of study] [pp.
13–36]. Reykjavík: University of Iceland Press.
Tøssebro, J. [2004]. Introduction to the special issue: Understanding
disability. Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research, 6[1], 3–7.
UNESCO. [1994]. The Salamanca statement and framework for action on
special needs education. Paris: UNESCO.
UNESCO. [2001]. Education for All: an achievable vision. Retrieved May 5,
2006, from
//www.unesco.org/education/efa/global_co/policy_group/EFA_br
ochure.pdf
UNESCO. [2004]. The right to education for persons with disabilities:
Towards inclusion. Retrieved September 30, from
//unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0013/001378/137873e.pdf
UNESCO. [2007]. Educational equity and public policy: Comparing results
from 16 countires. Montreal: UNESCO.
UENSCO. [2009]. Policy guidelines on inclusion in education. Paris: UNESCO.
UNESCO. [2013]. UNESCO Handbook on education policy analysis and
programming. Bangkok: UNESCO.
94
United Nations. [1948]. The Universal declaration of human rights [UDHR].
United Nations. Retrieved September 29, 2013 from
//www.ohchr.org/EN/UDHR/Pages/Introduction.aspx
United Nations. [1989]. UN Convention on the rights of the child.
Retrieved May 5, 2006, from
//www.unesco.org/education/pdf/CHILD_E.PDF.
United Nations. [1994]. UN Standard rules on the equalization of
opportunities for persons with disabilities. Retrieved May 5, 2006, from
//portal.unesco.org/education/en/ev.php-
URL_ID=20865&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html.
United Nations. [2006]. The Convention on the rights of persons with
disabilies. Retrieved September 30, 2008 from
//www.un.org/disabilities/convention/conventionfull.shtml
Van Hove, G. [2003]. Het recht van alle kinderen. Inclusief onderwijs. Het
perspectief van ouders en kinderen. Leuven: Acco.
Vlachou, A.D. [1997]. Struggles for inclusive education. An ethnographic
study. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Wolfensberger, W. [1980]. A brief overview of the principle of
normalization. In R. J. Flynn & K. E. Nitsch [Eds.], Normalization, social
integration and community services [pp. 7–30]. Baltimore: University
Park Press.
Youdell, D. [2006]. Diversity, inequality, and a post-structural politics for
education. Discourse: Studies in the cultural Politics of Education, 27[1],
33–42.
95
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A – Article I, II and III
APPENDIX B – Question grids used in interviews with teachers and head
teachers
APPENDIX C – Researcher prompts in interviews with teachers and head
teachers
APPENDIX D – Teaching log used by teachers
APPENDIX E – Interviews in Iceland and the Netherlands – an overview
97
APPENDIX A – Article I, II and III
Article I – manuscript in book editor‘s preparation.
Gunnthorsdottir, H. [forthcoming]. The teacher in an inclusive school:
Influences on the ideas of Icelandic and Dutch compulsory school teachers.
In B. Boufoy-Bastick [Ed.], International Cultures of Educational Inclusion
[pp.... ]. Strasbourg: Analytrics.
Article II – Printed as published:
Hermína Gunnþórsdóttir & Ingólfur Ásgeir Jóhannesson. [2013]. Additional
workload or part of the job? Icelandic teachers’ discourse on inclusive
education. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 17[10], 1–21.
doi:10.1080/13603116.2013.802027
Article III – Printed as when submitted for a second review on 24 April 2014
to European Journal of Special Needs Education. Accepted for publication
on 8 May without changes.
Hermína Gunnþórsdóttir & Dóra S. Bjarnason. [2014]. Conflicts in teachers’
professional practices and perspectives about inclusion in Icelandic
compulsory schools
99
THE TEACHER IN AN INCLUSIVE SCHOOL:
INFLUENCES ON THE IDEAS OF ICELANDIC
AND DUTCH COMPULSORY SCHOOL
TEACHERS
Hermina Gunnthorsdottir, lecturer and Ph.D.
student at the University of Iceland, Reykjavík
University of Akureyri
Abstract
The chapter reports findings from a qualitative study conducted in
four regular compulsory schools, two in Iceland and two in the
Netherlands. The aim of the overall study was to address how
teachers construct their ideas on inclusive education and what role
the national education policy may exercise in that respect. The
differences and similarities between the teachers in the two
countries will be highlighted. The findings show that there are
countries which can be explained by differing educational
ideas of inclusive education and the implementation of inclusive
practices are sometimes characterized by contradictions in terms
of their ideas on education in general, on the one hand, and ideas
on inclusive education on the other. This, in turn, means that
school staff find it difficult to distinguish between procedures that
lead to discrimination and exclusion of students, and those that do
not.
Keywords
Inclusive education, Educational policy, Influences on teachers
The research was supported by the Icelandic Research Fund [RANNÍS] and The
University of Akureyri Research Fund.
100
Introduction
During the past twenty years the educational policy
prescribing inclusive education has been widely documented
and debated within the academic field. Basically, the policy
requires that the whole school environment, practices and
structures, how we think about education in general as well
as teacher training, should aim at making education
inclusive [Ainscow, Booth & Dyson, 2006; Allan, 2008; Slee,
2011]. However, research indicates that there has been
considerable failure in the implementation of the policy and
there are doubts in some quarters about its fundamental
elements, such as to what extent the regular compulsory
school can indeed accommodate all children [Allan, 2008;
Benjamin, 2002; Ferguson, 2008; Jónasson, 2008; Slee,
2011; Tetler, 2005].
The purpose of this chapter is to address how
teachers construct their ideas on inclusive education in
terms of their national education policy. For this I have
chosen two countries, Iceland and the Netherlands both of
which I know personally. I was born and raised in Iceland
and lived in both of them with my school-aged children.
Through my examination of this I hope to identify evidence
about
inclusive education.
The main context of this study focuses on Icelandic
and Dutch data, which is used as a tool to look beyond the
familiar. This enables the researcher to ask questions such
as: What is similar? What is different? How can this
information be used to create themes? This approach is
considered to be useful for shedding light on the hidden
characteristics of a local culture, which do not appear except
by focusing on unlike but similar data [Barton & Armstrong,
2000; Robson, 2002].
The chapter is categorized into five sections. First, as
background material, some structural issues characterizing
the educational systems in Iceland and the Netherlands are
addressed and the context of the research will be explored
by a literature review in the field of inclusive education.
Second, the research method will be explained, and in the
101
third section the findings are introduced. Finally, discussion
and conclusion are presented.
1. Background
In this section the aim is to give an insight into the main
characteristics of the Icelandic and Dutch compulsory
educational systems with emphasis on changes towards
inclusive education.
1.1. The Icelandic and Dutch education context
The Icelandic school system consists of four school levels:
pre-school education [children 15 years old], compulsory
[children 615 years old], upper secondary [1620 year
olds], and tertiary education. Compulsory education can be
traced to legislation in 1908, but in 1946 the first
comprehensive legislation about schools was passed.
New educational acts were established for all school levels in
2008. In the Compulsory School Act [Lög um grunnskóla nr.
91/2008] it is stated for the first time that the compulsory
school is an inclusive school [article 17]. The main
characteristic of Icelandic primary schools is that they have,
since the first legislation in 1946, been relatively
homogeneous in terms of ideology and structure. According
to educational laws the primary school is supposed to
emphasize equity, equal opportunities and an appropriate
education for all children, irrespective of their physical,
mental or sensory capacities, their socio-economic, situation,
national/ethnic origin or linguistic competences. Schools are
obliged by law to educate all children in a successful way
and prepare them for participation in a democratic society
[Lög um grunnskóla nr. 91/2008].The Compulsory School
Act from 1974 [Lög um grunnskóla nr. 63/1974 set the tone
for future legislation and policy; compulsory schooling
should be ten years and emphasis should be on equity and
equal opportunities to education. In the 1980s and 90s the
provision of special education within regular schools
increased, among other things due to the Compulsory School
Act from 1974 [Eurydice 2006; Jónasson, 2008; Lög um
102
grunnskóla nr. 63/1974; Ministry of Education, Science, and
Culture 2002].
Until 1996 the compulsory school system was centralized
under the state. An important change occurred in 1996,
when the municipalities took over the management of the
compulsory schools from the state. That transfer has given
the compulsory schools more freedom to develop in different
directions e.g. concerning ideology and pedagogy and has
reduced the homogeneity [Jónasson, 2008; Sigþórsson &
Eggertsdóttir, 2008]. By the turn of this century special
schools for deaf and blind children were closed down but
special-needs departments within some regular schools were
established. There are three segregated special schools in
Iceland; one for children with multiple disabilities and the
others for children with behavioral or psychological
difficulties. These schools, like all other compulsory schools,
are run by the municipalities. Currently [2012], there are no
segregated special schools at pre- and secondary level.
Special teaching is organized by each school, which decides,
together with parents or guardians, how teaching should be
arranged. The total number pupils of compulsory school age
[including those with SEN] was 42,845 and pupils with SEN
in segregated special schools were 143 [0.3%] in the school
year 2008/2009 [European Agency for Development in
Special Needs Education, 2011]. There is no formal unit of
inspection but standardized national tests in Icelandic
compulsory schools in grades 4, 7 and 10 have long been
used as benchmarks for academic performance.
The development both in policy and practice has, in the last
years, been towards ideas on inclusive education, taking into
account the changes in policy documents by the state and
municipalities [Fræðslumiðstöð Reykjavíkur, 2002; Lög um
grunnskóla nr. 91/2008; Mennta- og
menningarmálaráðuneytið, 2011; Skóladeild
Akureyrarbæjar, 2006].
There is, however, evidence which shows that teachers are
not satisfied with the current arrangements in compulsory
schools, and many of them think that they have reached the
limit in handling the diversity of students in Icelandic
103
compulsory schools [Bjarnason & Persson 2007; Marinósson,
2007; Morthens & Marinósson 2003].
The Dutch school system is organized in three levels: early
childhood: [2-4 years old] there is, however, no formal
pre-primary educational provision, but instead various
childcare facilities compulsory education [primary and
secondary] [4/5-18 years old] and tertiary education.
The main characteristic of the Dutch school system is
segregation. There is a long history of special schools for
children with various kinds of disabilities, social and
educational difficulties, as well as a wide range of schools
based on religious or ideological beliefs. Throughout the 20th
century the number of special schools increased as in most
countries in Europe, but since the turn of the millennium, the
Dutch authorities have tried to reduce segregation within the
school system. A turning point in this direction was a new
law on primary schools, passed in 1998 under the policy
emphasizes that it is desirable that children from the same
neighborhood attend the same school [Eurydice, 2008/9;
Eurydice, 2009; Leeuwen, Thijs, & Zandbergen, 2009;
Ministerie van Onderwijs, Culture en Wetenschap, 2006a].
Regular and special schools are, however, still operating
alongside each other with most of the expertise, special
knowledge and service limited to the special schools and
their staff. Because of this there was slow progress in
developing expert services within the regular schools and to
counteract the problem a new law was passed in 2003,
called the backpack [het rugzak]. This law prescribed that
children with special educational needs could apply for a
special budget [personal budget] for the extra support they
need for their education. Their parents could then choose
where the child went with the budget, to a special or regular
school. The basic idea was that the budget should travel with
the child, but is not limited to a certain type of school/place
[Eurydice, 2009; Fletcher-Campell, Pijl, et al., 2003]. The
backpack system was originally meant to minimize
segregation but new research shows that it has actually
worked in the opposite direction and induced increased
segregation and tremendous expansion in psychological and
medical diagnosis of students [Pijl &Veneman, 2005; Spies,
104
2007]. In the school year 2009/2010 the total number of
pupils of compulsory school age [including those with SEN]
was 2,411,194 and pupils with SEN in segregated special
schools were 64,425 [2.7%] [European Agency for
Development in Special Needs Education, 2011].
The newest policy arrangement introduced in 2005
2006 and entitled passend onderwijs [e. appropriate
education] is to be implemented in phases, commencing in
2011. It declares that each child should be found an
appropriate place in the school system [Passend onderwijs,
2009]. School boards will be responsible for finding an
appropriate place for each student at school but that place
does not need to be at the local school [Eurydice, 2007]. A
critique of this approach argues that the idea of passend
onderwijs is not based upon fully inclusive thinking where
eds are central. Moreover, it does not pre-
suppose that the regular schools are the most effective
means for all children [Schuman, 2007].
The Inspectorate of Education is an executive agency, which
falls under the Ministry of Education and monitors the quality
of education in all levels.
As the summary above indicates, these two
educational systems are different in many aspects. This
gives a unique opportunity to identify issues which would be
difficult to identify except because of some comparison
between dissimilar features.
1.2. Background and previous research
The policy on inclusive education appears in such
international declarations as the Salamanca Statement and
Framework for Action on Special Needs Education [UNESCO,
1994] as well as in other United Nations Educational,
Scientific and Cultural Organization [UNESCO] policy
documents on education where there is an emphasis on
improving teacher education, the organization of schools,
education and teaching [see e.g. UNESCO, 2000, 2001,
2004, 2005, 2006]. The policy stems from ideas on equality,
quality education for all students, democracy and social
justice in schools. The ideology of inclusion is based on the
105
vision that an inclusive school is one that is flexible and
adaptable and education is seen as a process [Ainscow,
2005; Ferguson, 2008; Meijer, 2003]. It involves the
inculcation of certain values applicable to all students in
order to combat all forms of barriers to education. This
education policy is widely stated, for example in the UN
Millennium Development Goals, [United Nations, 2011] in
documents by the European Commission on Education and
training [European Commission, 2012] and by numerous
nations and states and international organization [Ainscow,
Booth & Dyson, 2006; Allan, 2008; Allan, Ozga & Smyth,
2009; Rannsóknarstofa um skóla án aðgreiningar, 2008;
United Nations, 2006; WHO, 2011]. Both Iceland and the
Netherlands have signed international agreements on more
inclusive school systems, such as the Salamanca Statement.
The process and changes implemented in the school system
have, however, been different in these countries, as the
summary above shows.
Both in Iceland and the Netherlands, there have been
changes leading to increases in psychological and medical
diagnosis of students. This has led to the growth of the
special education sector as an answer to the education of
those students who, for various reasons do not manage to
follow the educational path intended for the majority of
students [Marinósson, 2002; Schuman, 2007]. Increased
diagnosis and segregated special education arrangements
have a direct link with a medical model on disability, which,
in an educational sense appears to focus too strongly on
procedures in schools which very often are characterized by
following description, offered by Jóhannesson [2001]:
Children are categorized with modern, clinical
methods and then there is a solution or treatment to
remove or minimize as much as possible individual
is to be followed on the premise that everyone should
get an education and upbringing appropriate to his or
her uniqueness [p.13, my transl.].
106
Such procedures promote a dualism in looking at students,
seen as imperfect. In this manner the education of those
the education of
which needs to be treated differently [Christensen, 1996].
These responses indicate failure in the school system and
researchers, scholars and parents have pointed out that the
current system is not working properly; that it is not serving
the children it should be serving [Gabel, 2005; Marinósson,
2007; Rizvi & Lingard, 1996; Tomlinson, 2005].
From the point of view of the social model with its
roots in disability studies, the picture looks different
[Bjarnason, 2010a; Bjarnason & Persson, 2007; Gabel,
2005; Traustadóttir,2006]. Disability is seen to be a social
and situational construct created by the interaction between
the individual and the environment. It is therefore not
realistic to focus
is missing. Rather, the focus should be on the obstacles
created by the environment. Those obstacles can be of many
different kinds and have various origins, e.g. social obstacles
such as negative attitudes and prejudices [Bjarnason, 2004;
Slee, 2011; Traustadóttir, 2003]. The degree of personal
disability depends, therefore, on barriers created by the
society at each time and space [Bjarnason, 2010b;
Traustadóttir, 2006; Tøssebro, 2002, 2004]. This viewpoint
is derived from a constructivist thought known as social
the situation. A constructivist position endeavors to explain
how human beings interpret or construct assumptions, such
as disability, learning difficulties or special education needs,
in a social and historical context. The production and
organization of differences is at the core of this view
[Bjarnason, 2010b; Schwandt, 2007]. In terms of education,
diversity is seen to be the mainstream paradigm, and each
individual is therefore considered to be unique and should be
treated as such. One of the main goals of education in line
with the social model is to overcome barriers to education so
each individual can receive quality education [Allan, 2008;
Ferguson, 2008; UNESCO, 2004, 2005]
107
In the international literature on inclusive education
moving inclusive practices forward [Avramidis, Bayliss &
Burden, 2000; Bartolo & Lous, 2005; Bjarnason, 2005;
Bunch, Lupart & Brown, 1997; Elhoweris & Alsheikh, 2006;
Gartner & Libsky, 1987; Marinósson, 2002; Marinósson,
Ohne & Tetler, 2007; Schauwer, 2011]. Miller & Hodges
[2005], who have done research on the position of blind and
visually impaired students in the British school system,
pointed out that too little attention has been paid to
pedagogy and learning in the context of inclusive education.
Failure at this level can cause insecurity among teachers and
minimize the quality of teaching [Clark, Dyson & Millward,
1995; Ferguson, 2008]. Besides, it has formative effects on
Bayliss & Burden, 2000; Avramidis & Norwich, 2002;
Jóhannesson, 2006; Marinósson, 2002; Todd, 2007] as well
tackle them [Abbot, 2006; Ainscow, 2005; Florian &
Linklater, 2010].
The role of head teachers in promoting inclusive
practices is crucial, as it is they who lead professional
practices in schools [Ryan, 2003]. The external environment
of schools has, however, changed considerably during the
past years and affected the role of primary school head
teachers. Recent research in Iceland found that head
teachers put increasing emphasis on staff-related issues
[Hansen, Jóhannsson & Lárusdóttir, 2008]. Research on
school effectiveness has shown that head teachers, with
their vision and leadership, have much to say about the
extent to which changes in schools become a reality [Fullan,
2007; Ryan, 2003
leadership styles also influence their success in initiating and
sustaining change. A transformational leadership is, for
example, the type of leadership characterized by collective
decision-making, the sharing of power and influence with
staff. Head teachers who adopt this type of leadership are
commitment to reform those educational practices
[Sigurðardóttir, 2006].
108
As mentioned in the introduction chapter, teachers
have doubts about the viability of the policy in practice.
These concernes gives reasons to explore further the
research is therefore to address how teachers construct their
ideas on inclusive education in terms of their
nationaleducation policy. The research questions for the part
of the study presented here were:
How do teachers construct their ideas about the
teacher in the inclusive school?
What is the interplay between the national education
school
2. The Research method and analysis
The theoretical focus of this research is framed within ideas
on social constructionism and poststructuralism, with
emphasis on the relationship between meaning and power
and on understanding how phenomena are socially
constructed in their social and cultural context [Flick, 2004;
Schwandt, 2000]. The research is, therefore, based on a
qualitative approach which includes methods where the aim
is to interpret phenomena in their natural environment
[Denzin & Lincoln, 2000; Robson, 2002; Schwandt, 2007;
Silverman, 2000].
2.1. Participants, environment and access
The research project is based on four regular compulsory
schools in urban areas, two located in Iceland and two in the
Netherlands. The Dutch schools are Christian schools, the
Icelandic schools are public schools but in Iceland the church
comes under the state and the majority of the population
follows the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Iceland. The
participants are eight classroom teachers two from each
school in each country and four head teachers. All the
teachers are female except one Dutch male teacher and the
head teachers were male and female in both countries. The
109
personal pronoun she is used when I refer to teachers and
head teachers in this study. The teachers were all
responsible for teaching 11-12 year old children in the school
year 2006-2007, and at least two students, identified with
special needs and disabilities, according to the criteria in
each country, were in their classrooms. In Iceland, the local
education authorities were contacted and asked to name
schools, which would fit in with the research aim, but in the
Netherlands contacts with the schools were established
during a conference on education in the Netherlands.
2.2. Data collection
Data collection was as follows:
Initial semi structured interviews were taken with teachers
and head teachers [max. one hour]. Teachers then filled out
over five days a standard form, or Teaching Log [a
description of a curriculum task students were asked to do]
regarding two students with special needs or disabilities
[Icelandic teachers in Icelandic and Dutch teachers in
Dutch]. The intention was to gain insight into their teaching
methods and arrangements concerning students with special
needs and disabilities. Then there were post-interview
sessions [around 30 minutes each] where the researcher
and the teachers discussed the teaching log and the former
interview. The aim of interviewing the head teachers was to
regarding inclusive education and how head teachers saw
their own leadership roles in terms of inclusive education.
The interviews took place in February 2007 in Iceland,
and in September 2007 in the Netherlands They were all
recorded and typed ad verbatim. The interviews were
conducted in Icelandic in Iceland and Dutch or English in the
Netherlands and were transcribed by myself except the
Dutch interviews which were conducted by a native Dutch
speaker.
Further, national and local documents were collected in
order to look for continuities or contradictions between
documents, poli
issues.
110
Although the sample is small four schools, eight
classroom teachers and four head teachers it is a good
sample to cast light on the depth of the issue in this
research. Moreover, it gives scope to identify what is specific
among the teachers from each country and how the
knowledge acquired can be used to better understand each
school system as well as other school systems.
2.3. Data analysis
The transcripts and the teaching logs were analyzed in order
ideas and interpretations of inclusive education by coding in
order to develop themes. Moreover, as Silverman [2000]
explains the theoretical orientation through analyzing texts:
ers] are more concerned with the processes
were created through a process of asking questions such as
what is similar and what is different and why? This approach
is considered to be useful for shedding light on the hidden
characteristics of a local culture, which do not appear except
by focusing on unlike but similar data [Barton & Armstrong,
2000; Robson, 2002].
111
3. Findings
The findings reported under following themes are: Towards
the Inclusive School?; previous experience of diversity; the
role of national educational policy, and the role of head
teachers in promoting inclusive education.
3.1. Towards the inclusive school?
Despite the fact that teachers expressed very different
perspectives on education, at least two common threads
were identified from the data. One demonstrating that in
both countries schools have clearly opened their doors to
diverse students, and teachers expressed views
and additional needs. They attempt to find study material,
teaching methods and other support which can best serve
their students. The other common thread comes across as a
contrad
namely, their belief in the existence of the normal student.
According to all the teachers, the normal student can follow
the aims of the National Curriculum without additional
support and is not considered to have to deal with any
problems. This is in direct opposition to their view that the
school should reflect and embrace human diversity.
As indicated earlier, the development towards the
inclusive school has followed different paths in the two
countries. This is evident from the research data. The picture
that teachers give of their daily work, by interviews and a
teaching log, demonstrates at what stage they are in this
process. The Dutch teachers are, for example, not convinced
how appropriate the inclusive school actually is, because
they do not see that necessary pre-conditions for developing
an inclusive school will be implemented in the near future,
such as providing more specialized staff in the classroom
and making the school more flexible. They give as an
example, the way in which the structure of additional
support for students is organized; for example, where
support is arranged by parties outside the school that do not
take into account the circumstances inside the classroom.
One teacher had to deal with four different assistants who
came to assist four students in his classroom at various
times during the week. This was occasioned by four students
112
who had different diagnoses and belonged to four different
departments at the diagnosis center which organized and
delivered the support. This made it extremely difficult for the
teacher to change her plans or do something unexpected as
each of the four assistants had a fixed timetable. Moreover,
it prevented her from thinking of her students as one
integral group:
these four persons who come into my classroom
to have, I like to connect better with the child as well
in a small group you know more about the child in
come at certain day at a certain time and maybe it is
not needed at that time and day and you have to plan
it ahead and if there is something coming up I have to
cancel them and most times they cannot change the
date or day because they have other such schedules
as well so that is quite stressful for teacher as well
and if I could do it all by myself, I could see it better
and I know the child better and yeah it is my group
would like to do the instruction and the class
assistance can do the around or helping out in the
Teacher 3-NL].
This is seen by the Dutch teachers as a barrier to inclusive
practices. The above description is not what the Icelandic
teachers have to deal with as in the Icelandic case the
support is organized by each school with an inside staff. The
Icelandic teachers offered a different view that shows how
the development of the communal responsibility is tied in
with the education policy. The Icelandic teachers were well
aware that the rights of their students with disabilities and
special learning needs were equal to other stude
such as the right to attend regular school in their
neighborhood and be together with their peers. Some of the
Icelandic teachers interviewed argued that external
resources such as special schools were exclusionary and
involved a breach of th
113
with SEN, as it hindered their participation in regular school
and deposited in a special school, that is like putting them in
prison it makes them inactive only on the receiving end
[Initial interview-Teacher 2-IC].
The Dutch teachers did not share this view. Their
ideas reflected an educational organization that is
characterized by separated resources for different student
groups or individuals. They expressed the opinion that
schools providing regular education were not appropriate for
all children, and did not take it for granted that all children
could receive education in their neighborhood school. In the
does not fit with the regular school, then that child should go
-Teacher 4-NL].
3.2. Previous experience with diversity
It is evident from research participants in both countries that
previous experience of any form of diversity results in a
more positive attitude. This theme was the only one which
did not involve some contrasts between the countries.
Teachers in both countries said that they were given little or
no experience of working with students with SENs in their
teacher training. Their experience of people with disability or
SENs was gained outside school and in circumstances that
were not linked to formal education. These grew out of
activities that the teachers took part in during their free
time, in families where there were people with disabilities or
from their upbringing or informal influences from friends and
when someone with a disability visited our house I learned
[Initial interview-Teacher 1-
volunteer in an orphanage in Romania for children with
special needs, were their parents left them because of their
-Teacher 4-NL]. Another form of
experience, which resulted in a positive attitude to diversity,
is the experience teachers gained from teaching students
with diverse needs. This applies to teachers in both
114
countries. They reported on real progress by their students
academically, but they talked more often of social progress.
The Dutch teachers believed that their students would hardly
have benefited to the same extent if they had been in a
special school, because there they would get less
stimulation, and one teacher mentioned that she was afraid
that her student would regress if he had to go to a special
secondary school which he will very likely have to do:
a
are now busy with the secondary school and if he goes
to a classroom with only autistic children, then we are
interview-Teacher 4-NL].
They mentioned that the second year when the student with
special needs was in their classroom was easier for them as
teachers than the first year, and how important it was to get
the chance to work with students for more than one year.
Thereby, they could learn from their experiences and
develop further successful methods. Teachers [both
Icelandic and Dutch] stated honestly that it was somewhat
difficult and challenging to have students with diverse needs
in a regular classroom but they believe that the experience
makes them better teachers for all children. An example
from a Dutch teacher indicates, moreover, a changed
attitude by students who have studied in a diverse
classroom from a young age; what used to be seen as
different or odd became normal by the time:
associate with children with disability. I have also seen that.
I have had children with Down Syndrome in my classroom
and you see that clearly that it becomes more normal for
other children, not like: what is he strange! No, that is more
-Teacher 2-NL].
The Dutch teachers mentioned how the attitudes of
parents of regular education students changed and became
more positive the longer students with special needs or
the teachers, the parents expressed less worries that the
students in need of additional support were obtaining such
115
issue was not raised by the Icelandic teachers.
3.3. The role of national policy
It shows a picture of a different focus on educational issues
and is the only theme that has very different references and
a few clear common aspects. The Dutch teachers mentioned
more often and more decisively than the Icelandic teachers
with special educational needs. Therefore, they said that it
was unreasonable to expect them to be able to teach
students with diverse needs. The Icelandic teachers did not
mention this factor directly although the discourse on the
normal students was identified in their talk. They believed
e
problem was not that the children would have this or that
label but how external factors, for example the planning and
support, was organized.
An example from a Dutch teacher indicates how the
divided system made it easier for the teacher to keep a
certain distance between the normal child and one not
when she first arrived in her classroom because, as she said:
[Initial interview-Teacher 1-NL]. Indeed, that teacher was
-Teacher 1-NL]
Dutch teacher complained about this arrangement and called
for more partnership with special teachers and specialists
and joint responsibility.
w on the
multiple aims of schooling. A boy diagnosed with ADHD had
had the same teacher for two years. The teacher talked with
pride about the progress this student had made, e.g.
learning to follow rules, behaving in a positive manner, and
116
becoming more independent. Generally the Icelandic
teachers talked less about the importance of academic
learning and placed more emphasis on the importance of
practical and social learning. Some of the teachers
expressed the opinion that many of their students would
never be able to reach the standards laid down by the
National Curriculum. They claimed that there was nothing
The Dutch teachers were more concerned with
academic standards, and to show parents objective evidence
in the classroom, the teacher was likely to put all his or her
ser to the
academic learning. They were used to having a broad
heterogeneous group of students in their classrooms and
achievements fell below the benchmark. The Icelandic
teachers do not have to undergo an inspection comparable
to that of their Dutch counterparts.
3.4. The role of the head teacher in promoting inclusive
education
Both the Icelandic and Dutch head teachers talked about
inclusive education as a good thing for the school but with a
substantial difference in emphasis. The Icelandic head
teachers referred more often than the Dutch head teachers
to the official education policy, both nationally and locally, as
the predominant policy and therefore it was simply a matter
of course that students with, for example, intellectual
impairments attended the school.
The Dutch head teachers were personally more
committed to the inclusive policy as such than the Icelandic
head teachers and talked about how important it was to
discuss inclusion with their teaching staff. They saw it as a
fundamental requirement for developing professionalism
117
among teachers. In one of the Dutch schools, a project
group was established where the aim was to promote
discussion among teachers about inclusive education and
values in education. Shortly before the interviews took place,
the Dutch schools [together with the management of other
Dutch schools] organized a conference on inclusive
education for all teachers of the schools. This could be a
reason why the Dutch teachers felt they were generally well
informed about ideas on inclusive education and how these
relate to perspectives on human rights, irrespective of
whether or not they agreed with these concepts in
educational settings. The Dutch head teachers considered
which was confirmed in
these actions as an important tool to help them realize their
own attitudes and expectations, but also mentioned how
complicated and complex these ideas were.
The Icelandic head teachers said that they did not
especially promote ideas on inclusive education among their
teachers. This was also confirmed by the teachers who
argued that issues on inclusive education were hardly
this and never has been; there has been absolutely
-Teacher 3-IC].
One Icelandic teacher was unfamiliar with the basic
principles of inclusive education and another became
acquainted with the term and its implications from a
education.
4. Discussion
The purpose of this chapter was to address how teachers
construct their ideas on inclusive education in terms of their
national situation. The research questions were: How do
inclusive school? And what is the interplay between the
the inclusive school? The findingsthe four themes
introduced above play a crucial role in how teachers
118
construct their ideas. I will now discuss the impacts the
themes have in creating those ideas.
4.1. Towards the inclusive school?
It is evident from this research that ideas based on a
process from exclusion to inclusion can be recognized. The
question mark in the title above indicates that this is a two-
sided process and steps have been taken forward as well as
backward over time [Slee, 2011; Tomlinson, 2005]. It can
be argued that the adjustment relates to language rather
than the system and practices in schools, as is evident in
more changes in the use of words and terms in policy
documents than in practice [Slee, 2011]. A predominant
factor in this process appears to spring from a dualism as to
how we look at students: Teachers talk about the right of
each child to get an education which builds on the chil
abilities and claim that their job is to ensure this will happen.
On the other hand, their teaching styles and attitudes are
under the influence of a traditional view on education,
namely standardized norms and ideas about the normal
student [Tetler, 2005]. This reinforces the view that actual
changes in schools have not taken place and an inclusive
school culture is not rooted within the institution. Research
has shown that if inclusion is to work, teachers need
adequate preparation and information to gain the confidence
that they can deal with the changes inclusion requires
[Meijer,2003; Schauwer, 2011]. This may not be enough,
because if we continue to think about students along the
lines of dualism as normal and not normal the procedures in
schools will still be characterized by exclusionary methods
An inclusive school culture requires changes in
thinking about education in such a way that we can
endeavor to understand why some students are excluded by
the culture of the school. In long-term ethnographic
research of one compulsory school in Iceland the purpose
was to seek answers to how the school responded to the
diverse learning needs of its students and why it responded
as it did [Marinósson, 2002]. One of the findings has to do
with the multiple roles of schools, which then can be
summarized at two main levels, on the one hand there is a
work with individuals and groups, based on values, and, on
119
the other, there is a structure, which places the work and
values of the school into a certain framework
Teachers in both countries mention lack of
collaboration with other teachers and support persons. In
the Netherlands, this could be explained by the work
approach where the special teacher is based outside the
school. In Iceland, lack of collaboration might sound odd
because special teachers and support staff are usually hired
directly by the school and are always based within the
school. Nevertheless Icelandic classroom teachers still claim
that there is insufficient cooperation between them and the
special teacher.
Inclusion has been explained by the concepts
Ferguson, 2008]. By adopting this understanding, change
becomes an important factor in this context. As in the
inclusive practices and it is well known that changes in
schools usually take a long time. Teaching in compulsory
schools has traditionally been organized for a group of
students by one teacher. Although this has gradually
changed there is still a long way to go for collaborative
practices to become inherent and inevitable procedures in
most schools [Todd, 2007].
The changes in both countries are linked with the
policy demands of welcoming allat least mostchildren into
the regular school. In both countries we have learned that it
seems the same thing has happened when the regular
school became obliged by law to open its doors to children
with special educational needs and disability, namely an
expansion in the psychological and medical diagnosis of
students. What is interesting and links this with global
phenomena is that in spite of a substantial difference in
time, structure and policy both countries implemented a
similar approach to inclusive education with considerably
more emphasis on the medical model than upon social
approaches, as the increase in diagnoses indicates. It seems
that we have two examples of a similar failure in challenging
the dominant culture in schools and the main concern has
become how to control the increased number of students
who are considered to be abnormal in unchanged schools.
120
With such work procedures the dualism when looking at
students, discussed earlier, will be strengthened instead of
adopting a multiple and flexible perspective.
4.2. Teachers´ former experiences of diversity
Teachers´ former experiences of diversity appear in various
ways, both personally and professionally. Teachers claim
that having students with disabilities and special needs in
their classrooms requires more of them but, at the same
time, gives them back an experience which they believe will
make them better teachers for all children. This view,
however, is highly personal and incidental as shown in the
findings. Moreover, initial teacher education does not seem
to offer teachers adequate preparation for inclusive
education. This is remarkable regarding Iceland, having in
mind the changes in policy towards inclusive education
explained at the beginning of the chapter. What is evident
from this research is that teachers, both Dutch and
Icelandic, talk as if they lack professional capacity to deal
with requirements attached to inclusive practices, or they
say that the external environment does not support them
enough. My findings suggest that the problem is more their
attitude. What is missing from the picture could be what
Ainscow [2005] has pointed out, i.e. that teachers need to
. New
research and projects focus likewise on the shift from
knowing what kind of knowledge and skills teachers need to
have, to knowing how they can make the best use of what
they already know to meet diverse learners [Florian &
Linklater, 2010]. This shift means that teachers need to
adopt a positive view of difference and they have to be
confident that they can teach all children [Abbott, 2006]. A
education vary from positive to negative and their
experience with different groups of learners is an influencing
factor [Avramidis & Norwich, 2002]. The issue of the
teachers who express a positive view towards students with
special needs or disability in their regular classrooms.
121
4.3. The role of national policy
The role of national policy in formalizing concepts and
teachers´ ideas of inclusive education is evident in both the
Icelandic and Dutch data. The Icelandic teachers express a
multiple understanding regarding the aims of education and
schooling, that coincide with official education policy [Lög
um grunnskóla nr. 91/2008; Menntamálaráðuneytið, 2006;
Mennta- og menningarmálaráðuneytið, 2011].This is
remarkable, because teacher education in Iceland has not
focused systematically on issues regarding inclusive
ight, therefore, be influenced
by phrases in the official education policy. They are, on the
other hand, not satisfied with the mismatch between
different needs and the organization and implementation of
standardized national exams where there seemed to be little
was an attack on their professionalism. This discussion has
been going on in Iceland for many years. The Dutch teachers
seem to look at the standardized tests as an integral part of
their work, although they claim the standardized tests act as
a barrier to becoming more inclusive as their teaching is
increasingly required to meet standards.
The Icelandic teachers did not express as strong an
opinion about the existence of the normal student as the
Dutch teachers did, although the subject is evident in their
talk. As mentioned in the findings, Icelandic teachers are
used to dealing with diversity in their classrooms. They did
not complain about that but they did complain about
lacking additional support to implement inclusive
approaches.
indicates habits and culture which encourage the social and
educational separation of students instead of inclusion. In
this case, there was lack of cooperation between the
classroom teacher and the special teacher who was not
permanent in the classroom. The work of the special teacher
the classroom. Inclusion does not happen in a vacuum; it
122
requires a holistic approach where all aspects of the school
system are under consideration [Clark, Dyson & Millward,
1995; Ferguson, 2008]. Access to school alone is not
adequate and can actually do more harm than good.
4.4. The role of head teachers in promoting inclusive
education.
An interesting difference can be identified between Icelandic
and Dutch head teachers in how they promote ideas on
inclusive education to their teachers. The Dutch ones see
their role more as professional leaders in implementing ideas
and values. As mentioned above, both the Dutch schools are
Christian schools and this could be a reason for the schools
choosing to dedicate themselves to certain values above
others. The Icelandic head teachers claim not to spend much
time discussing values and assume that new teachers realize
by themselves how things are when they start working at
the school. They also refer to the role of a middle manager
who is to be in closer contact with teachers on a daily basis
than themselves. This could be in line with findings in an
Icelandic research project on how changes in the past 5-15
years have affected the role of head teachers in compulsory
schools by the creation of a new profession - middle
managers - in schools. Head teachers claim to spend most of
their time on management and administration, i.e.
components related to school operation, office management,
finance and paperwork [Hansen, Jóhannsson & Lárusdóttir,
might be expected, keeping in mind that Icelandic education
policy is more explicit than the Dutch one on inclusive
education.
Howsoever head teachers carry out their job, their
leadership practices have to involve the vision of inclusive
beliefs and values if inclusion is to happen, because inclusive
practices need to be introduced and monitored [Ryan,
2003]. Coincidence will determine whether teachers are
dedicated to inclusive education if the Icelandic example is
going to dominate; that is, if the head teacher is passive and
123
Leadership is considered to be the key to successful
inclusion. Moreover, the most important support comes
through dialogue on a whole-school basis promoted by head
teachers [Ryan, 2003]. If their leadership styles do not
include evidence of transformational leadership [Fullan,
2007; Sergiovanni, 2006; Sigurðardóttir, 2006], such as
influencing staff, teachers cannot not be expected to adopt
inclusive views.
5. Conclusion
In this chapter I have discussed the differences and
similarities between teachers in two countries in order to
gain more knowledge as to how national policy and local
situation shape their ideas in relation to inclusive education.
In order to do this, it was necessary to analyze certain
aspects of the education system and policy in both countries.
My main drive in comparing has been to learn from the
comparison to gain a clearer picture of the situation in each
country, which then provides the opportunity to explore
further what could be considered as strong or weak factors
within both systems. By identifying what is country-specific,
it becomes possible to define the potential and limitations of
each system. Having gone through this process it is possible
to set the scene in an international context and consider
what one country could learn or adopt from another.
I should like to highlight interesting findings, which
have to do with the relationship between official policy,
teacher education and the head
education policy is in favor of inclusive education, but the
head teachers do not see it as their function to promote
inclusion to their teachers. The Dutch finding presents an
opposite example. In both countries emphasis on inclusion
has not been in the foreground in teacher education;
however, Icelandic teachers express a multiple and diverse
view on school education, which is in harmony with the
official policy. The Dutch head teachers´ emphasis on
inclusive issues enabled the Dutch teachers to reflect upon
inclusive education in relation to their teaching and
perspectives.
124
The concerns raised at the beginning of this chapter
about failing to implement the policy and doubts about its
fundamental elements, such as to what extent the regular
compulsory school can accommodate all children, echo in the
findings of this research. What we have learned from the
research and might be of use for policy makers and
practitioners can be summarized in three issues:
Firstly, countries have to reflect on their own system in
terms of exclusion/inclusion. Does intentional exclusion exist
and if so, what are the assumptions for doing so? Exclusion
can be hidden and therefore difficult to detect. In both
cases, a critical analysis is needed to explore ideas and
practices in schools.
Secondly, countries have to review and rebuild teacher
education with issues on inclusion as an inherent part of
their study programs. If teachers are to gain a positive
attitude towards inclusion and a willingness to explore these
ideas, training in inclusive education has to be integrated
into initial teacher education in more systematic way. This
research shows that initial teacher education needs to be
better adapted to what happens in schools. Issues around
diversity and inclusion should not be taught apart from other
subjects, but should instead be an integral part of the whole
curriculum. Only by so doing will teachers and students learn
to understand and value diversity as a norm.
Thirdly, to make better use of t
minimize uncertainty and insecurity, teachers have to have
the chance to cooperate with other teachers and
professionals as well as parents. A joint responsibility will
also enable them to deal with divergent groups of students.
125
References
Abbott, L. [2006]. Northern Ireland head teachers´
perceptions of inclusion. International Journal of
Inclusive Education, 10[6], 627643.
Ainscow, M. [2005]. Developing inclusive education systems:
what are the levers for change? Journal of Educational
Change, 6, 109124.
Ainscow, M., Booth, T. & Dyson, A. [2006]. Improving
schools, developing inclusion. London and New York:
Routledge.
Allan, J. [2008]. Rethinking inclusive education. The
philosophers of difference in practice. Dordrecht:
Springer.
Allan, J., Ozga, J. & Smyth, G. [Eds.]. [2009]. Social
capital, professionalism and diversity. Studies in
Inclusive Education, 5, Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Avramidis, E., Bayliss, P. & Burden, R [2000]. A Survey into
mainstream teachers´attitudes towards the inclusion
of children with special educational needs in the
ordinary school in one local education authority.
Educational Psychology, 20[2], 191211.
Avramidis, E.& Norwich, B.[2002]. Teachers´ attitude
towards integration/inclusion: a review of the
literature. European Journal of Special Needs
Education, 17[2], 129147.
Bartolo, P. & A. M. Lous. [2005]. European teachers'
concerns and experiences in responding to diversity in
the classroom. ATEE [Association for Teacher
Education in Europe] 30th Annual Conference.
Amsterdam.
Barton, L. & Armstrong, F. [2001]. Disability, education, and
inclusion. Cross-cultural issues and dilemmas. In K. D.
Seelmann, G. L. Albrecht & M. Bury, Handbook of
disability studies.693710. London: Sage Publications.
126
Bjarnason, D. [2005]. Disability studies and their importance
for special education professionals. Nordisk Pedagogik,
4, 339356.
Bjarnason, D. [2004]. New voices from Iceland: Disability
and young adulthood. New York: Nova Science
Publishers Inc.
Bjarnason, D., Persson, B. et.al. [2007]. Inkludering i de
nordiska utbildningssystemen. In Psykologisk
Pædagogisk Raadgivning Temanummer:
Inkludærende pædagogik i Norden, 44[3], 202224.
Bjarnason, D. [2010a]. Gjennom laborinten: Hva er [spesial]
pedagogikk i et inkluderende miljö? In S.M. Reindal &
R.S. Hausstaätter [Eds.], Spesialpedagogikk og etikk.
Kollektivt ansvar og individuelle rettigheder [pp. 72
86], Oslo: Höyskoleforlaget.
Bjarnason, D. [2010b]. Social policy and social capital.
Parents and exceptionality 1974-2007. New York:
Nova Science Publishers.
Benjamin, S. [2002]. 'Valuing diversity': a cliché for the 21st
century? International Journal of Inclusive Education,
6[4], 309323.
Bunch, G., Lupart, J. & Brown,M. [1997]. Resistance and
acceptance: Educator attitude to inclusion of students
with disabilities. York University Toronto [Ontario],
Acadia University Wolfville [Nova Scotia], Calgary
University [Alberta]: Faculty of Education.
Clark, C., Dyson, A. & Millward, A. [Eds.]. [1995]. Towards
inclusive schools? London: David Fulton Publishers.
Christensen, C. [1996]. Disabled, handicapped or
disordered: 'What's in a name?' In C. Christensen & F.
Rizvi Disability and the dilemmas of education and
justice [pp.6378]. Buckingham: Open University
Press.
Denzin, N. K. & Lincoln, Y.S. [2000]. Introduction: The
discipline and practice of qualitative research. In N. K.
Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln [Eds.] Handbook of qualtitative
reserach [pp. 128]. London: Sage Publications.
127
Elhoweris, H. & Alsheikh, N. [2006]. Teachers' attitude
towards inclusion. International Journal of Special
Education, 21[1], 112.
European Agency for Development in Special Needs
Education. [2011]. Special needs education, country
data 2010. Odense and Brussels: Author. Retrieved
from //www.european-
agency.org/publications/ereports/special-needs-
education-country-data-2010/special-needs-
education-country-data-2010
European Commision.[2012]. Education and training.
Retrieved from
//ec.europa.eu/education/index_en.htm
Eurydice. [2006]. Eurybase. The Information database on
education systems in europe. The education system in
the Netherlands [2003/2004]. Retrieved from
//www.eurydice.org.
Eurydice. [2007]. The education system in the Netherlands
2007. Retrieved from
//www.minocw.nl/documenten/en_2006_2007.pd
f.
Eurydice. [2008/9].Organisation of the education system in
the Netherlands. Retrieved from
//eacea.ec.europa.eu/education/eurydice/docum
ents/eurybase/eurybase_full_reports/NL_EN.pdf
Eurydice. [2009]. National summary sheets on educational
systems in Europe and ongoing reforms.The
Netherlands.Retrieved from
//eacea.ec.europa.eu/education/eurydice/docum
ents/eurybase/national_summary_sheets/047_NL_EN.
Ferguson, D. L. [2008]. International trends in inclusive
education. The continuing challenge to teach each one
and everyone. European Journal of Special Needs
Education, 23[2], 109120.
Fletcher-Campell, F., Pijl, S.J. et al. [2003]. Distribution of
funds for special needs education. The International
Journal of Educational Management, 17[5], 220233.
128
Flick, U. [2004]. Constructivism. In U, Flick, von E. Kardorff
& I. Steinke. [Eds.] A companion to qualitative
research [p.8894] [Translated by Jenner B.] London,
Thousand Oaks and New Delhi: Sage Publications.
Florian, L. &Linklater, H. [2010]. Preparing teachers for
inclusive education: using inclusive pedagogy to
enhance teaching and learning for all. Cambridge
Journal of Education, 40[4], 369386.
//dx.doi.org/10.1080/0305764X.2010.526588
Fræðslumiðstöð Reykjavíkur[Reykjavík Education
Center].[2002]. Stefna fræðsluráðs Reykjavíkur um
sérkennslu[The policy of Reykjavík Education Council
on special needs teaching]. Retrieved from
//www.reykjavik.is/Portaldata/1/Resources/skjol/
svid/menntasvid/pdf_skjol/stefnur/stefna_um_serken
nslu_lokaskjal.pdf
Fullan, M. [2007]. The new meaning of educational change.
New York: Teachers College Press.
Gabel, S.L. [2005]. [Eds]. Disability studies in
education:readings in theory and method. New
York: Peter Lang Publishing.
Gartner, A. & Libsky, D. K. [1987]. Beyond special
education: Towards a quality system for all students.
Harvard Educational Review, 57[4], 367395.
Hansen, B., Jóhannsson, Ó.H. & Lárusdóttir, S.H. [2008].
Breytingar á hlutverki skólastjóra í grunnskólum.
Kröfur, mótsagnir og togstreita[The changed role of
head teachers in primary schools: demands,
paradoxes and conflict].Uppeldi og menntun, 17[2],
87104.
Jóhannesson, I. Á. [2001]. Salamancahugsjónin,
einstaklingshyggja og sjúkdómavæðing: Nemendur
sem viðfangsefni greiningar á sérþörfum. [The
Salamanca ideal; individualism and medicalisation:
Students as the subjects of special needs analysis ].
Glæður, 11[2], 1320.
A Tougher
Their
129
European Educational Research Journal, 5[2],
140151.
Jónasson, J.T. [2008]. Skóli fyrir alla?[Schools for
everyone?].In L. Guðmundsson
[Ed.].Almenningsfræðsla á Íslandi 1880-2007, síðara
bindi. Skóli fyrir alla 1946-2007[Public education in
Iceland 1880-2007, volume 2. School for everyone
1946-2007][pp. 272291]. Reykjavík:
Háskólaútgáfan.
Leeuwen, B., van, Thijs, A. & Zandbergen, M. [2009, 27
January]. Inclusive education in the Netherlands.
Enschede: SLO. Retrieved from http://www.european-
agency.org/agency-projects/assessment-resource-
guide/documents/2009/01/Inclusive_Education_Nethe
rlands.pdf/view
Lög um grunnskóla nr. 63/1974. [The Compulsory School
Act No. 63/1974].
Lög um grunnskóla nr. 91/2008. [The Compulsory School
ActNo. 91/2008].
Marinósson, G. L. [2002]. The response to pupil diversity by
a compulsary mainstream school in Iceland.
Unpublished PhD.-thesis: University of London.
Marinósson, G. L. [Ed.]. [2007]. Tálmar og tækifæri.
Menntun nemenda með þroskahömlun á Íslandi
[Obstacles and opportunities]. Reykjavík:
Háskólaútgáfan.
Delagtighedens paedagogik.
Psycologisk Pædagogisk Raadgivning. Tema: Includerende
Pedagogik I Norden, 44[3], 236263.
Meijer, C. J. W. [2003]. Inclusive education and classroom
practices. Summary report. Middelfart: European
Agency for Development in Special Needs Education.
Menntamálaráðuneytið.[Ministry of Education, Science and
Culture]. [2006]. Aðalnámskrá grunnskóla, almennur
hluti [National Curriculum of Primary Education,
general section]. Reykjavík: Author. Retrieved from
130
//www.menntamalaraduneyti.is/
utgefidefni/namskrar//nr/3953
Mennta- og menningarmálaráðuneytið [Ministry of
Education, Science and Culture]. [2011]. Aðalnámskrá
grunnskóla, almennur hluti[National Curriculum of
Primary Education, general section]. Reykjavík:
Author.
Miller, O. & Hodges, L. [2005].Deafblindness.In A. Lewis &
B. Norwich [Eds.].Special teaching for special
children? [pp.4152]. Berkshire: Open University
Press.
Ministerie van Onderwijs [Ministry of Education, Science and
Culture]. [2006]. The Dutch Ministry of Education,
Culture and Science. General information on
education. Retrieved from
//www.minocw.nl/onderwijs/
Ministerie van Onderwijs, C. e. W[Ministry of Education,
Science and Culture]. [2006a]. Speciaal
[basis]onderwijs, rugzakje en weer samen naar school
[Special Education, backpack and "Going to School
Together"]. Retrieved from
//minocw.nl/factsheets/478.
Ministry of Education,Science and Culture. [2002]. The
educational system in Iceland. Reykjavik: Author.
Morthens, A. & Marinósson, G.L. [2003].Effective schools
and inclusive education.NordSpes Retreived from
//www.nordspes.org/
Passend onderwijs. [2009]. Retrieved from
//www.passendonderwijs.nl/
Pijl, S. J. & H. Veneman [2005]. Evaluating new criteria and
procedures for funding special needs education in the
Netherlands. Educational Management Administration
and Leadership, 33[1], 93108.
Rannsóknarstofa um skóla án aðgreiningar[The Icelandic
research center on school inclusion]. [2008].
Retrieved from
//vefir.hi.is/skolianadgreiningar/?page_id=11
131
Rizvi, F. & Lingard, B. [1996].Disability, education and the
discourses of justice.In C. Christensen & F. Rizvi
[Eds], Disability and the dilemmas of education and
justice [pp. 926]. Buchingham: Open University
Press.
Robson, C. [2002]. Real world research.A resource for social
scientists and practioner-researchers.London:
Blackwell Publishing.
Ryan, J. [2004]. Inclusive leadership: A review. Paper
prepared for the annual conference of the canadian
society for the study of education. Winnipeg.
Retrieved form
//webspace.oise.utoronto.ca/~ryanjim/#
Schauwer, D. E. [2011]. Participation of children with severe
communicative difficulties in inclusive education and
society. A Ph.D. Thesis. Gent: Universiteit Gent.
Schuman, H. [2007]. Passend Onderwijs pas op de plaats
of stap vooruit? Tijdschrift voor
orthopedagogiek, 46, 267280.
Schwandt, T.A. [2000] Three epsitemological stances for
qualitative enquiry; Interpretivism, hermeneutics and
social constructionism. In N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln
[Eds.] Handbook of qualitative research [2nd ed.] pp.
189213. London: Sage.
Schwandt, T.A. [2007]. The Sage dictionary of qualitative
inquirey [3rded.]. Los Angeles, London, New Delhi &
Singapore: Sage publications.
Sergiovanni, T.J. [2006]. The principalship. A reflective
practice perspecitve [5th ed.]. Boston: Allyn & Bacon
Sigþórsson, R. & Eggertsdóttir, R. [2008]. Skólaþróun og
skólamenning [School development and school
culture]. In L. Guðmundsson [Ed.].Almenningsfræðsla
á Íslandi 1880-2007, síðara bindi. Skóli fyrir alla
1946-2007 [Public education in Iceland 1880-2007,
second volume. School for everyone 1946-2007]. [pp.
294311]. Reykjavík: Háskólaútgáfan.
Sigurðardóttir, A.K. [2006]. Studying and enhancing the
professional learning community for school
132
effectiveness in Iceland. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis.
The University of Exceter: UK.
Silverman, D. [2000]. Doing qualitative reserach. A practical
handbook. London: Sage Publications.
Skóladeild Akureyrarbæjar [Akureyri Education Department].
[2006]. Skólastefna Akureyrarbæjar [Akureyri
municipal school policy]. Retrieved from
//skoladeild.akureyri.is/static/files/baeklingar/sko
lastefna_Ak_vef_utagafa_2006.pdf
Slee, R. [2011]. The irregular school.Exclusion, schooling
and inclusive education. Oxon: Routhledge.
Spies, R. [2007]. "Leren en erbij zijn" Inclusie als mogelijk
invulling voor passend onderwijs bij de Agora scholen.
Een onderzoek naar cultuur, beleid en praktijk. An
unpublished MLE research.
Tetler, S. [2005].Tensions and dilemmas in the field of
inclusive education.In A. Gustavsson, J. Sandvin, R.
Traustadóttir & J. Tøssebro. Resistance, Reflection and
Change.Nordic Disability Research [265276]. Lund:
Studentlitteratur.
Todd, L. [2007]. Partnerships for inclusive education. A
critical approach to collaborative working. London and
New York: Routledge
Tomlinson, S. [2005]. Education in a post-welfare society.
Berkshire: Open University Press.
Traustadóttir, R. [2003]. Fötlunarfræði: Sjónarhorn, áherslur
og aðferðir á nýju fræðasviði [Study of disabilities:
Perspectives, points of emphasis and methods within
a new field of education]. In R. Traustadóttir [Ed.],
Fötlunarfræði: Nýjar íslenskar rannsóknir [Study of
disabilities: New Icelandic research] [pp. 1751].
Reykjavík: Háskólaútgáfan.
Traustadóttir, R. [2006]. Í nýjum fræðaheimi: Upphaf
fötlunarfræða og átök ólíkra hugmynda [Origin of the
study of disabilities and conflict between opposing
ideas]. In R. Traustadóttir [Ed.], Fötlun: Hugmyndir
og aðferðir á nýju fræðasviði [Disability: Ideas and
133
methods in a new field of study] [pp. 1336].
Reykjavík: Háskólaútgáfan.
Tøssebro, J. [2002]. A brief introduction
2224.
Tøssebro, J. [2004]. Understanding disability: Introduction
to the special issues of SJDR.Scandinavian Journal of
Disability Research, Special Issue: Understanding
Disability, 6[1], 37.
United Nations. [2006]. Convention on the rights of the
persons with disabilities. New York: United Nations.
Retrieved from
//www.un.org/disabilities/convention/conventionf
ull.shtml#top
United Nations.[2011]. Millenium development goals report
2011. New York: United Nations. Retrieved from
//www.un.org/millenniumgoals/reports.shtml
UNESCO. [2000]. The dakar framework for action. Education
for all: Meeting our collective commitments.Retrieved
from
//unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0012/001211/121
147e.pdf.
UNESCO. [1994]. The Salamanca statement and framework
for action on special needs education. Paris: UNESCO.
UNESCO. [2001]. Education for all: an achievable vision.
Retrieved from
//www.unesco.org/education/efa/global_co/polic
y_group/EFA_brochure.pdf
UNESCO. [2004]. The right to education for persons with
disabilities: Towards inclusion. Retrieved from
//unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0013/001378/137
873e.pdf
UNESCO. [2005]. Guidlines to inclsuion: Ensuring access to
education for all. Retrieved from
134
//unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0014/001402/140
224e.pdf
UNESCO. [2006]. The Convention on the rights of persons
with disabilies. Retrieved from
//www.un.org/disabilities/convention/conventionf
ull.shtml
WHO [World Health Organization]. [2011]. World report on
disability 2011.Malta: World health organization.
Retrieved from
//www.who.int/disabilities/world_report/2011/re
port.pdf
This article was downloaded by: [University Of Akureyri], [Hermina Gunnthorsdottir]
On: 03 June 2013, At: 06:13
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:
//www.tandfonline.com/loi/tied20
Additional workload or a part of the
job? Icelandic teachers' discourse on
inclusive education
Hermína Gunnþórsdóttir a & Ingólfur Ásgeir Jóhannesson a b
a Faculty of Education , University of Akureyri , Sólborg,
Norðurslóð, IS-602 , Akureyri , Iceland
b School of Education , University of Iceland , Stakkahlíð, IS-105 ,
Reykjavík , Iceland
Published online: 03 Jun 2013.
To cite this article: Hermína Gunnþórsdóttir & Ingólfur Ásgeir Jóhannesson [2013]: Additional
workload or a part of the job? Icelandic teachers' discourse on inclusive education, International
Journal of Inclusive Education, DOI:10.1080/13603116.2013.802027
To link to this article: //dx.doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2013.802027
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Full terms and conditions of use: //www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-
conditions
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.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation
that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any
instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary
sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,
demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or
indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
135
Additional workload or a part of the job? Icelandic teachers’
discourse on inclusive education
Hermı´na Gunnþo´rsdo´ttir
a
∗and Ingo´ lfur A
´sgeir Jo´ hannesson
a,b
a
Faculty of Education, University of Akureyri, So
´lborg, Norðurslo
´ð, IS-602 Akureyri,
Iceland;
b
School of Education, University of Iceland, Stakkahlı
´ð, IS-105 Reykjavı
´k, Iceland
[Received 7 November 2012; final version received 26 March 2013]
The aim of this article is to examine the discourse of Icelandic compulsory school
teachers on inclusive education. From 1974 and onwards, the education policy in
Iceland has been towards inclusion, and Iceland is considered to be an example
of a highly inclusive education system with few segregated resources for
students with special educational needs. In particular, the article focuses on what
characterises and legitimises teachers’ discourse on inclusive education, the
contradictions in the discourse and how teachers have involved themselves in
the process. We use the approach of historical discourse analysis to analyse the
discourse as it appears in interviews with teachers and media articles on
education as well as in key documents issued by the Parliament. The article
provides an insight into the complexities of this topic and draws attention to
underlying issues relevant to inclusive education.
Keywords: inclusive education; discourse; teachers’ discourse; historical discourse
analysis; educational policy and practice
Introduction
Inclusive education is an issue which has attracted relatively strong attention during the
past 20 years, both regarding policy and practice, especially after the release of the
United Nations’ so-called Salamanca Statement [UNESCO 1994]. While the premise
of inclusive education relates to human rights, this issue is, nevertheless, also a
matter of controversy among researchers and teachers alike [Allan 2008; Jo´ hannesson
2006b; Slee 2011]. It seems to us, however, that the actual debates on the vision of
inclusive education have mainly taken place within the academic field [Ainscow
et al. 2006; Allan 2008; Benjamin 2002; Slee 2011; Tetler 2005]. Iceland is no excep-
tion to this [see, e.g. Bjarnason 2010; Bjarnason and Persson 2007; Jo´hannesson 2006a;
Jo´ hannesson, Geirsdo´ ttir, and Finnbogason 2002; Marino´ sson 2011]. This article
examines the discourse of Icelandic compulsory school teachers on inclusive education
in Iceland.
Background
While comparable to most Western educational systems, the Icelandic system is a small
unit, with a total of 42,539 students at the compulsory school level, which in Iceland
#2013 Taylor & Francis
∗Corresponding author. Email:
International Journal of Inclusive Education, 2013
//dx.doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2013.802027
Downloaded by [University Of Akureyri], [Hermina Gunnthorsdottir] at 06:13 03 June 2013
covers the ages from 6 to 16 years [Hagstofa I
´slands 2012a]. The total population of
Iceland was 321.857 at the beginning of year 2013 [Hagstofa I
´slands 2013]. Iceland
is an interesting case in terms of inclusion policy. The development in Iceland from
1974, when new compulsory school legislation was passed about the school level as
a comprehensive school from the age of 7– 16, with the Salamanca Statement
[UNESCO 1994], published in Icelandic in 1995, as a milestone, until now has been
towards inclusion.
In international comparison, Iceland can be considered as an example of a highly
inclusive education system with a very low percentage of segregated resources for stu-
dents with special educational needs. Indeed, in autumn 2011, there were only three
special schools at the compulsory level with 138 students [approximately 0.3%]
[Hagstofa I
´slands 2012b]. This information in its raw form does not, however, demon-
strate that the Icelandic system is inclusive. For example, special units are attached to
many compulsory schools, mainly in Reykjavı´k and the larger municipalities. In total,
in autumn 2011, 476 compulsory school students [approximately 1.1%] in the country
were placed in special units. Examples of special units include, for example, five in
Reykjavı´k, four for autistic children and one specialising in language and speech
therapy and sign language [Reykjavı´kurborg 2012]. In the town, where data for this
research were collected, there are three special units, one for autistic children, one
for children with severe developmental impairments and one for children with
hearing impairments [source not revealed for anonymity purposes]. In general,
regular classrooms support children with various disabilities, developmental as well
as physical, and many types of learning problems, such as reading difficulties or
attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder.
Although some of the policy stipulations in Iceland have been quite clear regarding
emphasis on inclusive issues, we maintain that no structured, official attempt has been
made to implement the official policy, based on the inclusive ideology, into the class-
rooms. Successful examples, even the work of visionaries, are however, well known in
some parts of the country [see, e.g. Eggertsdo´ ttir and Marino´sson 2005; Norðlingasko´li
2009]. Importantly, through this process, the term inclusive education – in Icelandic,
sko
´li a
´n aðgreiningar, literally school without segregation – has, therefore, come to
signify different things and it is uncertain what teachers think and feel about inclusive
education; indeed there are indications suggesting mixed opinions [Capacent Gallup
2007; Karlsdo´ttir and Guðjo´ nsdo´ttir 2010; Marino´ sson 2011].
There has not been much research in Iceland focusing on inclusive education.
However, available evidence, mainly in Master’s theses, indicates lack of well
defined procedures aimed at inclusive education [K. Axelsdo´ttir 2012; R. Axelsdo´ttir
2010; A
´rnado´ttir 2010; Bjarnado´ ttir 2011; Finnbogado´ ttir 2011; Gunnbjo¨rnsdo´ ttir
2006]. Research relating to students with developmental disabilities also indicates
that the implementation of inclusive teaching depends to a large extent on teachers’
confidence rather than school-wide decisions. It has been suggested that the main
reasons here are the conservatism of the schools, the traditional paradigm of the
‘normal’ and the tendency to treat all variations as a problem needing to be fixed
[Marino´sson 2007, 85]. This view of seeing students as needing specific ‘treatment’
was also noted by Jo´ hannesson [2006b] who analysed policy documents on inclusion
and special needs education. Recent comprehensive research on teaching and learning
in Icelandic compulsory schools has shown evidence of teachers’ concerns that class-
room organisation does not suit students with a foreign background and behaviour dif-
ficulties. The initial published results of this study indicate that the ideology of the
2H. Gunnþo
´rsdo
´ttir and I.A
´.Jo
´hannesson
Downloaded by [University Of Akureyri], [Hermina Gunnthorsdottir] at 06:13 03 June 2013
137
inclusive school is not well-established in the minds of most teachers. Further, 83% of
participants in the research [825 teachers, including special education needs [SENs] tea-
chers, head teachers and other staff of 20 schools] agree that teachers do not have the
preparation needed to support and care for all children [Bjo¨rnsdo´ ttir and Jo´nsdo´ ttir
2010].
In the international literature, there is likewise a growing concern about the com-
plexity around inclusive education and how the discussion has been lacking a shared
epistemological base [Armstrong, Armstrong, and Spandagou 2011; Booth 2005;
Dunne 2009; Kozleski, Artiles, and Waitoller 2011; Slee 2001]. Lloyd [2008] com-
ments on the failure in the UK policy to recognise the complex and controversial
nature of inclusion, stating that there have been no attempts to address the ‘exclusive-
ness of the curriculum, assessment procedures, and practices of mainstream provision
and that the strategy is founded on notions of normalization, compensation and deficit
approaches to SEN’ [221]. Dunne [2009, 43] has pointed out that the policy on inclus-
ive education as it appears in the UK is both ‘nebulous and vague’ causing needless
complexity for those attached to the field when attempting to build a shared understand-
ing and focus. Riddell and Weedon [2010] who have analysed the negotiations between
different actors on the formation of the SEN legislation framework in Scotland have
reported a similar tendency; that is, how the tension between competing policies and
various social actors results in legislation that reflects an attempt to balance the prefer-
ences of different interest groups. This perspective supports the idea ‘that inclusion pol-
icies are not intrinsic elements of the wider educational political economy’ [Vlachou
2004, 7–8] and one of the main difficulties associated with inclusive education is
that other education polices impinge on the development of inclusive schools.
Vlachou [2004] comes to the conclusion that ‘inclusion policies have been considered
as additional “extra” polices that have to fit in the already existing educational polices’
[8]. In her analysis of the UK education policy for inclusion since 1997, Lloyd [2008]
concludes that the policy has done little to increase genuine access to the mainstream
for students with SEN and it may have increased exclusionary practices therein.
Research questions
We are interested in exploring whether teachers’ discourse in Iceland might give some
insights into the concerns raised. We use interviews with compulsory school teachers
and media articles written by them. Furthermore, we investigate how the teachers’ dis-
course relates to the policy as expressed in official documents. We seek to answer the
following three questions.
What characterises and legitimises teachers’ discourse on inclusive education?
What are the contradictions in teachers’ discourse on inclusive education as well as
those occurring in official dialogue?
How have teachers involved themselves in the discourse?
Method
The research perspective of this article is historical discourse analysis. This kind of
analysis aims at shedding light on how things have evolved in a historical and political
context, which has been created out of the conjuncture of various discourses in edu-
cation and the way the participants have involved themselves in the discourse. We
endeavour to understand how phenomena are created in the discourse, what becomes
International Journal of Inclusive Education 3
Downloaded by [University Of Akureyri], [Hermina Gunnthorsdottir] at 06:13 03 June 2013
appropriate to think and say and how some ideas gain more legitimacy than others. The
analysing process is, therefore, characterised by viewing the discourse in the light of
prevailing traditions and customs and with regard to the historical, cultural and
social reality in which it has been created. By using historical discourse analysis, the
aim is, therefore, not to describe participants’ personal understanding of a certain
matter, but rather to gain insight into how individuals, in this case teachers, shape
and are shaped by the discourse they are part of within a certain social and cultural
context [Armstrong, Armstrong, and Spandagou 2010; Foucault 1979; Jo´hannesson
2010; Lee 2000; Slee 2011].
The main concepts that guide our analysing process are discursive themes, legiti-
mating principles and historical conjuncture. When analysing the text – whether offi-
cial documents, media articles or interview transcripts – the researcher looks for words,
ideas or practices that characterise the text more than others and are repeated to such an
extent that they can be seen as discursive themes creating patterns in the text. These
patterns are created and recreated through social, political and historical discourse
and by the participants in the discourse. This process produces the legitimating prin-
ciples of the discourse, which, for example, constitute what is appropriate to say in
certain circumstances at each time and, no less importantly, what one should keep
quiet about. Using the concept of historical conjuncture then helps to explain the inter-
play between ideas, practices and historical and political conditions and shed light on
why some ideas and practices achieve more legitimacy than others [Foucault 1979;
Jo´ hannesson 2010].
A six-step approach
We have adopted an approach for the analysis, introduced by Sharp and Richardson
[2001] and adapted by Jo´ hannesson [2006b, 2010], which involves the process of
six steps when followed in detail. We follow the process for the most part.
The first step – to select an issue or a topic to study – was in this case chosen
beforehand, that is, the issue of inclusion. The second step involves the selection of
data, the third step involves analysing the data to find the discursive themes, and the
fourth step is to identify the legitimating principles and contradictions. In the fifth
step, the historical conjuncture of the research matter is examined. The final step com-
prises writing a report, which was drafted in Icelandic [by the first author] to serve as a
working paper for the article.
Data selection
We use three main sets of data. First, key documents, issued by the Parliament [Alþingi]
and the Icelandic Ministry of Education, Science and Culture, were analysed. These
documents were The Compulsory School Act and the National Curriculum Guide for
Compulsory School in force when data collection took place [The Compulsory
School Act No. 66/1995; The Menntama´lara´ðuneytið [Ministry of Education,
Science and Culture] 2006]. These documents were chosen as being the ones which tea-
chers are supposed to build on when structuring their teaching [hereafter we refer to
them as the Act and the Curriculum].
Second, we use research interviews with 10 compulsory school teachers, conducted
by the first author in the period from February to May 2007. Those teachers – nine
women and one man – taught at the time in three compulsory schools in an Icelandic
4H. Gunnþo
´rsdo
´ttir and I.A
´.Jo
´hannesson
Downloaded by [University Of Akureyri], [Hermina Gunnthorsdottir] at 06:13 03 June 2013
139
town which has been considered to be at the forefront of inclusive education. The tea-
chers were all classroom teachers, ranging in age from their lower 30s to their lower 50s
at the time of the interviews, teaching in grades 1– 10, with between 5 and 25 years of
teaching experience. At least two students in each teacher’s classroom had been ident-
ified with special educational needs. Within this data set, there are also teaching logs
from four teachers, kept over five days [one particular week] about one or two students
with special educational needs. The log data are primarily used as a complementary
source to analyse the teachers’ discourse, rather than as an independent data set. Yet
they also provide a window through which one may obtain a grasp of actual classroom
practice. All interviews were semi-structured. They were transcribed verbatim by the
first author, and each teacher assigned a capital letter for a pseudonym. Six teachers
[A– F] were interviewed once, and those who kept the logs [G – J] were interviewed
twice, the second time immediately after they had completed their logs.
Third, Icelandic media articles [newspapers, and radio and television transcripts] on
education were collected to cover the period of 16 months prior to and concurrent with
the first parts of the research interviews, from the beginning of January 2006 to the end
of April 2007, in order to identify public views on education and to locate teachers’ dis-
course within the social, cultural and public context. The media articles are available
from a database offered by the company Fjo¨ lmiðlavaktin/CreditInfo [n.d.]. When
searching the database, the following key words were used [the Icelandic search
words in parentheses]: inclusive school [sko´li a´n aðgreiningar], school for all [sko´li
fyrir alla], special needs [se´ rþarfir], school [sko´ li], education [menntun] and special
education [se´ rkennsla]. The search resulted in a total of 352 articles on education out
of which 196 were analysed for the purpose of this research. The distinctive feature
of these 196 articles was the focus of the subject matter, which related to inclusive edu-
cation and special needs, rather than, for example, the length of the secondary school.
We thought it important to focus on the pieces written by teachers. In total, 30 of the
196 articles turned out to have been written by authors who identified themselves as
teachers. Rather than referring to the articles by authors’ names, the articles were
assigned numbers between 1 and 352.
Data analysis
At the beginning, the three data sets were analysed separately for the purpose of iden-
tifying discursive themes representative of each set. In addition to the actual research
questions, we created key questions for each data set in order to identify its distinctive
features.
Official documents: We were interested to know what would characterise the notion
of inclusion in these key documents. Therefore, the following questions guided the
analysis: How are ideas on inclusive education presented in the documents, if at all?
To what kind of ideas does the discourse on inclusive education refer? Does it rely
on the ideology of human rights issues? Does it use the language of individualism?
How do the documents refer to teachers, if at all? The findings are used both for com-
parison and as a background to the teachers’ discourse.
Interviews and teaching logs: The purpose of taking interviews with teachers was to
explore what kind of discourse appears in the interviews and the teaching logs. We
created several key questions, each with a specific reference to certain factors: Do tea-
chers refer to the system [policy and governance]? Do teachers quote acts of law and
curriculum documents? Do they discuss the school system, types of schools, etc.? How
International Journal of Inclusive Education 5
Downloaded by [University Of Akureyri], [Hermina Gunnthorsdottir] at 06:13 03 June 2013
do teachers talk about students? Do teachers talk about teachers’ work in general
terms? Are there signs of resistance to inclusive education? If so, on what kind of
ideas is the resistance based?
Media articles: When the media articles were read, the following questions guided
the analysis: What is so important to teachers that they decide to write newspaper
articles? What kind of pressure on schools and teachers appears in the media discus-
sion? In contrast, we are not aiming at the mapping of public views in any way; rather,
this material is used as a background to help us identify the contradictions in the tea-
chers’ discourse.
All these questions helped to identify the discursive themes in each set of data.
Furthermore, spotting discursive themes in one set drew attention to new themes to
search for in the other two data sets. Thus, drawn together, these three data sets
provide a picture of teachers’ discourse on inclusive education and how it relates to
the official discourse, as well as the contradictions within and surrounding it. After
themes had been identified, they were first grouped into 17 types that we report in
Table 1.
Reliability and ethical issues
We believe that the Act and the Curriculum are documents almost chosen by default
when official discourse is being studied. The interview data serve as the main
vehicle for studying the discourse of teachers. The selected group of teachers were
experienced teachers from a certain town who, because of the town’s history of inclus-
ive education [see above], are likely to give a more positive picture of inclusive edu-
cation than if randomly chosen across the country. If, and with an emphasis on if,
this is the case, some of the contradictions in the discourse might be even more
obvious and damaging to the vision of inclusion than we suggest here. Later, it was
decided to add the media data to, first and foremost to help identify contradictions
between official debate and teachers’ discourse.
The interviewees all agreed to be interviewed by the researcher, knowing that
excerpts from their interviews might be published without their input as to how this
was done. They only knew and agreed that the issue of inclusion is important
enough to be further researched. When we refer to our interviewees, we have gone
to lengths to hide their identity by only referring to them as capital letters, and
giving them all female pronouns although one interviewee is a man. For the same
reason, we refer to students with female pronouns.
While the first author conducted all interviews and performed the data search in the
newspapers, the actual analysis was laid out by both authors. Both researchers are in
favour of the ideology of inclusion, but read the data with a critical eye to reveal dis-
crepancies and understand what is going on. The data were collected the year before the
economic collapse of autumn 2008. Since then, no significant changes have occurred in
the official ideology and structure of support for students with SEN.
Findings: discursive themes – common and distinctive
From the overall data set, we first identified 17 discursive themes that emerged from the
analysis, using the questions we sought answers to from the documents. They fall into
two main groups: those that are common to all three data sets [1 – 7] and those that
appear only in interviews or media discussion [8–17] – in fact they all appear in
both sets. During the continuing analysis and the writing of the article we decided to
6H. Gunnþo
´rsdo
´ttir and I.A
´.Jo
´hannesson
Downloaded by [University Of Akureyri], [Hermina Gunnthorsdottir] at 06:13 03 June 2013
141
Table 1. Discursive themes on inclusive education in official documents, interviews with
teachers, and media discussions in Iceland, 2006 – 2007.
Type of dataset
Subsection headings Discursive themes
Official
documents
Interviews
and teaching
logs Media
Common discursive themes
The flexibility of
schools and
teachers as a
guiding light
[1] The school should adapt
itself to students’ needs and
situation
XXX
[2] Teaching methods should
meet students’ needs
XXX
[3] Individualised learning X X X
Education is a
human rights issue
[4] The school should promote
equality in education and
prevent discrimination
XXX
[5] The school should not
discriminate against students
by their status, character or
beliefs
XXX
Segregation as an
appropriate option
in an inclusive
system?
[6] Special education, even in
segregated settings, is
regarded as an appropriate
resource
XXX
Services first – then
education
[7] The school offers services X X X
Distinctive discursive themes
Special needs in a
pecking order
[8] Students are discriminated
against according to which
special needs they have
XX
Demands on teachers
have increased
[9] It is difficult and extremely
complicated for teachers to
meet the teaching
requirements
XX
[10] Demands on teachers have
increased
XX
Some students need
to be rescued
[11] Education is aimed at the
normal student
XX
Lack of service –
less teaching –
less education
[12] There is lack of service X X
Resistance, doubts,
silences, teachers’
guilty feelings
[13] There is resistance and
doubts with regard to the
inclusive school
XX
[14] There is resistance to
standardised tests
XX
[15] Teachers feel guilty
towards students
XX
[16] There is silence and
hesitation about issues
relevant to inclusion
X
Good or bad luck [17] It is a question about good
or bad luck what kind of
students you get
X
International Journal of Inclusive Education 7
Downloaded by [University Of Akureyri], [Hermina Gunnthorsdottir] at 06:13 03 June 2013
discuss these themes under 10 subheadings. Table 1 gives the discursive themes,
divided into these two categories. In group 1, we have placed what we call common
discursive themes, which includes themes that, more or less, reflect a positive attitude
towards the official policy of inclusion. In group 2, distinctive discursive themes,we
placed themes that reflect more doubts or criticisms of the official policy, or statements
to the effect that the policy is not working.
Common discursive themes
The common themes group appears in all three data sets as undisputed educational
issues. This comprises a view on education and the role of educational organisations,
which could be generally accepted as good values. The wording is rooted in general
human rights with regard to educational issues.
The flexibility of schools and teachers as a guiding light
The theme of school flexibility is very strong in all three data sets. It has reference to
three ideas: the adaptation of the school, that teaching methods should meet students’
needs and individualised learning. The Act reads as follows:
Compulsory schools shall make an effort to carry out their activities to correspond as fully
as possible with the nature and needs of their pupils and encourage the overall develop-
ment, well-being and education of each individual. [The Compulsory School Act No. 66/
1995, Article 2, official edition in English]
The general part of the Curriculum states: ‘It is the responsibility of each school to adapt
their own instruction as best suits the needs of their pupils’ [Ministry of Education,
Science and Culture 2004, 22]. These quotes echo in the other two data sets:
All individuals, really, regardless of position or handicap, whether physical or mental,
they must all have access to our school system and the school must accept each and every-
one on his or her grounds. [Teacher F, Interview 1; all translations of the quotes, except of
the Acts, are made with the assistance of a professional translator]
The concept ‘school for everyone’ has been a guiding light in Icelandic school policies
during the past few years. This means that all children should be given the opportunity
to attend school in their own district, whatever their circumstances may be [Media
article no. 29 – 20 March 2007].
According to the views presented in these quotes, there is a general agreement
that the school should be flexible and able to customise itself to whatever the
student needs.
In the Act and the Curriculum, the theme that teaching methods should meet the
needs of the students is presented as a vital part of quality education in schools,
which allows for diversity among students. The media articles reflect this, since it is
taken for granted that schools practise teaching methods that meet students’ needs as
the Act stipulates. A slightly different viewpoint appears in the interviews with tea-
chers, as they mention that they try to use various teaching methods, but it is not
always that easy. They claim that the main demand placed upon them is to practise
‘individualised’
1
teaching and learning:
8H. Gunnþo
´rsdo
´ttir and I.A
´.Jo
´hannesson
Downloaded by [University Of Akureyri], [Hermina Gunnthorsdottir] at 06:13 03 June 2013
143
And those techniques are gradually being introduced, that all the students are not always
in the same place [in the study material], and I can say for myself that I am just beginning
to understand this. [Teacher H, Interview 2]
An example of how a teacher changed her teaching methods back to traditional ways of
teaching because of a student with mental impairment:
Because I work such a lot with thematic projects and I have really had to cut down on this
quite a bit because I got a student with a severe developmental handicap at the beginning
of the year and therefore I had to start organising small groups with her. [Teacher J, Inter-
view 2]
Here, we have examples of two different reactions to meeting students’ personal needs;
the former is from a teacher who is traditional in her teaching, preferring all students to
follow the study book but is trying to change her habits in that regard. The latter is an
example from a teacher who is exceptional in the teacher sample because of the length
of time she has been practising theme work. She found, however, that she needed to
restrict this method when a student with developmental disability came to her class-
room in order to be flexible and cater to certain needs. Both teachers refer to the
demand for individualised learning when explaining changes in their teaching
methods.
Education is a human rights issue
Under this heading, we have placed two related themes: that the school should promote
equality in education and prevent discrimination and that the school should not dis-
criminate against students by their status, character or beliefs. We place them together,
because both relevant legislation – [Lo¨g um jafna sto¨ðu og jafnan re´tt kvenna og karla
nr. [Act on Equal Status and Equal Rights of Women and Men, No.] 96/2000; Lo¨g um
ma´lefni fatlaðs fo´ lks nr. [Act on the Affairs of Disabled People, No.] 59/1992; The
Compulsory School Act No. 66/1995] – and the Curriculum strongly emphasise
such views as a matter of human rights. In the media discussion, this view comes
through more as a description of how the education system should be, rather than
how it is; for example, that the Icelandic education system should be based on
‘notions of justice and equality where all the people in Iceland should gain the oppor-
tunity to realise their potential, regardless of domicile, age, gender, nationality and
ability’ [Media article no. 9 – 18 April 2007].
In the overall data set, this theme is probably the least disputed. There seems to be
an agreement that this is a good thing, not only for students, but also for society.
Segregation as an appropriate option in an inclusive system?
According to law, the main policy is that the instruction shall be provided in the home
school [The Compulsory School Act No. 66/1995, Article 37]. However, the discourse
contains a disclaimer to the effect that if the school cannot offer specific solutions or
does not consider it justifiable or possible to meet students’ needs, the school or the
parents can suggest an alternative resource:
If a child’s parents or guardians, teachers or other specialists feel that the child is not
receiving suitable instruction in its home school, the parents or guardians may apply
for it to attend a special school. [The Compulsory School Act No. 66/1995, Article 37]
International Journal of Inclusive Education 9
Downloaded by [University Of Akureyri], [Hermina Gunnthorsdottir] at 06:13 03 June 2013
With regard to school practice, segregated solutions are considered relevant according
to the Act on Compulsory Education:
Children and young people, who face problems in their studies due to specific learning dif-
ficulties, emotional or socialdifficulties and/or handicaps, cf. Article 2 of Act No. 59/[1992],
are entitled to special support instruction. Such instruction may be on an individual basis or
in a group within or outside of the regular classroom, in special classes within schools or in
special schools [our emphasis]. [The Compulsory School Act No. 66/1995, Article 37]
The following view concerning such an arrangement appears among teachers; for
example, regarding the discussion on whether or not students are taken out of the class-
room to receive special education:
Yes, I think we do this and have done this in such a way that the more special needs, or disabil-
ities, the child has, the more we have taken it out [of the classroom]. [Teacher D, Interview 1]
When it comes to the relevance of special units for students with certain impairments,
most of the teachers see it as a positive arrangement:
I feel as if the units we have as for example those with hearing impairment come into a
school, foreigners, or, say, immigrants into a school and also, say, autistic, and they
receive support within the school and I feel this is really positive because then they are
partly in the [regular] class too. [Teacher I, Interview 1]
Clearly, and despite the fact that policy documents, teachers and the media discussion
draw up a picture of a school system that endeavours to include everyone, segregated
resources and settings are not seen as a negative issue, but rather as a normal solution in
an inclusive system. Such segregated settings, however, may produce not only exclu-
sion but also barriers to learning.
Services first – then education
The idea of a school which provides a wide range of services is strong in all the data sets and
is presented in such a way that service is seen as a key element and an inherent factor in tea-
chers’ work in an inclusive school. A quote from one teacher is representative of this view:
Inclusive schools as I see this are really schools where all [students] receive the service
that suits them regardless of their situation and ability ... and then students are supposed
to be able to be together in the same classroom; it does not matter whether they are men-
tally or physically disabled, they are in all cases supposed to be able to receive study
materials and services that suit them; an effort is made to meet the needs of each and
everyone. [Teacher G, Interview 1]
The idea of service does not only refer to teachers and their work; it has a wider refer-
ence to the whole school and its staff. It is, for example, regarded normal to hire
additional staff for certain students, make changes to buildings if they are unsuitable
and buy specialised equipment for students’ special needs.
Distinctive themes
The themes in this group appear in interview data and the media discussion, but not in
the official document. The discourse is characterised by negative comments, doubts or
10 H. Gunnþo
´rsdo
´ttir and I.A
´.Jo
´hannesson
Downloaded by [University Of Akureyri], [Hermina Gunnthorsdottir] at 06:13 03 June 2013
145
controversial references and this could be the reason that they are not to be found in the
policy documents, at least not as they appear here. A common feature for this theme is
that it is critical of or in opposition to the official inclusive ideology.
Special needs in a pecking order
As pointed out above, it is clearly stated both in the Act and the Curriculum that dis-
crimination in any sense is not permitted in Icelandic schools. However, in the
media articles, there is significant discussion to the effect that some students are discri-
minated against according to which special needs they have. This applies to students
who are blind and with hearing impairments. It is stated that they do not receive an edu-
cation that meets their needs due to lack of teachers’ expertise in this area. The situation
is said to be serious and examples given of families who recently moved abroad so their
children could receive an appropriate education. Older students who received their edu-
cation in the School for the Deaf [amalgamated with a regular in 1998] tell a similar
story in a newspaper article, i.e. that they have been ‘deprived of their right to edu-
cation’ and likewise:
The deaf and the hearing-impaired say that society has let them down with regard to their
basic education. Their process of compulsory education was certainly long. The teaching,
however, was not based on their needs and therefore the learning yielded poor results. [As
one student put it]: ‘We also had this in common that our education in the School for the
Deaf was seriously inadequate and in no way comparable with the education our peers
received in the general school system.’ [Media article no. 33 – 18 March 2007]
In the interviews, teachers also mentioned a group of students, whose needs the school
has not managed to meet. This group comprises students of immigrant parents, and tea-
chers express concerns about these students and their helplessness in meeting their
needs at school:
The support they receive to be able to become part of the group is by no means sufficient
because they do not speak the language and they are not taken care of as would be done in
case of other special needs. We have perhaps a rather striking example now; the case of a
child who is on the way to losing both sight and hearing and this matter is being attended
to, you see, by recruiting an individual who is to undergo special training to be able to
look after her and this is of course splendid, but perhaps we see here a striking difference
in this respect. [Teacher F, Interview 1]
An example of the problem teachers’ mention is a shortage of relevant study books for
students who do not understand Icelandic, especially in mathematics as there is so much
reading material in the new mathematics textbooks.
In interviews with teachers they mention that generally their teaching is very much
focused on the study books they use and therefore their teaching methods are
monotonous.
Demands on teachers have increased
Both in media discussion and interviews with teachers, it is stated that demands on tea-
chers have increased, especially in line with an emphasis on individualised learning, as
this way of learning involves a number of challenges for teachers to deal with and new
procedures for them to learn. Many of the teachers claim that demands have increased
International Journal of Inclusive Education 11
Downloaded by [University Of Akureyri], [Hermina Gunnthorsdottir] at 06:13 03 June 2013
so that they have difficulties in meeting them as their working environment has
remained unchanged. A prominent aspect of the discourse in this context is that
these new demands create an additional workload on teachers and teachers feel they
have reached the end of their tether as their time schedule does not allow for more
tasks and new obligations. Some teachers express this more frankly than others:
We have taken on far too much; teachers are also to blame for this. The experts now also
say: you are supposed to deal with all those situations, you are supposed to plan the study
of 25 students, regardless of how varied their needs are, so that everyone is offered study
plans that suit their level of ability and interest. Reality is just not like that. The school is to
offer a solution to everything between heaven and earth, and we are to overcome every
difficulty, no matter what the student’s disability may be, whether this has to do with bul-
lying, friendship or something of that nature. [Teacher I, Interview 2]
These quotes reflect how the teachers interviewed believe that their framework of duties
cannot accommodate more tasks. What they refer to as ‘an additional workload’ has to
do with duties and obligations that can be defined as something other than ‘direct teach-
ing’, such as various arrangements for students who are not considered to be ‘normal
students’ in terms of learning or special needs.
Some students need to be rescued
Although the Act and the Curriculum prescribe an individualised approach to learning,
the way of teaching is more than less arranged around the normal student. According to
the teachers interviewed, the normal student is the one who can proceed further along
through the study books without extra support from the teacher. Students who are
defined by the teachers as good students tend to work quite independently and very
often with a minimum of teacher intervention. This also applies to immigrant students:
I have two immigrant students; this student came two years ago, but she is nevertheless
doing a lot better for she has strong academic abilities, and she performs well, but one
must then take care not to forget her and continue to find material for her. [Teacher H,
Interview 1]
Teachers basically organise their teaching for the normal student, which means that the
focus is on a group of students rather than individual students. This is seen by many of
the teachers as a preferable approach: ‘That is why it is highly preferable to have a class
of students composed of your average Tom, Dick and Harry. Then the process is
smooth and relatively problem-free’ [Teacher A, Interview 1].
Despite a heavy emphasis in policy documents on diversity in teaching and learning
methods and a focus on each individual, it seems that teachers still consider that their
work should centre around a group of students who they consider to be without any
special needs.
Lack of service – less teaching – less education
The theme on the lack of service is related to other themes; for example, as that
demands on teachers have increased in the sense that teachers want additional require-
ments placed upon them to be followed by improved services in schools. The inter-
views indicate that this has failed. Students and families are seen as customers, and
12 H. Gunnþo
´rsdo
´ttir and I.A
´.Jo
´hannesson
Downloaded by [University Of Akureyri], [Hermina Gunnthorsdottir] at 06:13 03 June 2013
147
students with special needs are seen as requiring particular types of service. In this
context, service means money and personnel:
For of course there is lack of money and staff, because it is not enough just to place all the
students in the same class without regard to ability, they need service and they are not
receiving this with only one teacher. [Teacher G, Interview 1]
In this example, as in many other similar situations, teachers refer to the idea that they
are not able to offer students individual service – or personal teaching – if they are the
only professional person in the classroom.
Resistance, doubts, silences, teachers’ guilty feelings
A prominent discursive theme in the media is a statement to the effect that although in
literal terms, there should be equality in education, it is not so in reality. This mostly
applies to children who are blind and deaf but also to children with developmental dis-
ability or with challenging behaviour:
It is a matter of general knowledge that even though Icelandic society is said to be based
on the principle of equality, this is not really the case. Certain groups and individuals face
low quality circumstances with regard to education, since they are unable to avail them-
selves of the educational opportunities on offer to the general public. This, for example,
applies to blind people. [Media article no. 24 – 23 March 2007]
According to the national curriculum guide for the compulsory school, all schools are to
receive all children, regardless of whether they are disabled or not. This fundamental edu-
cational principle conforms to the values and philosophy of life among the Icelandic
population of today. But is this really the case? Unfortunately not. [Media article no.
257 – 15 May 2006]
There are also indications of doubts as to how relevant the regular school is for all chil-
dren. A teacher working in Reykjavı´k wrote a letter in a newspaper about educational
matters in Reykjavı´k, including the policy on inclusive education which she refers to as
a policy which Reykjavı´k Municipality has been working on for some years and is
based on the ideology of equal human rights for all. Her conclusion is:
Nevertheless, I have some doubts as to whether this policy is in fact realistic. If an individual
with severe developmentaldisabilities is to be able to study at a conventional primary school,
many changes will have to be implemented. [Media article no. 296 – 15 March 2006]
One of the teachers interviewed expresses an attitude shared by the majority of the tea-
chers interviewed when she talks about the difference between the special schools and
the situation now:
In the special schools they were provided with all conceivable kinds of service; those indi-
viduals [students with significant impairments] were attended to by many more staff
members in the special schools than is the case here; here they are just added to the
general classes – it is not possible just to state that this is an inclusive school and then
let everyone in. [Teacher I, Interview 1]
This last quote is in line with ideas comprising the theme that increased demands on
teachers constitute an addition to teachers’ work and the notion of teaching as a
International Journal of Inclusive Education 13
Downloaded by [University Of Akureyri], [Hermina Gunnthorsdottir] at 06:13 03 June 2013
service. Many of the teachers refer to the action of closing down the special schools as a
process that is not completed because ‘they’ [i.e. the educational authorities] omitted to
move the staff with the students into the regular schools.
The discourse of 9 out of 10 teachers was overwhelmingly negative when talking
about standardised tests in 4th, 7th and 10th grade, although the most severe criticism
is directed at the final tests in grade 10.
2
The teachers claimed that the tests in grade 10
controlled their teaching, how to teach and what. Moreover, they say the tests are an
obstacle in their professional work and hinder them in being flexible and diverse in
their teaching as the curriculum expects them to be. The majority of the teachers do
not like the tests as they say they do not measure students’ real ability and some
other important aspects of the school life. Good teachers are said to simply ignore
the tests and go down their own path. One teacher considers the tests important for
the students’ future:
The fact is, however, whether we like it or not, that we must in my opinion take them [the
tests] much more seriously, for this in fact relates to the child’s future or future potential,
regardless of what its plans may be; we have to get them through those standardised tests,
or else they are faced with significantly reduced opportunities for further study. [Teacher
F, Interview 1]
The loudest complaints regarding the tests have to do with the contradiction which,
according to the teachers, is revealed in the premise that teachers should, on the one
hand, practise individualised teaching, and on the other hand, that the nature of the
tests, which are standardised, allows very little flexibility. Teachers see this as an
attack on their professionalism and at odds with inclusive education. This corresponds
to media discussions where the Ministry of Education, Culture and Science, introduced
the idea to abandon the tests in grade 10 to open up for new ways of assessment.
In the interviews with teachers, there is much discourse on the guilt they feel
towards students. They feel they never do enough for students who need something
extra. The following is an example from a teacher about her student who has language
and speech difficulties:
But then, on theother hand, I worry aboutthe child, that I am not doingenough for her just as I
say to her parents, I am not doingenough for her, and she often just sits therewithout any help,
and all day I am not thinking of anything to dofor her; she is just there withher friends, doing
something and one just hopes for the best – this is how it is too. [Teacher I, Interview 2]
But you always feel guilty, because you are to meet everyone’s needs and you want to, you
know, this is of courselike being some kind of superwoman, you see; sometimes,this may be
working ...going too deeply intoit, but yet letting them somehowfeel that they are part of the
whole, that they are not too different. [Teacher J, Interview 2]
Although the teaching is more than less aimed at the normal student according to teachers,
they also feel guilty towards the normal students who they do not manage to give enough
attention as their energy is too much directed towards students who need something extra.
The interviews with teachers indicate that they appear hesitant in expressing them-
selves about issues regarding inclusion, inclusive education and student impairments or
disabilities. This reluctance emerges as a few seconds of silence or hesitation before
they say what they want to say about these issues. This is not incidental, applying
only to a few teachers in the group of the interviewees, but generally manifested in
the interview data. We see this as a form of reflective hesitation.
14 H. Gunnþo
´rsdo
´ttir and I.A
´.Jo
´hannesson
Downloaded by [University Of Akureyri], [Hermina Gunnthorsdottir] at 06:13 03 June 2013
149
To us it seems that teachers are not comfortable discussing the topic of inclusive
education; they consciously choose the ‘right’ words as if wanting to be ‘politically
correct’ in the way they express themselves. This theme was not obvious in the data,
but by comparison with interviews with Dutch teachers taken at the same time to
serve as data for a related project [Gunnthorsdottir 2013] it became clear that the Ice-
landic interviews had this distinctive feature.
Good or bad luck
As stated above, teachers seem to think in terms of the normal student and organise their
teaching around this idea. Teachers tend to feel they have good or bad luck when a
student with special educational needs is placed in their classroom. They are out of
luck if such a student is placed in their regular classroom – because of extra workload
or the feeling of him or her being an addition to the pedagogical structure. This is in fact
a very important issue in their minds:
It is just an element of good or bad luck whether you end up having a lot of work to do in
connection with a pupil, whatever [the work] it may be. Perhaps too much contact with
parents is needed because of behaviour problems, or it may have to do with the study
load, adapting the study material or something like that because the student has severe
dyslexia or something of that kind. It is not really taken into account that in such cases
you either need more time or some form of remuneration for solving this or that
problem, you see. [Teacher A, Interview 1]
The teachers seem to believe that they should be able to require extra resources or ‘some
special arrangements ... that your workload is lightened in some other way, or some-
thing like that ...’ [Teacher A, Interview 1] if you have students with special edu-
cational needs in the classroom.
Discussion
We have traced most of the discursive themes that characterise the teachers’ discourse
on inclusive education to what teachers think about ideology and practice. In brief, tea-
chers talked about their experience of including students with various disabilities and
learning difficulties, both good practices they have participated in and less successful
examples. They talked much less, indeed almost not at all, about the ideology of
inclusion or theories of teaching and learning – not even when asked directly. In
general, the teachers have become well acquainted with the various types of medical
diagnosis of individual students. In line with that, most of their talk about teaching
methods referred to how to teach individuals with certain labels indicating special edu-
cational needs. As a result, most of the teachers complained about the lack of resources
needed to really aim the whole class instruction towards inclusive structures.
We first discuss the main patterns that we see the discursive themes fall into, then
we identify what we believe is the chief legitimating principle in the discourse of the
teachers, and finally we consider the historical conjuncture where this discourse occurs.
Teachers’ contradictory views on inclusive education
Based on our study, we argue that Icelandic teachers’ discourse on inclusive education
is characterised by contradictory and in many ways incompatible views. There seems to
International Journal of Inclusive Education 15
Downloaded by [University Of Akureyri], [Hermina Gunnthorsdottir] at 06:13 03 June 2013
be a general agreement on the benefit of inclusion for most students, especially those
identified as vulnerable, such as students with developmental disabilities. These
views refer to social inclusion and human rights issues. At the same time, the teachers
have numerous reservations as to whether and how inclusive practice is really possible.
We will now explain in more detail by means of patterns that these views seem to fall
into.
The first main pattern we want to highlight is that the interviewees do not see
inclusion as inherent in the job of teaching; to them, inclusion is an additional task,
whereas educating normal learners is the main task. They feel that the purpose of
this new additional task is to fix ‘this and that’; as a result, inclusion signifies increased
demands on teachers. This leads to an attitude about luck concerning ‘what kind’ of
students you get in your classroom. This is obviously in conflict with the law which
considers it normal to have diverse learners with regard to the composition of Icelandic
compulsory school students [The Compulsory School Act No. 66/1995]. Vlachou’s
description of inclusive education policy as tending to be dissociated from the
broader educational context is relevant in this context. She argues that this lack of a hol-
istic perspective then leads to a situation where the ‘education of disabled pupils is not
necessarily a matter of general concern thus, whatever reforms are needed for the edu-
cation of disabled students are not necessarily part of the broader educational changes’
[Vlachou 2004, 8; see also Marino´sson 2011]. Our findings indicate that the teachers
would prefer to have less diverse class groups; then teaching would be relatively
problem-free, without the additional burdens imposed by the policy of inclusion.
They probably often teach accordingly. This situation involves a paradox: the teaching
is aimed at the normal student, but nevertheless an effort is directed towards students
who are not defined as normal, which then leads to the feeling of ‘normal students’
even being left out. This is perfectly rational if it is seen as evidence of a bipolar con-
ception of either inclusion or non-inclusion of any students with SEN. It, therefore,
seems to serve the professional interest of teachers [and all kinds of other interests]
to focus on the ‘normal’ and see the difficult ones as ‘the others’ [see also Marino´ sson
2011]. According to Tetler [2005], this is an example of a ‘normalise the child’-
approach where the type and degree of a child’s disability sets the limit to ‘how’ inclus-
ive schools want to be.
The second pattern relates to the notion that students need an official diagnosis to be
offered relevant support and teaching and in that regard SEN are in a pecking order.
Yet our analysis of the discourse, especially with the use of interviews with teachers
and scrutiny of articles in newspapers, indicates that the school system may have
failed in ensuring that teachers are equipped to respond to students’ specific learning
needs, even though proper diagnosis has been performed. Furthermore, our analysis
of the data suggests that teachers may be too focused on certain teaching methods,
such as using textbooks, so that the methodology may act as a barrier for certain stu-
dents, especially those who have not received any particular diagnosis, but, neverthe-
less, have special needs. The discourse is characterised by the view that we have
failed to create a flexible school [Slee 2011; Tetler 2005] which responds to all learners
regardless of their special needs or disability.
The third pattern refers to the fabric of segregation and appears – especially among
teachers and in the media – as a discourse on segregated issues in schooling as good or
bad. One of the most apparent discursive themes refers to special needs and disability,
e.g. autism, behaviour problems, blind and deaf children and students who are ‘slow’ –
as well as ‘normal’ and ‘good’ students. Dunne [2009, 49] refers to this idea as an
16 H. Gunnþo
´rsdo
´ttir and I.A
´.Jo
´hannesson
Downloaded by [University Of Akureyri], [Hermina Gunnthorsdottir] at 06:13 03 June 2013
151
‘othering’ discourse; she found in her research that ‘inclusion was heavily characterised
by processes of othering’. Tetler asks if they are ‘full members of the community of the
class, or is their role that of a guest?’ [2005, 270]. Although this approach is in clear
contrast with the inclusive ideology, it seems that schools and teachers choose this
way and the picture we get is that ‘difference is managed within educational systems
through the identification and labelling of individuals and groups and through the inter-
related processes of inclusion and exclusion’ [Armstrong, Armstrong, and Spandagou
2011, 30–1]. By labelling children as having special educational needs, the school
system devalues one group of students compared to another and at the same time
obscures their diversity. Booth points out that this ‘encourages educational difficulties
to be seen primarily in terms of the deficiencies of children thus deflecting attention
away from the contextual barriers to learning’ [2005, 151].
The fourth pattern relates to how participants have involved themselves in the dis-
course. Teachers have adopted certain positions that we have identified in the form of
discursive themes that they use to legitimise what they say and do and do not do. For
instance, teachers justify their attitudes by claiming they do not receive enough support
from the system and therefore it is not realistic that their teaching corresponds to estab-
lished policy. Teachers stress the importance of inclusive ideas as a human rights issue
but because of an incomplete and insufficient framework, there are limits to what they
think they can do. Nevertheless, some teachers’ comments suggest that they think that
they do not lack the competence to teach diverse students, but that adverse outer cir-
cumstances prevent successful practice [Teacher J, Interview 1]. Tetler [2005] identifies
a similar trend and distinguishes between teachers’ espoused theory and teachers’
theory in use which may comprise opposing ideas.
Legitimating principle: good ideology but not realistic in practice?
In our analysis, we detected the undertone that something has gone wrong; the ideology
is considered good but the system does not work. Dunne [2009] has reported on the
same idea: that inclusion was seen as a good thing, ‘a common sense inclusion’ that
does not work. This has become the legitimating principle of the teachers’ discourse:
inclusion is good but not particularly realistic, given the resources that are available.
Further, in the years before and when the interviews were conducted, individualisa-
tion was attracting growing attention as a new approach in teaching. Our data and
analysis give reasons to believe that individualisation has promoted segregated think-
ing – that is in opposition to ideas on differentiation – and thus stimulated the view
that individual needs are seen as individual problems, subsequently leading to the con-
clusion that students’ needs are not an issue of the whole classroom.
In the interviews, we identified reluctance to talk about issues regarding inclusion,
inclusive education and even about students with impairments or disabilities. We
cannot be sure whether this is caused by lack of confidence to talk about these issues
as pedagogical or whether the teachers are afraid of not being politically correct in
what they say. This hesitance was much less obvious in interviews with Dutch teachers
conducted at the same time [Gunnthorsdottir 2013]. We conclude that the Icelandic tea-
chers might not want to say anything that could contradict the human rights perspective
of inclusion which they support and want to support. Teachers’ perception of additional
workload and yet their hesitation to overtly assert that inclusion might not work in prac-
tice is an interesting topic to consider when formulating policy on inclusion and the
education of children with special educational needs.
International Journal of Inclusive Education 17
Downloaded by [University Of Akureyri], [Hermina Gunnthorsdottir] at 06:13 03 June 2013
Historical conjuncture: an ideological clash
At the outset, we asked what characterises and legitimises teachers’ discourse on inclus-
ive education, what are the contradictions in official discourse on inclusive education as
well as in that of teachers, and how have teachers involved themselves in the discourse.
In our analysis, we defined common and distinctive themes as legitimating principles
that indicate how teachers reflect and express different concerns on inclusive education.
We have identified these patterns as an ensemble in the form of a conjuncture of con-
flicting ideas. To us it seems that teachers are lost in what is good or bad and right or
wrong and are confused about what belongs to their job. They feel inclusive practices
involve additional tasks but are hesitant to assert this.
The negative side of these conflicts – and therefore damaging to inclusive ideology
and practice – is the creation of a situation we believe is an ideological clash; that is,
how various ideologies and practices [e.g. issues on integration, inclusion, human
rights, differentiation, individualised learning etc.] have piled up in the discourse, creat-
ing patterns of contradictions and being driven forward in contrast or opposition to each
other [see also Riddell and Weedon 2010]. In that sense, we argue that a new policy
emphasis – inclusion – has been added to the old ones without a mutual agreement
as to how these ideas should be assimilated in an effort to reform the school community
so that it can accommodate all students as they are.
Final words
Our findings have highlighted that the actual problem in terms of teachers and inclusive
education is that the teachers in our study look at inclusion as an additional task. The
interviewees did not see a mismatch between the values of human rights they hold and
their view that inclusion is an additional task. This is worth taking seriously, especially
in the light that inclusive ideology is even more strongly highlighted in the most recent
legislation [Lo¨g um grunnsko´ la nr. [Compulsory School Act No.] 91/2008] than in pre-
vious legislation. Does this mean that the attitudes of teachers constitute the main
obstacle? Or is the obstacle inherent in the attempt to medicalise SEN in order to
fight for appropriate resources? There are numerous impediments, both in Iceland
and internationally, and we possess no magic solutions that would change those
circumstances.
Traditional teaching in compulsory schools has been to a class group of students,
but not to individuals. There have been pressures on schools and teachers to improve
standards and achievements [Dunne 2009; Riddell and Weedon 2010; Vlachou
2004] and the most recent Icelandic legislation continues and even strengthens the
expectations for inclusive practices. Above, we worried that more emphasis on indivi-
dualisation might stimulate the view that problems lie with the students. But individua-
lisation could also emphasise the strengths of individuals who have special educational
needs.
Acknowledgements
Hermı´na Gunnþo´rsdo´ttir thanks the Icelandic Research Fund [RANNI
´S] and University of
Akureyri Research Fund for supporting this research. We also thank Gunnþo´r Gunnþo´rsson
for reading a first draft of the analysis; Do´ra S. Bjarnason and Gretar L. Marino´sson for a
thorough reading of some of the final drafts; Rafn Kjartansson for the translation of the citations
and proofreading; and finally the interviewees, as well as the anonymous referees for their criti-
cal and supportive comments.
18 H. Gunnþo
´rsdo
´ttir and I.A
´.Jo
´hannesson
Downloaded by [University Of Akureyri], [Hermina Gunnthorsdottir] at 06:13 03 June 2013
153
Notes
1. We prefer to use the term individualised learning instead of differentiated learning for the
Icelandic term einstaklingsmiðun or einstaklingsmiðað na
´mas it presents a direct trans-
lation of the term and has in the discussion a strong reference to individual-based learning.
In the Icelandic discussion, the Icelandic term seems to refer incidentally to either differ-
entiated learning or individualised learning.
2. The final tests in grade 10 have now been made obligatory which they were not when the
interviews were taken. They also used to determine whether students obtained access to
certain secondary schools or not. This was abolished by The Compulsory School Act
No. 91/2008.
Notes on Contributors
Ingo´ lfur A
´sgeir Jo´ hannesson PhD, Professor, School of Education, University of Iceland &
Faculty of Education, University of Akureyri. His main areas of research are educational
policy and politics of education, gender and education, teacher expertise and professionalism,
and historical discourse analysis. He taught history in upper compulsory and upper secondary
schools for a few years.
Hermı´na Gunnþo´rsdo´ttir is a lecturer at University of Akureyri, Icelandand, PhD student at the
University of Iceland, Reykjavı´k. She finished her research training programme at the Institute
of Education, University of London. Her research field is related to inclusive school and edu-
cation; school, society and culture; educational policy and practice; teacher education; disability
studies; the education of minority and marginalised groups. Hermina is responsible for courses
and teaching on above issues.
References
Ainscow, M., T. Booth, A. Dyson, P. Farrell, J. Frankham, F. Gallannaugh, A. Howes, and
R. Smith. 2006. Improving Schools, Developing Inclusion. London: Routledge.
Allan, J. 2008. Rethinking Inclusive Education. The Philosophers of Difference in Practice.
Dordrecht: Springer.
Armstrong, A. C., D. Armstrong, and I. Spandagou. 2010. Inclusive Education. International
Policy and Practice. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.
Armstrong, A. C., D. Armstrong, and I. Spandagou. 2011. “Inclusion: By Choice or by
Chance?” International Journal of Inclusive Education 15 [1]: 29 – 39. doi: 10.1080/
13603116.2010.496192
A
´rnado´ ttir, A. K. 2010. “Þetta sny
´st allt um viðhorf: stjo´rnun og skipulag kennslu barna með
se´rþarfir a´ yngsta stigi grunnsko´lans [All this is Linked to Attitudes: The Administration
and Organisation of Children with Special Needs in the First Year of Primary School].”
M.Ed. diss., University of Akureyri, Iceland. Accessed April 12, 2012. //hdl.handle.
net/1946/5884
Axelsdo´ ttir, K. 2012. “Aðeins orð a´ blaði? Um sy
´n reykvı´skra grunnsko´lakennara a´ menntaste-
fnuna sko´ li margbreytileikans [Only Words on Paper? On the Vision of Reykjavik
Compulsory School Teachers with Regard to the Educational Policy of the School of
Diversity].” M.Ed. diss., University of Iceland, Iceland.
Axelsdo´ ttir, R. 2010. “Raddir barna – barnafundur. Hlustað a´ sjo´narmið barna um margbreyti-
leika, mo¨ guleika og hindranir ı´ sko´ la- og fe´lagsstarfi [The Voices of Children – Children’s
Meetings. Listening to Children’s Perspectives on Diversity, Opportunities and Obstacles in
Schools and After-school Activities].” M.Ed. diss., University of Iceland, Iceland.
Benjamin, S. 2002. “‘Valuing Diversity’: A Ciche´ for the 21st Century?” International Journal
of Inclusive Education 6 [4]: 309 – 323.
Bjarnado´ ttir, I. B. 2011. “Er komið til mo´ ts við alla nemendur ı´ sko´ lastarfinu? Eigindleg rann-
so´ kn um hvernig na´mi og kennslu nemenda með CP er ha´ttað ı´ almennum bekk ı´ grunnsko´la
[Are the Needs of All Children in the Schools Met? Qualitative Study on the Learning and
Teaching of Students with CP in Regular Compulsory School Classrooms].” M.Ed. diss.,
University of Iceland, Iceland.
International Journal of Inclusive Education 19
Downloaded by [University Of Akureyri], [Hermina Gunnthorsdottir] at 06:13 03 June 2013
Bjarnason, D. 2010. “Gjennom laborinten: Hva er [spesial] pedagogikk i et inkluderende miljo¨?”
In Spesialpedagogikk og etikk. Kollektivt ansvar og individuelle rettigheder, edited by
Solveig M. Reindal and Rune Sarromaa Haussta¨tter, 72 – 86. Oslo: Ho¨yskoleforlaget.
Bjarnason, D. S., and B. Persson. 2007. “Inkludering i de nordiska utbildningssystemen – en
sociohistorisk bakgrund.” Psykologisk Pædagogisk Ra
˚dgivning Temanummer:
Inkluderende pædagogik i Norden 44 [3]: 202 – 224.
Bjo¨ rnsdo´ttir, A., and K. Jo´nsdo´ttir. 2010. “Starfshættir ı´ grunnsko´lum. Fyrstu niðursto¨ður u
´r
spurningako¨nnun meðal starfsmanna [Teaching and Learning in Icelandic Primary
Schools: First Results from a Staff Survey].” Menntakvika: Conference Proceedings,
Menntavı´sindasvið Ha´sko´la I
´slands. Accessed Augutst 10, 2012. //netla.khi.is/
menntakvika2010/alm/001.pdf
Booth, T. 2005. “Keeping the Future Alive: Putting Inclusive Values into Action.” Forum 47
[2–3]: 151 – 158.
Capacent Gallup. March, 2007. “Vinnustaðagreining ı´ Grunnsko´lum Reykjavı´kur [Workplace
Analysis in Reykjavı´k Primary Schools].” Accessed August 10, 2012. //www.
reykjavik.is/Portaldata/1/Resources/skjol/svid/menntasvid/pdf_skjol/utgafur/grunnskolar/
kannanirogskimar/vinnustadagreining_Capacent.pdf
Dunne, L. 2009. “Discourses of Inclusion: A Critique.” Power and Education 1 [1]: 42 – 56.
//dx.doi.org/10.2304/power.2009.1.1.42
Eggertsdo´ttir, R., and G. L. Marino´sson, eds. 2005. Pathways to Inclusion. A Guide to Staff
Development. Reykjavı´k: Ha´sko´lau
´tga´fan.
Finnbogado´ttir, K. E. 2011. “‘Kannski sinnum við þeim bara o¨ðruvı´si’. Vinnubro¨ gð tveggja
grunnsko´ la vegna nemenda með hegðunar- og tilfinningavanda [‘Maybe We Just Treat
Them Differently’. Guidelines and Procedure of Two Primary Schools Dealing with
Students with Behavioural and Emotional Problems].” M.Ed. diss., University of Iceland,
Iceland.
Fjo¨ lmiðlavaktin/CreditInfo. n.d. “Fjo¨lmiðlavaktin [Media Watch].” Accessed August 10, 2012.
//www.creditinfo.is/fjolmidlavaktin/
Foucault, M. 1979. “What is an Author?” In Textual Strategies: Perspectives in Post-structural
Criticism, edited by Josue´ V. Harari, 141 – 60. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Gunnthorsdottir, H. 2013. “The Teacher in an Inclusive School: Influences on the Ideas of
Icelandic and Dutch Compulsory School Teachers.” In Cultures of Educational Policy:
International Issues in Policy-outcome Relationships’, edited by Beatrice and Boufoy-
Bastick. Strasbourg: Analytics.
Gunnbjo¨rnsdo´ttir, R. 2006. “Að taka þa´tt ı´ starfi bekkjarins rannso´kn a´ hlutverki einstaklingsna´m-
skra´afyrirnemendurmeðse´rtækar þarfir [Participating in Classroom Activities: Examination
of the Role of Individual Curricula for Students with Special Needs].” M.Ed. diss., University
of Akureyri, Iceland.
Hagstofa I
´slands [Statistics Iceland]. 2012a. Hagto
¨lur, mannfjo
¨ldi [Statistics, Population].
Accessed January 19, 2012. //www.hagstofan.is/Hagtolur/Mannfjoldi
Hagstofa I
´slands [Statistics Iceland]. 2012b. Sko
´lama
´l, talnaefni [Education, Statistics].
Accessed January 19, 2012. //www.hagstofan.is/Hagtolur/Skolamal
Hagstofa I
´slands [Statistics Iceland]. 2013. Statistics, Population, Overview. Accessed March 3,
2012. //www.statice.is/Statistics/Population/Overview
Jo´ hannesson, I. A
´. 2006a. “Different Children – A Tougher Job’. Icelandic Teachers Reflect on
Changes in their Work.” European Educational Research Journal 5 [2]: 140 – 151.
Jo´ hannesson, I. A
´. 2006b. “Strong, Independent, Able to Learn More ...’: Inclusion and the
Construction of School Students in Iceland as Diagnosable Subjects.” Discourse: Studies
in the Cultural Politics of Education 27 [1]: 103 – 119.
Jo´ hannesson, I. A
´. 2010. “The Politics of Historical Discourse Analysis: A Qualitative Research
Method?” Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education 31 [2]: 251 – 264.
Jo´ hannesson, I. A
´., G. Geirsdo´ttir, and G. E. Finnbogason. 2002. “Modern Educational Sagas:
Legitimation of Ideas and Practices in Icelandic Education.” Scandinavian Journal of
Educational Research 46 [3]: 265– 282.
Karlsdo´ ttir, J., and H. Guðjo´ nsdo´ ttir. 2010. “Hvernig la´tum við þu
´sund blo´ m blo´ mstra? Skipulag
og framkvæmd stefnu um sko´la a´n aðgreiningar [How Do We Make a Thousand Flowers
Bloom? The Organisation and Implementation of an Inclusive School Policy].”
20 H. Gunnþo
´rsdo
´ttir and I.A
´.Jo
´hannesson
Downloaded by [University Of Akureyri], [Hermina Gunnthorsdottir] at 06:13 03 June 2013
155
Menntakvika: Conference Proceedings. Accessed March 7, 2012. //netla.khi.is/
menntakvika2010/016.pdf
Kozleski, E. B., A. J. Artiles, and F. R. Waitoller. 2011. “Introduction: Equity in Inclusive
Education. Historical Trajectories and Theoretical Commitments.” In Inclusive Education.
Examining Equity on Five Continents, edited by A. J. Artiles, E. B. Kozleski and F. R.
Waitoller, 1– 14. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
Lee, A. 2000. “Discourse Analysis and Cultural [re]Writing.” In Culture and Text. Discourse
and Methodology in Social Research and Cultural Studies, edited by Cate Poynton and
Alison Lee, 188 – 202. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Lloyd, C. 2008. “Removing Barriers to Achievement: A Strategy for Inclusion or Exclusion?”
International Journal of Inclusive Education 12 [2]: 221 – 236.
Lo¨ g um grunnsko´la nr. 91/2008. [The Compulsory School Act No 91/2008].
Lo¨ g um jafna sto¨ðu og jafnan re´tt kvenna og karla nr. 96/2000. [Act on Equal Status and Equal
Rights of Women and Men, No. 96/2000].
Lo¨ g um ma´lefni fatlaðs fo´lks nr. 59/1992. [Act on the Affairs of Disabled People, No. 59/1992].
Marino´sson, G. L. 2011. Responding to Diversity at School. An Ethnographic Study.
Saarbru
¨cken: LAP Lambert Academic Publishing, [Original work published in 2002].
Marino´sson, G. L., ed. 2007. Ta
´lmar og tækifæri. Menntun nemenda með þroskaho
¨mlun a
´
I
´slandi [Hindrances and Opportunities. The Education of Pupils with Developmental
Handcaps in Iceland]. Reykjavı´k: H a´sko´lau
´tga´fan.
Menntama´lara´ðuneytið [Ministry of Education, Science and Culture]. 2006. Aðalna
´mskra
´
grunnsko
´la, almennur hluti [The National Curriculum Guide for Compulsory School
General Section]. Reykjavı´k: Menntama´lara´ðuneytið. Accessed March 3, 2010. //
www.menntamalaraduneyti.is/utgefidefni/namskrar//nr/3953
Ministry of Education, Science and Culture. 2004. The National Curriculum Guide for
Compulsory School, General Section. Reykjavı´k: Ministry of Education, Science and
Culture.
Norðlingasko´li. 2009. Brochure in English. Accessed March 7, 2012. //www.
nordlingaskoli.is/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=397&Itemid=483
Reykjavı´kurborg [Reykjavı´k Municipality]. 2012. Sko´la og frı´stundasvið – se´rdeildir ı´ sko´ lum
[Department for Schools and Leisure Activities – Special Needs Education Classes in
School]. Accessed April 12, 2012. //www.reykjavik.is/desktopdefault.aspx/tabid-
3809/6353_view-2300/
Riddell, S., and E. Weedon. 2010. “Performing Special Education in Scotland: Tension between
Discourses of Professionalism and Rights.” Cambridge Journal of Education 40 [2]:
113–130. doi: 10.1080/0305764X.2010.481257
Sharp, L., and T. Richardson. 2001. “Reflections on Foucauldian Discourse Analysis in
Planning and Environmental Policy Research.” Journal of Environmental Policy &
Planning 3 [3]: 193– 209.
Slee, R. 2001. “Social Justice and the Changing Directions in Educational Research: The Case of
Inclusive Education.” International Journal of Inclusive Education 5 [2 – 3]: 167 – 177. doi:
10.1080/13603110010035832
Slee, R. 2011. The Irregular School. Exclusion, Schooling and Inclusive Education. London:
Routledge.
Tetler, S. 2005. “Tensions and Dilemmas in the Field of Inclusive Education.” In Resistance,
Reflection and Change. Nordic Disability Research, edited by Anders Gustavsson, Johans
Sandvin, Rannveig Traustado´ttir and Jan Tøssebro, 265– 276. Lund: Studentlitteratur.
The Compulsory School Act No 66/1995. Accessed April 12, 2012. //planipolis.iiep.
unesco.org/upload/Iceland/Iceland_Compulsory_School_Act_1995.pdf
UNESCO [United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation]. 1994. The
Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action on Special Needs Education. Paris:
UNESCO.
Vlachou, A. 2004. “Education and Inclusive Policy Making: Implications for Research and
Practice.” International Journal of Inclusive Education 8 [1]: 3 – 21.
International Journal of Inclusive Education 21
Downloaded by [University Of Akureyri], [Hermina Gunnthorsdottir] at 06:13 03 June 2013
157
Conflicts in teachers’ professional practices and perspectives
about inclusion in Icelandic compulsory schools
Authors: Hermína Gunnþórsdóttir
[a] and Dóra S. Bjarnason[b]
a] Faculty of Education, University of Akureyri, Sólborg, Norðurslóð,
IS-602 Akureyri, Iceland. E-mail:
b] School of Education, University of Iceland, Stakkahlíð, IS-105
Reykjavík, E-mail:
Abstract
Inclusive education policy, now the norm in many parts of the world
including Iceland, is highly dependent on teachers for its successful
implementation. Research on inclusion often attempts to identify
teachers’ attitudes of inclusion [against/for].This article takes a
different approach. It focuses on teachers’ perspectives of their
professional practices; that is, how teachers understand what it means
to be and practise as a teacher. We interviewed 10 Icelandic
compulsory school teachers and also examined teaching logs and
associated documents. The findings suggest that the teachers
participating in this study have conflicting expectations towards their
professional practice. They have unclear ideas about the inclusive
ideology, and external factors influence teachers’ perception of their
professional practice more than reflective practices. We suggest that
these findings may well be applicable beyond the Icelandic context,
and that they have implications for the overall inservice and preservice
education offered to teachers.
Keywords: Inclusive education, teachers’ perspectives, teachers’
professional practices.
Introduction
The purpose of this study is to understand Icelandic compulsory
school teachers’ professional practices and perspectives in schools that
are expected by law to aim for inclusive education.
Corresponding author. Email:
158
Iceland adopted the vision of the Salamanca Statement
and
framework for Action on Special Educational Needs [UNESCO 1994]
in 1995 when the Minister of education had the statement and
framework for action translated and sent to every school in the
country in order to spell out and clarify educational policy. The vision
is characterised by humanistic and democratic values, child-centred
pedagogy, diversity as the norm, quality education for all children and
the use of technical and administrative arrangements to deliver
education according to the needs of individual learners [cf.
Jóhannesson 2006]. The terms inclusive schooling and inclusive
education are anchored in the Salamanca Statement and vision. As an
international policy document, the statement provides a foundation for
national and local education policy, but derives its practical meaning
from relevant cultural context. The actual term inclusive education,
however, first appeared in the compulsory education law from 2008 in
paragraph 16 that covered children with disabilities and special needs
[The Compulsory School Act No. 91/2008]. The most recent policy
changes are that the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child was
incorporated into Icelandic law in 2013. The bank crisis [the banks in
Iceland collapsed in 2008], the fall of the krona and the currency
embargo since 2008 has seriously affected both public and private
spending and set the nation’s economy back several years [Wade
2009]. In the period of 2008 to 2013, government and municipalities
placed a great deal of emphasis on counteracting the impact of the
The Salamanca Statement [UNESCO, 1994] is based on a World Conference on
Special Needs Education in Salamanca, Spain 1994 and represents the provisions
and recommendations of 92 governments and 25 international organizations.
159
economic crisis by protecting the welfare side of the school system
and students’ wellbeing. Even though the new compulsory school
laws [2008], the National Curriculum Guide [2011] and economic cuts
did impact schools, these have not yet changed the way teachers work
and think about their work [personal communication Marinósson,
Logadóttir, Olgeirsson 2014]. Schools have changed slowly despite
happenings in the Icelandic society and culture in the intervening
years. Therefore we feel confident that even though the study was
carried out in 2007
, the data and the findings are still valid.
The research questions are:
1. What characterises teachers’ ideas of their professional practice
in a school that is expected to aim for inclusive education?
2. In what ways do teachers’ perspectives on their students’
learning and learning potential coincide with ideas about
inclusive education?
In our view, these questions cast light on how teachers understand
their professional practice within an inclusive ideology. Professional
practice refers to the work a teacher performs in his or her role as a
teacher.
The first author began her doctoral studies at the Institute of Education, London
University in January 2006. In September 2008, however, the Icelandic banks
collapsed and the country was on the verge of bankruptcy. This had unexpected
consequences for the first author’s educational and financial plans and consequently
she transferred her studies to the University of Iceland.
160
Theoretical framework and main concepts
The research is framed within the interpretive paradigm [Bogdan and
Biklen 2003; Ferguson and Ferguson 1995] and informed by social
constructionism [Berger and Luckmann 1966]. These approaches
engage with how humans create and recreate meaning grounded in the
idea that the world is constructed through and by our social and
cultural context [Schwandt 2007]. We apply this approach in order to
understand and interpret how the teachers in the study constructed
their experiences in their work with students, their own professional
work and their ideas on inclusive education.
Teaching is now defined as a more complex job than it was a few
decades ago, for example due to consequences of social change
[Jóhannesson 2006; Jóhannesson, Geirsdóttir and Finnbogason 2002;
The Ministry of Education, Science and Culture 2012], and teachers
are expected to become highly capable so that they can deal with the
multiple tasks of modern teaching [Vlachou 1997]. In this context,
Hargreaves [2000] argues that “there are increasing efforts to build
strong professional cultures of collaboration to develop common
purpose, to cope with uncertainty and complexity” [165]. This calls
for collegially managed schools [Busher and Saran 1995], requiring
high quality leadership, inspiring teachers to retain their autonomy of
decision making when working with students and placing educational
and pedagogical issues at the forefront. According to this
understanding, the notion of the teacher as a deliverer is replaced by
the notion of the teacher as a facilitator or task manager [Esteve 2000;
Hoyle and John 1995]. This implies that teachers’ practices need to
161
become more reflective [Day 1995; Day and Smethem 2009]. We
adhere to this perspective of teachers’ professional practices because it
underlines the view that teaching is a collaborative activity [Day 1995;
Slee 2011] performed by multiple agents, including other teachers,
specialists, teacher aides, students and their families.
In this article inclusive education is understood as a democratic
approach to quality and equity education for all children where active
participation of diverse students in the learning community of the
school is at the forefront [Allan 2012; Armstrong, Armstrong and
Spandagou 2010, 2011; Kozleski, Artiles and Waitoller 2011]. This
understanding presupposes that the term is understood both as a
process and an aim in itself. It focuses on our effort to understand
what restricts and excludes certain students from active participation
[Richardson and Powell 2011] in schools, and what connects students
and strengthens their collaboration, learning and participation.
The study
We used qualitative methods [Bogdan and Biklen 2003; Denzin 2005;
Flick 2006; Wolcot 1995] influenced by the interpretive paradigm
[Glaser and Strauss 1967; Schwandt 2000]. Ferguson and Ferguson
[1995] characterise the methodology associated with the paradigm “as
the systematic collection and analysis of the stories people tell about
how they interpret reality” [105].
The primary method for collecting data was interviews, teaching logs
kept by some of the interviewees for one week and secondary data
sources in the form of documentation. Our professional and personal
162
experiences informed and focused the research. The first author
worked as a primary and upper secondary teacher for seven years and
has taught at a university since 2008. She is also the mother of three
children, one of whom has impairments [see Gunnþórsdóttir 2003].
The second author is a university professor, with more than four
decades of teaching experience, and a researcher in the sociology of
education and disability studies. She is also a parent of a man with
impairments [see Bjarnason 2003].
Data
The research is based on three sets of data. The first set of data is
based on semi-structured interviews with ten classroom teachers from
three compulsory schools in Iceland. The schools were chosen by
asking the local education authority to name three schools that were
seen to be guided by the inclusive education ideology in their
practices. The interviews were conducted by the first author in
February to May 2007. Each interview lasted between 30 and 60
minutes. The teachers, one male and nine females, were all classroom
teachers in grades 1–10 [the compulsory level in Iceland] when the
interviews took place. The gender construction was inevitable as those
teachers were the only ones who taught the classes concerned in the
schools. Their teaching experience varied from 5–25 years. Most of
them had been teaching in the same town during their teaching career.
The second set of data consists of teaching logs from four of the ten
teachers. The teachers used the logs to report on one or two students in
their classrooms, identified with special needs. Teachers kept the logs
over five days and filled out one A4 format each day, where they
163
registered one school curriculum activity of the targeted student. They
described what the student had done in for example math or Icelandic
lessons on the particular day. At the end of that week, those teachers
were interviewed for the second time [here referred to as interview 2]
to discuss the logs and the first interview. The logs are used here as
complementary data throwing light on the interview data and
providing examples of teachers’ professional practice with students
identified with special needs.
The third set of data consists of written documents such as Icelandic
educational legislation, particularly since 1995 [The Compulsory
School Act 66/1995], other policy documents, national curricula, and
ordinances. These documents set out the main guidelines for teachers
both according to policy and practice.
Data analysis
The interviews were transcribed verbatim the day after they were
conducted. The teaching logs were useful for revealing what
approaches teachers chose to use in working with students, what
methods they used and why. They were analysed both separately, as
an independent ‘document’, and in coherence with the interview
material. The policy documents on Icelandic education were analysed
in parallel with the interviews and logs throughout the analysis and
writing process. In the process of analysis common themes were
identified in the data which are introduced in the findings chapter.
Limitations and ethical issues
Although Icelandic schools have for a long time been relatively
homogeneous in terms of ideology and structure [see Gunnþórsdóttir
164
in print] the three schools and the teachers involved in this research
cannot been seen as representative of all Icelandic schools and
teachers. Even though the number of teachers in our sample is small,
we suggest that the findings are likely to exhibit verisimilitude to
similar findings elsewhere and can serve as a valuable contribution to
the awareness of how the research participants understand what it
means to be and practise as teachers in the context of inclusive
education. Even though we adhere to a broad definition of the term
inclusive education, we concentrate here largely on data concerning
teachers’ professional practice in the context of students identified
with special needs. This may seem inappropriate, but in order to
understand teachers’ perspectives on inclusive education we found it
useful to focus on those students, because they have had a stronger
reference than other groups to the general understanding of the
inclusive ideology [Slee 2011, 116–119]. There were important ethical
concerns regarding the participants, the schools and their locations.
The Icelandic school and teacher community is small, as the
population of Iceland is only 325.671 people [Statistics Iceland 2014].
Thus, we have camouflaged the schools, teachers and locations in
order to minimise the risk of unwanted identification of the research
participants who were promised anonymity.
Findings
Three major themes emerged from the data. The first is directed at
exploring teachers’ conflicting perspectives and expectations towards
their work; the second centres on teachers’ conceptualisation of
165
inclusive education; and the third on external factors impacting
teachers’ professional practice such as the legal framework.
Teachers’ conflicting expectations towards their work
Two sub–themes emerged under this heading. The former is on
teachers’ perspectives and expectations concerning their students’
learning abilities and potential and the latter is on tensions within
practice related to issues of support and collaboration.
Teachers’ perspectives and expectations
Firstly, the interviewees emphasised the importance of individualised
learning
for all their students but, at the same time, described certain
of their students as having additional needs and some defined those
students as “an addition” to the regular class without bringing in extra
resources.
Most of the teachers focused more on their students’ weaknesses
rather than their strong sides. The additional support these students
received was often provided in segregated groups as María explained:
“They [two students] are very slow readers and need to be separate
[from the class] and get additional instruction in reading” [Interview
1].
Elísa:
We prefer to use the term individualised learning instead of differentiated learning
for the Icelandic term einstaklingsmiðun or einstaklingsmiðað nám as it presents a
direct translation of the term and has in the discussion a strong reference to
individual-based learning. In the Icelandic discussion, the Icelandic term seems to
refer incidentally to either differentiated learning or individualised learning
166
The weakest-group in math is now taught in a different
classroom … of course we adapt our teaching to those kids;
they do not receive the same study materials as the normal
child who can handle written examinations. [Elísa interview 1]
Based on the data we developed what we call a Teachers’ mind-map
of student categories and learning potentials [see figure 1].
167
[Figure 1 here please]
The mind map is based on our interpretation of how teachers referred
to and classified their students according to the way they described
them. We believe that this demonstrates how the majority of teachers
perceive their students as learners. That in turn appears to affect how
they think about their instruction practices. There is a danger that
these may lead to hindrances to some students’ learning and
participation and even to their exclusion and segregation. We now
refer to the mind map and explain the categories it illustrates. The
arrows represent the interrelations of the categories, indicating for
example how a category creates a new one. The overall categories
teachers used to describe their students were “normal students” and
“not normal students”. A normal student is the one who can mostly
deal with the classroom material with “ordinary support and
instructions from teachers” but the not normal student is seen to have
additional needs for support, time, pedagogical methods, curriculum
adaptation or study materials. Some, but not all, such students had
diagnostic labels. In teachers’ talk students were placed on a
continuum from strong to average to weak students [the third
horizontal row in the mind map]; strong and average thus belonging to
the normal category and weak to the not normal category. The weak
students were talked about by the teachers in several subcategories
ranging from viable slow learners to hopeless in terms of their
academic potential.
168
Students classified as strong normal students, managed mostly on their
own and stayed on track in their work. The teachers neither worried
about them nor spent much time with them. The students referred to as
average were seen as the normal students. Within that group students
ranged from “middle to slow” and the slow learners were seen to be at
risk of falling into the category of weak learners. Those students were
seen, for example, to be in danger of failing one or more national
standardised tests. The teachers were concerned for those students and
gave them additional lessons and support, to strengthen their
performance and “speed them up” in preparation for taking the tests.
Many of the students classified in the not normal category were seen
to be able to benefit from special education, and to succeed in non-
academic subjects such as art and craft. A small group of the not
normal category was portrayed as hopeless in the sense that “they
would never succeed within the school system”. Most of the teachers
believed that those students were the responsibility of the special
educators and consequently they spent little time working with them.
The teachers expressed dissatisfaction at having to include their less
able students in standardised national tests. On the one hand, they
claimed that they were expected to use diverse teaching strategies for
diverse students, but were supposed, simultaneously, to prepare their
students for competitive standardised tests. Such tests are not designed
to take account of diverse needs and competences. The teachers
experienced these contrary demands as difficult, because they felt that
these tests controlled their teaching. Elísa explained:
169
… those blessed national tests – the controlling witch!! The
inclusive school ideas and standardised tests do not go together.
We have 40 children in two classes and 11 or 12 are not using the
same books as the other children use. But we can only obtain an
exemption from the standardised tests for two of those, because
they have been diagnosed; the others simply cannot be exempted
although their study level is a year or two behind the rest of the
class. [Elísa interview 1]
Similar conflicting expectations appeared when teachers talked about
their effort to meet students’ individualised learning as mentioned
above but seem to be stuck in traditional ways of meeting their
students needs such as using study books that actually do not suit their
students – and even outrage them – instead of using more adequate
material. Susanna said about one boy identified with ADHD and
mental impairment:
He was with the class in Christian studies last year, but now I
had him work with the Little Bible and it’s the same with
natural science, he is using the study material for third or
fourth grade [he is in 6th grade] ... and in English ... he is using
the same books as last year, I just had him working with them
again.
In this quote we have an example of how decision making based on
students’ weak side restricts active participation of the student in the
learning community and makes him more an outsider then insider of
170
the classroom. A systematic self-reflection individually or with
colleagues based on theoretical assumptions might have opened up for
these exclusionary circumstances.
Support and collaboration
This sub–theme of support and collaboration illuminated the teachers’
views on their own work habits as well as on those of the special
teachers and teacher aides [normally an unskilled person]. The special
teachers were described as mainly working with individual students or
small groups, in order to improve their skills and abilities. Yet, most
of the class teachers said they wished that the special teachers would
support them in the classroom, reaching more students in need of
assistance. María explained:
I am not really doing that [working individually with students]
in the classroom. You see, it is the special teacher who is
helping the weaker students individually, while I am in the
classroom working with the group as a whole. [María
interview 1]
When María and the other teachers were asked if they had discussed
this with the special teachers their answer was almost invariably:
“there is never time for such discussions”. Hence, the clashing
routines and rhythms of the class teachers’ and the special teachers’
work habits added to the confusion and conflicting expectations of the
teachers. A similar tension was described relating to the teacher aides
and their lack of skills to work with students according to their needs.
Teachers claim that this situation has a diverse effect; instead of acting
171
as a colleague with shared responsibility, it places more burden on
their shoulders as too much time is devoted to “educating” and
guiding the teacher aide – about how to work with students. Moreover,
the teachers were concerned about the teacher aides’ lack of
education:
We have also had to witness a student not receiving the service
the school is supposed to provide. One of the teacher aides, for
example, accompanied a student right up to 10th grade and all
this time they were not doing any serious work. The teacher
did not attend to this student because he did not belong to the
special class – he was really somewhere in between ..... and
this was just a nice lady, a teacher aide who accompanied him
and just did insignificant work with him in class. Of course he
learnt nothing. [Elisa interview 2]
Teachers mentioned that having more hands in the classroom to assist
them and share the responsibility is useless if the people concerned
lack the skills and education to meet students’ needs. Many of them –
mostly uneducated women – only wanted to work with students in the
lower grades because they do not trust themselves to assist students
when the study material gets more specialised and complicated.
The teachers expressed concerns about how support, to themselves
and to students, is organised and distributed. The focus is more often
on support which results in students being removed or detached from
the responsibility of the classroom teachers, instead of creating a
172
situation that enables the teachers to work in a holistic manner and the
students to learn:
External circumstances hinder many children in their studies.
Many students, whether with handicaps or not, find it very
difficult to work in a large group. Some have the opportunity
to leave this environment, where they feel uncomfortable, and
move with the special teacher into a small space for an x
number of lessons and then they can perhaps focus a little for
the first time. If students could be allowed to change their
environment more frequently we would be a whole lot more
successful with those particular students; because there are
countless lessons where those students are merely present,
perhaps interrupting others and perhaps just doing nothing.
[Klara interview 1]
The teachers would like to see more active collaboration and
teamwork both between other teachers, and specialists within and
outside the school. They claim that there is a lack of consultation and
collaboration and therefore procedures and responsibilities are not
always clear. This absence of interaction too often results in
unnecessary frustration. The teachers criticise the time and money
invested in diagnosing students as a prerequisite for offering them
adequate support. The process takes far too long and during the
interval – which can be weeks or months - there are no solutions or
support for teachers and students. Klara said:
Diagnoses are not always necessary; in many cases we –
teachers and parents – know exactly what the child needs and
173
it is so frustrating having to wait for weeks on end... and then
perhaps you receive some advice from the specialist
counsellor, down there...but you are not necessarily given the
added space or support to meet the needs of those kids.
Taken together, these findings cast a beam of light on common
conflicts that teachers face in their teaching. The greater the extent to
which the teachers viewed their students’ ability and learning potential
as fixed and categorised, the harder it was for them to find acceptable
solutions. That in itself is also linked to how teachers think about their
own professional practice as shown below. Although teachers have
access to special teachers and teacher aides their contribution too often
stimulates segregative practices rather than the interaction and
collaboration which the teachers state that they would prefer. An
example of this crystallises in Gudrun’s comment when asked about
support for teachers: “Support from the school department focuses on
the provision of special lessons,” which too often means that the
support is directed away from the class teacher and the responsibility
for the student is transferred to the special teachers or the teacher
aides.
Teachers’ conceptualisations of inclusive education
When the teachers were asked about inclusive education, they mostly
mentioned individualised learning. The data showed that most of the
teachers understood the term “individualised learning” as synonymous
with “inclusive education”. None of the teachers said that they had
really explored inclusive education policy or practice. Elísa had heard
about inclusive education and the Salamanca declaration by
174
coincidence, in the staffroom where one of her colleagues was
explaining her postgraduate studies at the university. Susanna said:
I do not have much information about what is meant by
inclusive school. I only knew that the municipality has adopted
this idea [individualised learning] and of course it has been
mentioned at work. I have not taken part in such talk. All my
information comes from the school administration and then
there is of course this brochure on individualised learning I
got... and have not read yet. [Interview 1]
The teachers’ understanding of the term inclusive education was most
often confined to what Söder [1991] called situational integration, or
the idea that all students should be together in the same location, their
home schools and, when possible, in ordinary classes irrespective of
their needs. Klara said:
It is really this integrated school for everyone ... is it not? And
it does not really matter whether or not you have a handicap;
everyone is entitled to learn according to their interest, skills
and ability like is stated in the National Curriculum Guide ... is
that not correct? [Klara interview 1]
Furthermore, the findings show that neither in the interviews nor in
the logs did the teachers refer to concepts related to inclusive
education, such as quality education, diversity, equity, social justice,
participation or democratic schooling. This suggests that the teachers
were uninformed about the inclusive ideology as defined in this article
and lacked terminology to discuss the policy and practice involved.
175
External factors influencing teachers’ perceptions of their
professional practice
When asked about their own professional practice and perspectives,
the teachers answered “we should”, “we are expected to do…” this or
that, or “according to the National Curriculum we must…”. Most
claimed that they experienced such external commands as forced up
on them from above. This feeling of lack of power over professional
practice was more frequently uttered by teachers who taught at the
middle and upper levels [grades 4–10] than by those working with
younger students. The importance of teaching in preparation for
national tests was also used as an explanation for teaching from the
centre of the classroom. Julia, who taught in grade 10 said:
It is not really possible to work on something based on the
individual all the time…, and yet everyone is supposed to take
the same exams; you know, everyone is measured by the same
yardstick. [Julia interview 1]
Two teachers in the lower grades [1–3] shared similar ideas, but
refused to let the tests control their teaching. Vera said:
I am teaching lower grades and I know full well what is
awaiting them [my students], such as the standardised tests in
the fourth grade, but I really keep looking at the individual as
he is today. This is perhaps because in my opinion those tests
do not suit everyone and I prefer to deal with the students as
they are... support the skills they have. [Vera interview 1]
The lack of support from the system was also used to explain why the
teachers were unable to work in the manner they said they desired, as
176
well as being overloaded by various professional tasks and demands.
The words of Kristin are representative of these ideas:
Teachers play their part in this; they keep saying: “I must sort
out this situation, I must sort out this situation” and the experts
now say: “you should be able to solve all the problems; you are
supposed to be able to plan lessons for 25 students, regardless
of their individual differences, in such a way that everyone is
provided with suitable learning materials. But this is just not
realistic ... those are excessive demands. [Kristin interview 2]
In general the teachers felt they did not lack the competence to teach
students with special needs, but they claimed that the organisation of
the schools and the educational structure, lack of resources and
external demands hindered them in responding adequately to their
students’ additional needs. The findings suggest that the teachers felt
external factors affected their control over the conditions within which
they worked, creating a situation where they felt powerless vis-à-vis
the education system.
Discussion
In our first research question we asked, what characterises teachers’
ideas of their professional practice in a school that is expected to aim
for inclusive education? The results suggest that the teachers’
perspectives on their work were somewhat unclear and fragmentary. If
this is correct, it could relate to our findings which indicate that the
teachers did not engage with much systematic self-reflection
177
underpinned by theoretical associations. Day [1995] found that
teachers who were active in producing knowledge about their own
teaching were also likely to promote reflective practices. Thus,
because of lack of self-reflection it appears to have been difficult for
the teachers to identify which teaching approaches might lead to either
segregation or inclusionary practices. In order to discuss and reflect,
teachers need a forum and opportunity to explore terminology and
theoretical arguments. Vlachou [1997] has highlighted that teaching is
a complex and skilled activity, which calls for a highly developed
ability to hold in balance a multitude of demands and tensions.
Teachers, therefore, need to “learn to live with dilemma, contradiction
and paradox” [62]. Teachers are not – but need to be – reflective
practitioners in order to be successful inclusive educators.
In light of the findings concerning the teachers’ descriptions of their
professional practices, we argue that they need to be supported to
enhance their reflective pedagogical practice. For inclusive education
to work, the schools need inquiring reflective practitioners, able to
make decisions in situations of uncertainty.
Teachers´ perceptions of lack of power emerged in the data, for
example in their perspectives on educational acts, curricula and tests,
as if these were external issues imposed upon them. Day [1995] has
suggested that teachers have been inclined to reflect on their learning
in private. He suggests that reflecting collectively with their
professional communities might have positive impact on practice.
Such arguments may help us understand why the teachers in this study
did not exercise what power they had, for example to reorganise the
178
work of regular and special teachers and teacher aides in a more
collaborative manner.
The findings show that the teachers viewed inclusive education as an
external issue separate from their professional practice, which is in
line with the findings of Gunnþórsdóttir and Jóhannesson [2013] that
inclusion is an additional workload; they were unfamiliar with ideas
and concepts on inclusive education and most did not see it as
important [or an issue] to incorporate inclusive ideas in their teaching.
The support offered to students with special needs is mostly arranged
to fit in with the organisation of the school rather than individual
students´ needs. Such students tend to be grouped together for special
lessons, since this was seen to be rational and convenient for resources
and planning. This approach is grounded in the historical context of
special education [Richardson and Powell 2011] and still deeply
interconnected within many schools as a technical and structural
solution to a problem.
The second research question was: In what ways do teachers’
perspectives on their students’ learning and learning potential coincide
with ideas about inclusive education? The mind-map helps us to
understand how and why the teachers categorised their students and
with what consequences. The findings show that many of the teachers
constructed almost mutually exclusive student groups, both within and
outside their classrooms, while attempting to respond to individual
needs in accordance with the ethos of individualised learning. This is
contrary to the inclusive ideology. As argued above, the teachers
referred to individualised learning in a way that might have resulted in
179
patterns of segregation. The findings show that most of the teachers
believed that those students [identified with SEN] were the
responsibility of the special educators and consequently they spent
little time working with them The situation the mind map illustrated
could possibly be connected to the existence of special education
arrangements which limit teachers’ authority over their professional
practices and their potential to act as leaders in a team of teachers and
professionals. One of the Icelandic head teachers raised this concern
when he mentioned the need to change special education practices as
he was aware that “by focusing on students’ weak sides we would
only create tasks for special teachers”.
If this interpretation is correct, then it is of concern that the teachers
may still be applying practices that originated in a more traditional
special education, rather than focusing on meeting diverse individual
needs. If diversity is not taken as a starting point in teachers’ practices,
the system itself is likely to focus and encapsulate their work. The
teachers were used to having teacher aides in their classrooms, which
seemed to provide favourable conditions for meeting the diverse needs
of students. Yet, aides might or might not support the participation of
students with additional learning needs or other needs in the school.
This is paradoxical because these students were considered, according
to the teachers, to receive a service from an inclusive system. We
argue that it is evident from the data how categorisation by perceived
ability or needs implies that both the stronger and the weaker students
may receive little attention from their teachers and miss the chance to
develop their skills according to their ability.
180
It is our understanding that teachers in this research represent ideas
where students are seen as needing support to cope with requirements
aimed at normal students. As Armstrong, Armstrong and Spandagou
[2010] have highlighted, the definition of inclusion one chooses
affects teachers’ way of teaching. The teachers mostly referred to
innovations and school reforms as prescribed by agents outside their
schools, documents they knew about but had not yet explored. This is
in line with similar trends identified by researchers in Iceland, Europe
and elsewhere [see, e.g. Day and Smethem 2009; Jóhannesson,
Geirsdóttir and Finnbogason 2002] where governmental interventions
resulted in educational policies without teacher support.
Consequently, the teachers did not see it as their task to take the
initiative of studying and implementing ideas about inclusive
education. As discussed above, this is, however, not solely their task
or responsibility, especially – as we argue – considering that inclusive
education is about whole school practice [Slee 2011].
Conclusion
The goal of this research was to explore how teachers experience and
express their own professional development and their ideas about
inclusive education. The theme of segregation is the most dominant
theme in the findings and appears both in the teachers’ perspectives
towards their students as learners, and in how they explained their
own teaching practices. This is at odds with any definition of inclusive
education and contrary to the image of teachers as interactive and
democratic practitioners. The findings demonstrate that the teachers
were unaware of the segregative impact of their ideas because these
181
are grounded in their professional practices, school cultures and
organisational structures. Segregative pedagogical practices have thus
become generally accepted in the schools under study.
The overall findings suggest that principles of inclusive education
such as a democratic schools, equity, social justice and participation
are not in concert with the teachers’ understandings of their
professional practice. Finally, the findings indicate that the teachers
may be losing some sense of their potential to affect and change their
own pedagogical approaches and their professional work conditions,
due to their feelings of disempowerment. Further research is needed to
explore teachers’ professional development in the context of inclusive
education policy and practices. Education systems that aim for
inclusive education through legislation and policy must focus on
systemic changes followed by adequate support to teachers. It is not
useful to force the policy and practice of inclusive education into a
system designed for categorisation and segregation [Slee 2011]. It is
problematic to aim for inclusive education, democratic schooling, and
quality education for all unless teachers are encouraged and supported
to reflect and act professionally, and become critically aware of the
complexities associated with inclusive ideology its policy and
practices.
Acknowledgements
Hermína Gunnþórsdóttir thanks the Icelandic Research Fund
[RANNÍS] and University of
Akureyri Research Fund for supporting this research. We also thank
Hermína’s critical writing group for a thorough reading of some of the
final drafts; Julie Allan and Ingólfur Ásgeir Jóhannesson for reading
drafts at various stages of writing the article; Rafn Kjartansson for the
182
translation of the citations and proofreading; and finally the
interviewees, as well as the anonymous referees for their critical and
supportive comments.
REFERENCES
Allan, J. 2012. The sociology of disability and the struggle for
inclusive education. The sociology of disability and inclusive
education. A tribute to Len Barton, ed. M. Arnot, 75–91.
Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.
Armstrong, AC., D. Armstrong, and I. Spandagou. 2010. Inclusive
Education: International Policy & Practice. London: Sage.
Armstrong, D., A.C. Armstrong, and I. Spandagou. 2011. Inclusion:
By choice or by chance? International Journal of Inclusive
Education 15, no. 1: 29–39.
DOI:10.1080/13603116.2010.496192.
Berger, P., and T. Luckmann. 1966. The social construction of reality:
A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. Harmondsworth:
Penguin.
Bjarnason, D.S. 2003. School inclusion in Iceland: the cloak of
invisibility. New York: Nova Science.
Bogdan, R.C., and S.K. Biklen. 2003. Qualitative research for
education. An introduction to theory and methods. 4th ed.
Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Busher, H., and R. Saran. 1995. Introduction: Schools for the future.
In Managing teachers as professionals in schools, ed. H.
Busher and R. Saran, 1–18. London, Philadelphia: Kogan
Page.
Day, C. 1995. Leadership and professional development: Developing
reflective practice. In Managing teachers as professionals in
schools, ed. H. Busher and R. Saran, 109–130. London,
Philadelphia: Kogan Page.
Day, C., and L. Smethem. 2009. The effects of reform: Have teachers
really lost their sense of professionalism? Journal of
Educational Change 10: 141–157. DOI: 10.1007/s10833-009-
9110-5.
Denzin, N.K., and Y.S. Lincoln. 2005. The Sage handbook of
qualitative research. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
183
Esteve, J.M. 2000. The transformation of the teachers’ role at the end
of the twentieth century: new challenges for the future.
Educational Review 52, no. 2: 197-207.
Ferguson, D.L., and P.M. Ferguson. 1995. The interpretivist view of
special education and disability: The value of telling stories. In
Disability and democracy: Reconstructing special education
for postmodernity, ed. T.M. Skrtic, 104–122. New York:
Teachers College Press.
Flick, U. 2006. An introduction to qualitative research. 3rd ed.
London: Sage.
Glaser, B.G., and A.L. Strauss. 1967. The discovery of grounded
theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New York: Aldine
de Gruyter.
Gunnþórsdóttir, H. in press. The Teacher in an Inclusive School:
Influences on the ideas of Icelandic and Dutch compulsory
school teachers. In International Cultures of Educational
Inclusion, ed. B.Boufoy-Bastick. Strasbourg, France:
Analytrics. [ISBN 979-10-90365-06-3].
Gunnþórsdóttir, H. 2003. Aðlögun barna að erlendu námsumhverfi.
Rannsókn á aðlögun tveggja íslenskra barna að hollenskum
grunnskóla [Children‘s adaptation to a foreign learning
environment. Research into how two Icelandic children
adapted to a Dutch primary school ]. M.Ed.-diss., University of
Iceland.
Gunnþórsdóttir, H. and I.Á. Jóhannesson. 2013. Additional workload
or a part of the job? Icelandic teachers’ discource on inclusive
education. International Journal of Inclusive Education 17, no.
10: 1–21. DOI:10.1080/13603116.2013.802027
Hargreaves, A. 2000. Four ages of professionalism and professional
learning. Teachers and Teaching; History and Practice 6, no.
2: 151–182.
DOI: 10.1080/713698714 URL:
//dx.doi.org/10.1080/713698714.
Hoyle, E., and P.D. John. 1995. Professional knowledge and
professional practice. London: Cassell.
Jóhannesson, I.Á., G. Geirsdóttir, and G.E. Finnbogason. 2002.
Modern educational sagas: Legitimation of ideas and practices
in Icelandic education. Scandinavian Journal of Educational
Research 46, no.3: 265–282.
184
Jóhannesson, I.Á. 2006. Concepts of teacher knowledge as social
strategies. Pedagogy, Culture & Society 14, no. 1: 19-34. DOI:
10.1080/14681360500487520
Kozleski, E.B., A.J. Artile, and F.R. Waitoller. 2011. Introduction:
Equity in inclusive education. Historical trajectories and
theoretical commitments. In Inclusive education. Examining
equity on five continents, ed. A.J., Artiles, E.B. Kozleski and
F.R. Waitoller, 1–14. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education
Press.
Richardson, J.G., and J.J.W. Powell. 2011. Comparing special
education. Origins to contemporary paradoxes. Stanford, CA:
Stanford University Press.
Schwandt, T.A. 2007. The sage dictionary of qualitative inquiry. 3rd
ed. Los Angeles, London, New Delhi & Singapore: Sage.
Schwandt, T.A. 2000. Three epistemological stances for qualitative
enquiry. In Handbook of qualitative research, ed. N.K. Denzin
and Y. S. Lincoln, 189–213. Thousands Oaks: Sage.
Slee, R. 2011. The irregular school. Exclusion, schooling and
inclusive education. London and New York: Routledge.
Statistics Iceland. 2014. Statistics, Population, Overview. Retrieved 13
January 2014 from
//www.statice.is/Statistics/Population/Overview.
Söder, M. 1991. Theory, ideology and research: a response to Tony
Booth. European Journal of Special Needs Education 6, no. 1:
17–23.
The Ministry of Education, Science and Culture. 2012. The Icelandic
national curriculum guide for compulsory school: general
section. Reykjavík: The Ministry of Education, Science and
Culture. Retrieved from
//brunnur.stjr.is/mrn/utgafuskra/utgafa.nsf/RSSPage.xsp?d
ocumentId=C590D16CBC8439C500257A240030AE7F&actio
n=openDocument.
The Compulsory School Act No. 66/1995.
The Compulsory School Act No 91/2008.
UNESCO [United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Organisation]. 1994. The Salamanca statement and framework
for action on special needs education. Paris: UNESCO.
Vlachou, A. 1997. Struggles for inclusive education. An ethnographic
study. Buckingham, Philadelphia: Open University Press.
Wade, R. 2009. THE Crisis. Iceland as Icarus. Challenge 52, no. 3: 5–
33.
185
Wolcott, H.F. 1995. The art of fieldwork. Walnut Creek: AltaMira
Press.
[1] Lecturer at the University of Akureyri, Iceland and PhD student at
the University of Iceland
[2] Professor at the University of Iceland, Reykjavík
186
Figure 1 – Teachers’ mind-map of categories of students’ abilities
and learning potentials
Not normal students: Have
various additional needs
Strong learners:
Outstanding and
manage on their
own
Average learners: In
the middle to slow
Weak learners: From viable to
hopeless students
Slow
learners: at risk
of falling into
the category
weak learners
Normal students: can deal with the
classroom material with ordinary support
from the teacher
Hopeless: Will never
succeed in school
Several Sub groups:
According to academic
abilities or diagnostic labels
187
APPENDIX B – Question grids used in interviews with teachers and head teachers
Grid 1 – Teachers’ Role in an inclusive school
Column 3
What I like/see as
positive
Keywords for further
discussions
Column 4
What I’m worried-/not so
convinced about
Keywords for further
discussions
Holistic whole-child approach
Social model
Within-child focus
Deficit and medical-model
[B]
Classroom
organization
Withdrawal
Individual and small group
direct teaching
In-class inclusive approach to
meet a diversity of pupils
[C]
Assessment
and diagnostic
Assessment for learning – pupil-
friendly
Pupils self-review of progress
Specialist diagnostic
assessment
Personalised learning approach
to meet the needs of the whole
child
Specific individual pupil
programmes with little or no
transference across the
curriculum
188
Grid 2 – The Role of the school and the local community in an inclusive school
Column 3
What I like/see as
positive
Keywords for further
discussions
Column 4
What I’m worried-/not
so convinced about
Keywords for further
discussions
Focus on educational outcome
Selection based on learning
abilities
Holistic focus: The child and
the wider community
Fostering different abilities
One mainstream school for all
children
Special schools for special
children
[C]
The school
and
community
Participation limited to what
the child can do
Limited participation outside
the school
Participation across the
curriculum and in society
[D]
Attitude and
perception
Active participation and
contribution to the society
Passive receiver of care
189
Grid 3 –Teachers future vision
ACCORDING TO TEACHERS
Keywords for further discussions
ACCORDING TO SCHOOL AND THE LOCAL
COMMUNITY
Keywords for further discussions
191
APPENDIX C – Researcher prompts in interviews with teachers and head teachers
Grid 1 – Teachers´ Role [Researcher - Prompts]
Ideology/Policy * There are wide range of views about what inclusive education is, and as yet there is no fully agreed definition. How
would you describe inclusive education?
* For some, inclusion means that schools should adapt to the children needs. How realistic is this ideology if you think
about your school and your classroom.
Go to Grid:
* What might have happened in your school which could be described as a process to become more inclusive?
Check list:
Classroom What difficulties, regarding classroom organization, can you think about which could be barrier to inclusive classroom
Organization practices [diversity of pupils with complex and challenging additional educational needs]
Got to Grid:
Check list:
Assessment and How important are Specialist Diagnostic Assessment for teachers?
Diagnostic
Go to Grid:
Check list:
: inclusion and achieving high exam results
192
Teaching styles
What progress can you think about which you have already made as a teacher in starting to respond to more inclusive
teaching?
Go to Grid:
Check list: Confident [meeting the needs of children with SEN/disab]
Comments:
193
Grid 2 – The Role of the school and the local community [Researcher - Prompts]
Ideology/Policy For some people, inclusion is seen as a human right issue. What could that involve?
Check list:
Types of schools In some countries there is a choice between special schools or mainstream schools [two track system] in other there is
one mainstream school for all children [one track system]. What can you think about as both advantage and
disadvantage factors in both systems.
Check list:
The school and the Schools are now being required to move towards more inclusive practices. Do you think our community is also moving
Wider community in the same direction?
Check list:
changes in schools > changes in the society
changes in society > changes in schools
Examples of inclusion in the scoiety
Attitude and Does inclusion also refer to other members of the society who are excluded on the ground of race, sex, age……
Perception
Check list: Exclusion Human Rights Education for the future
195
APPENDIX D – Teaching log used by teachers
Please fill in the log as soon as possible after each session
Pupil: _______ Age _________ Filled in by:
Special needs/disability_____________________ Teacher _____ Classroom
assistance _____
Date: ______________ Time: __________
Other _____
Duration of activity ___________________
Curriculum Area[s]: Pupil organization:
1:1 _____Paired/small group ____
Activity: Whole class _____Self-directed ___
Other:
Goal: Why did you choose this goal?
Please list the strategies used: Why did you choose to use these
strategies?
How did the pupil respond? Did she/he reach your teaching purpose?
Will you use these strategies again?
Or do you think other strategies will be more helpful in reaching your goals?
197
APPENDIX E – Interviews in Iceland and the Netherlands – an overview
Table 3 Interviews in Iceland and the Netherlands – an overview
Pilot interviews
6 Icelandic students [6-16
years old]
Main interviews
Interview – 1
Question Grid
Interview – 2
Semi-structured
Interview – 1
Question Grid
Interview – 2
Semi-structured