Cross-professional collaboration to improve inclusive education

ABSTRACT

The Norwegian Educational Psychological Service (EPS) is a significant partner to guide and support the development of fruitful learning environments and inclusive education (IE) in kindergartens and schools. To do so, collaboration with principals and classroom teachers is crucial. The question addressed in this article is which properties of inclusive education are emphasized in collaborative projects aiming to improve the quality of education for pupils at risk and with special educational needs. Sixty-five EPS advisors’ reports from an in-service program are used to identify to what extent and how a set of signature characteristics of IE were called attention to. The analysis shows that the reports mainly focus on placement, while qualities such as involvement and outcome are given less attention. The study accentuates the need for a thorough understanding of the ideals of IE to improve the quality of education for children at risk and children with special educational needs.

KEYWORDS:

• Educational psychology service
• school improvement
• interprofessional collaboration
• inclusive education
• system work
• special education
• special needs education

Introduction

The Salamanca statement and the Framework for action on special needs education (Unesco/IBE, 1994, 2000) recognize policies and practices that include all pupils, respond to individual needs, highlight diversity as an asset, and support learning. The Unesco/IBE's framework is highly supported (Magnússon, 2019) and justified along educational, social, and economic lines (Ainscow et al., 2019). Inclusive education (IE) is celebrated in the political rhetoric; however, the understanding of how to implement IE differs widely across contexts (Allan, 2008), with few instructions on what IE should be in practice (Göransson & Nilholm, 2014; Nilholm & Göransson, 2017). The varying understandings are followed by discussions on different organizational levels (Hansen & Qvortrup, 2013). Even within schools, there are varying understandings of how to create inclusive classrooms (Haug, 2017). Some argue that the core of IE mainly refers to specific groups or categories of people, whereas others emphasize that IE involves everyone (Nilholm & Göransson, 2017). The different viewpoints and understandings signify that IE has evolved through different political, economic, and cultural processes, and are complex, ambiguous, and contested (Florian, 2014; Magnússon, 2019; Kalambouka et al., 2007; Vislie, 2003).

The varying conceptualizations of IE create tensions (Norwich, 2014) and imply that “the operative meaning of inclusion in reviews and empirical research should be much more clearly defined” (Göransson & Nilholm, 2014, p. 255). Additional studies may give insight into how characteristics of IE are negotiated, met, and realized, both at the organizational levels and for children and adolescents in kindergartens and schools. Hence, a coherent operative meaning of IE must include different organizational levels, making premises both for educational policy and classroom practices (Booth & Ainscow, 2011; Mitchell, 2005). The question we raise in this article is: what characteristics of IE are focused on when EPS advisers initiate collaboration on organizational development, and how does the collaboration support the development of inclusive practices? As the point of departure, we briefly describe the Norwegian educational system in the light of IE, followed by the Norwegian support system for pupils at risk and with special educational needs, and the Educational Psychology Service's (EPS) assignment and duties. In the following part, we introduce a theoretical framework for how to understand and boost inclusive practices. Our aim is not to evaluate whether or not an EPS, kindergarten, school, or municipality has succeeded or failed in implementing IE. The aim is rather to explore and discuss to what degree characteristics related to IE are called attention to in a sample of EPS advisers’ reports on organizational development to improve education for children and adolescents at risk or with special educational needs.

The Norwegian education system and inclusive education

In Norway, inclusion can be traced to the social and educational policy debates of the 1960s (Telhaug et al., 2006; Vislie, 2003). The process was fueled by discussions on principles such as equity, normalization, participation, and decentralization. The process led to a change in policy and ideology implying that people with all kinds of handicaps and special needs should have access to the same resources and means as people without handicaps and need for support (Ministry of Church and Education, 1970). One major change paving the way from the Norwegian “two-track” segregated education system of the 1950s (Pijl & Meijer, 1991; Vislie, 2003) towards a united school system, was the education reforms in the 1970s. The 1974 curriculum revision (Ministry of Church and Education, 1974) and the “integration” amendment in the Education Act (Ministry of Church and Education, 1969-75) underscored that all children, regardless ability, social and economic factors, ethnicity, or special needs, have the right to grow up and live with their families and attend the local class of peers during compulsory schooling (Dyson & Millward, 1997; Fasting, 2013; Haug, 1996). The change in educational policy advocated unstreamed classes (Salend, 2005) integration (Dyson & Millward, 1997) and pedagogical differentiation (OEDC/CERI, 1981) from grade one to grade nine, to facilitate mainstream education for pupils who previously were placed in segregated settings.

As a result of the Salamanca ratification (Unesco/IBE, 1994, 2000), inclusion was introduced as a guiding principle in the curriculum for primary and secondary schools (Ministry of Church- Education and Research, 1996). The idea was that all pupils should take part in common social, academic, and cultural activities equally. The introduction of inclusion in the curriculum did not raise any substantial debate. Inclusion was more or less taken for granted in the sense that Norwegian kindergartens and schools saw themselves rooted in the ideals of inclusion. Following the lack of debate, IE was implemented on multiple meanings, ranging from the mere physical placement of children with special educational needs in ordinary schools and classes to the transformation of entire municipal educational systems (Fasting, 2013). In a broad sense, the understanding can be categorized by a one-dimensional and a multi-dimensional conceptualization. A common one-dimensional understanding is that inclusion mainly concerns placement in mainstream educational settings and to be taught in an ordinary classroom (Norwich, 2008; Vislie, 2003). A multi-dimensional understanding indicates that the quality of fellowship, socialization and education must be called attention to, to face the ideals of IE. Such quality elements include participation in common teaching and learning activities, interaction with peers and teachers, sense of belonging, and meaningful outcomes. Hence, a multi-dimensional perspective on IE applies to the entire school system aiming for the best possible childhood and learning environment for everyone (Booth & Ainscow, 2011).

The recent decades, Norwegian authorities have increased the focus on school effectiveness and academic learning (Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research, 2003–04; OECD, 2019). The focus on IE has been challenged by policy ideals of competition and accountability (Hopmann, 2008). The change of policy is in line with what Slee (1997) refers to as the “school effectiveness rhetoric” and the use of school performance league tables. The idea is to strengthen economic growth and the well-being of society (e.g., Norwegian Ministry of Finance & Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2019). The intersection between the ideals of IE and the ambitions of a more efficient school system creates tensions (Haug, 2017). To moderate the tensions, the Norwegian educational authorities have in chapter one of the Education Act, added the principle of adapted education: “Education must be adapted to the abilities and aptitudes of the individual pupil” (section 1-3; Ministry of Education Research and Church Affairs, 1998). The moderation was followed by the White Paper “Learning Together” (Ministry of Education and Research, 2010-11) in which the Educational Psychological Service (EPS) was pinpointed as a significant cross-professional service to realize the ideals of IE for children at risk and with special educational needs.

A national support system promoting inclusive education

In Norway, pupils who either do not or are unable to benefit satisfactorily from ordinary teaching have the right to special education (Education Act, section 5-1; Ministry of Education Research and Church Affairs, 1998). Approximately 7.8% of the pupils in compulsory schools receive special education, among whom two-thirds have part-time special education three to five hours a week. Part-time special education includes in-class support, group teaching, or out-of-class adapted individual training. In kindergarten, the percentage of children with special educational support is approximately 3.4%, and in upper secondary education and vocational training nearly 4% of the pupils. About 1% of the pupil population is provided education in special schools or in public schools’ special education units (The Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training, 2021). The idea behind the extensive use of part-time special education is that high-quality mainstream education along with special education is significant to ensure the pupils’ well-being and learning (Ministry of Education and Research, 2010-11).

The Educational Psychology Service (EPS) is a nationwide municipality-based special education support service. The EPS mandate is to guide and support kindergartens and schools with competence enhancement and organizational development to improve the education for children and adolescents with special educational needs and, when required, ensure expert assessments when special education is considered (Ministry of Education Research and Church Affairs, 1998, section 5–6). Parents must give their consent when a school or a kindergarten refers their child for expert assessment. Parents and adolescents themselves can directly apply to the EPS for advice or expert assessments. Traditionally, until the 1970s, the EPS’ mandate and practice were based on a categorical, individual-centered approach (Hausstätter & Takala, 2008; Moen et al., 2018) aiming to identify the individual child's learning difficulties and special needs through diagnostic information obtained by observations and standardized tests. The feedback for kindergartens and schools focused on the individuals’ limitations and strengths, Individual Education Plans (IEP), and specialized instruction to boost learning, academically and socially. The current mandate implies that the EPS adviser, in collaboration with the school, initially critically must evaluate the educational program and the learning environment, how the teaching is organized, and adjacent elements influencing the pupil's benefit of schooling. From such an extended perspective, social challenges and learning difficulties are not merely seen as causes of individual limitations but also implicit expressions of the education programs and the school systems’ failure to facilitate participation and meaningful learning (Kolnes et al., 2021). In addition, reports show that preventive initiatives are hardly given attention (Fylling & Handegård, 2009; Hustad et al., 2013). The latter perspective is close to what Hausstätter and Takala (2008) describe as a system-oriented, relational perspective calling for cross-professional collaboration to adapt and improve the learning environment and the education program.

However, the system-oriented element of the EPS mandate is “loosely coupled” (Weick, 2001) in the EPS practice and hardly requested in kindergartens and schools (Hustad et al., 2013). To initiate an organizational system-oriented approach, the EPS advisers have to highlight and discuss the current educational practices with the teachers and the school leader, to develop a joint understanding of the challenges in question. The shared understanding creates a basis for a developmental process on what is possible to achieve in a short-term perspective and supports a long-term collaboration. A system-based approach can be seen as an explorative process that creates joint knowledge and transformation of ideas by tying knots in a divided multi-organizational terrain (Engestrom, 2004). Competing factors for the emergence of a system-based perspective is an extensive referral rate of individuals to the EPS, followed by heavy workloads and waiting lists. In schools, the teachers’ mindsets are to a large degree framed by concerns for the child's abilities, aptitudes, and behavior, while the conditions and terms set by the school, academically and socially, are rarely addressed (Fasting, 2018). Similar tensions between an individual perspective and a system-based approach are reported in Denmark (Szulevicz & Tanggaard, 2015), in Sweden (Persson, 2013), and in other European countries (e.g., Anthun, 2002).

An operative understanding of inclusive education

In order to examine what elements of IE are focused on when EPS advisers initiate collaboration with kindergartens and schools to improve the education for children and adolescents at risk or with special educational needs, an operative meaning of IE is required (Göransson & Nilholm, 2014). Accordingly, the Norwegian scholar Peder Haug has suggested a multi-dimensional model that includes a horizontal and a vertical dimension. The horizontal axis involves a general operationalization of IE, while the vertical axis focuses on the different systemic levels, the partners involved, and the coherence between policies, strategies, priorities, and practices. The total of the two dimensions creates an operational basis to accelerate IE (Haug, 2017).

On the horizontal axis, IE is the properties of challenges all kindergartens and schools have to face:

• To increase fellowship: All pupils should have the possibility of being genuine members of a class and a school and to take part in common learning activities; academically, socially, and culturally. Accordingly, inclusive education concerns the entire school and how the education is organized, not just some teachers, pupils, groups of pupils, or school subjects.

• To increase participation: All pupils should be allowed to participate in communities of learning and in the school culture with opportunities to contribute to the best for the fellowship in accordance with their own ability and capability; not being a “bystander”. Accordingly, inclusive education involves opportunities for participation.

• To increase involvement: All pupils should be allowed to address and influence matters concerning their own interests and education as part of teaching democracy. Accordingly, inclusive education implies the possibility to express personal needs, interests, and viewpoints.

• To increase outcome: All pupils should benefit from education, socially and academically. The value of education is the sum of fellowship, participation, and involvement. Accordingly, inclusive education implies facilitating future-oriented learning in terms of knowledge for life.

In addition to the signature characteristics (the horizontal axis), IE involves several organizational levels and parties. These extend from the national and municipal responsibility for the curricula and the education, municipal strategies for in-service education and the allocation of resources to kindergartens, schools, special education, the EPS, and adjacent support services, the focus on IE, to the teachers’ and staff's implementation of IE in the classroom. The different organizational levels and parties are intertwined in multi-organizational terrains, implying varying conditions supporting or suppressing the implementation of IE.

Given the challenges of implementing IE, it may be of international interest to gain insight into how a sample of Norwegian EPS advisers focus on IE when organizational development is on the agenda. More specifically, we want to examine what signature characteristics of IE are focused on when the EPS advisers initiate collaboration with kindergartens and schools and in what ways the collaboration supports the development of inclusive practices. Such knowledge may provide information on how to be a proactive partner in promoting inclusive practices.

Method

The SEVU-PPT¹ program (2013–2018) was initiated by the Directorate for Education and Training to strengthen the EPS competence on organizational development and competence enhancement. In the SEVU-PPT program framework, organizational development and competence enhancement are understood as a collaborative process aiming to create inclusive schools supporting children and adolescents at risk and with special educational needs (The Ministry of Education and Research, 2017).

Sixty-six EPS advisers joined the program at OsloMet. The participants represent EPS advisers from all over the country, with assignments in kindergarten, primary, lower secondary, and upper secondary education and vocational training. As participants in the program the EPS advisers had to select a collaborating partner, and together with the staff, initiate collaboration on organizational development to improve the quality of education for pupils at risk and with special educational needs. As a final part of the program, the EPS advisers wrote a project report focusing on how the collaboration had supported the strategies and practices for the pupils in question. The aim was to review and discuss the process of implementing a revised practice, and in what ways the project had supported the kindergartens’, schools’, and municipality's overall ability to improve the educational program for pupils at risk and with special educational needs. The reports were written four to six months after the projects were initiated. Accordingly, the reports have limited opportunity to discuss the outcome of the entire process. Permission to examine the reports for research purposes was obtained from the participating EPS advisers.

The analytical design involved three steps. Initially, the project reports were reviewed to categorize their fields of activities, purposes, and scopes. The second step included summative thematic content analysis (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005). Thematic content analysis is a research technique that produces replicable trends based on text's content (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005; Krippendorff, 2004); in this study, the SEVU-PPT advisers’ reports. The purpose was to identify phrases and concepts that represent signature characteristics of IE; i.e. fellowship, participation, involvement, and outcome (Booth & Ainscow, 2011; Haug, 2014). A third step included a conventional content analysis (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005) of three reports. The three selected reports represent illustrative examples of how inclusion was called attention to at different organizational levels, the vertical axis of the model (Haug, 2017), and how the collaboration supported the development of inclusive practices. The design is summarized in Table 1.

Table 1. Analytic design.

Analytic step	Units	Expected findings
(1) Initial analyses of the reports’ field of activities, purposes, and scopes
Review of the reports’ priorities, purpose and scope	Sixty-six program reports from EPS-advisers participating in the SEVU-PPT program.	Descriptions of the field of activities, key players, purposes, and scopes
(2) Summative theory-driven content analyses of statements representing signature characteristics of IE.
Summative thematic content analysis	Terms and phrases signifying signature characteristics of IE: i.e. fellowship, participation, involvement, and outcome	Representations of signature characteristics of IE
(3) Conventional content analysis of three selected reports to get insight in how fellowship, participation, involvement, and outcome are called attention to at different organizational levels
Close-up reading of three selected reports	Three illustrative examples focusing respectively on the municipal level, kindergarten/school, and the EPS collaboration with adjacent partners	Illustrations of how the signature characteristics of IE was used to promote inclusive practices

The design has several limitations. One major concern is that neither the SEVU-PPT program nor the report criteria had any explicit requirement in respect of focusing on IE. Consequently, it may be that the EPS advisers did not highlight characteristics or concerns regarding IE. Adjacent foci, such as preparing basic language courses, preventing bullying, transitions from kindergarten to school or primary to lower secondary/upper secondary education and training, or the establishment of professional networks for children with specific disabilities may have replaced discussions on how the specific project supported IE. A subsequent matter is that the analysis did not capture the adviser's IE initiatives. It may be that the advisers focused on the collaborative process, and the efforts promoting IE were suppressed or indistinctly focused. Such matters may underestimate the advisers’ initiatives regarding IE. Following these considerations, it has to be noted that the analysis is solely based on the written reports, and does not capture the advisers’ “knowing, doing and believing” beyond their “written reflections” (Rouse, 2008). Hence, this study does not include information on whether the practices changed as a result of the interventions. The limitation reveals the need for follow-up studies that explicitly examine the change processes and the consequences of corresponding interventions. Follow-up studies may reveal the sustainability of such initiatives and how they are adapted and transformed during their implementation (Coburn, 2001).

The following part includes the analysis of the corpus of SEVU-PPT project reports. The reports were categorized by the EPS advisers’ self-selected partners (i.e., municipality, kindergarten and schools, and adjacent partners) and thereafter reviewed to identify the type of actions involved. One report was excluded because it did not include empirical elements. Table 2 provides an overview of the reports (n = 65), the fields of activities, purposes, and scopes, classified into three categories. The classification is based on the EPS adviser's main field of activity, although some projects involved adjacent areas (for example the transition of children with special educational needs from kindergarten to school or primary to lower secondary education). The first category, Municipal Level (n = 14), represents projects in which most of the kindergartens and/or schools in the municipality participated. These reports represent projects initiated through a collaborative process where the EPS adviser and representatives from several kindergartens and/or schools, including adjacent services, participated. The second category, Kindergartens and Schools, includes projects carried out within a kindergarten or a school (n = 44). These projects are contextually embedded responsive or proactive interventions (Schmuck, 2007). The third category includes projects focusing on the EPS’ collaboration with adjacent partners (n = 7). The projects were initiated by the EPS’ staff aiming to raise the quality of the EPS’ services and the cross-professional collaboration with adjacent municipal partners, to strengthen the coordination of the efforts for vulnerable children and adolescents.

Table 2. Project reports overview.

Fields of activities	Projects (n)	Percent
Municipal level. Projects affecting most kindergartens/schools in a municipality	14	21
Kindergartens and schools. Projects carried out in a group/class of children (kindergarten 5 projects, primary school 32 projects and upper secondary education 7 projects)	44	68
EPS’ collaboration with adjacent partners to strengthen the coordination of the efforts for vulnerable children and adolescents	7	11
Total:	65	100

Table 2 shows that the EPS advisers’ project reports mainly focused on interventions in kindergartens and schools. The finding may be seen as a contradiction to one of the conclusions in the report from the National Expert Group for Children and Young People in Need of Special Adaptation (Nordahl, 2018, p. 171). The report claims that the EPS rarely collaborates with kindergartens and schools in the matter of competence enhancement and organizational development. In this case, the SEVU-PPT program may have boosted the EPS advisers’ role and confidence as organizational “change agents” (Schein, 1995) in accordance with the EPS’ mandate.

Municipal level

The projects focusing on the municipal level (n = 14), had a variety of foci and objectives. One project aimed to improve the municipal educational system through interdisciplinary collaboration. Four kindergarten projects aimed to raise the quality of interdisciplinary resource teams for children with relational challenges. Six municipal primary school projects focused on how to utilize information from local and national tests derived from databases and ICT software. Finally, seven projects focused on the transition of children with special educational needs from kindergarten to school, or from primary to lower secondary education.

Kindergarten and school

The largest body of reports focused on projects in kindergarten and school (n = 44). The foci were on developing preventive measures or improving the kindergartens’ and schools’ special educational support. In the kindergartens, four projects included the implementation of new analytical tools, redefining interdisciplinary collaboration, and implementing new didactics in language courses. Half of the 65 projects focused on primary education (32 projects). The projects comprised the provision of special education in mainstream settings (10 projects), the collaboration between schools and EPS (four projects), programs to boost pupils reading skills (five projects), the implementation of ICT learning software (three projects), programs to reduce bullying and school absence, and finally programs to improve the quality of education for linguistic minorities with special educational needs (two projects). In addition, one project focused on the transition of adolescents with special educational needs from lower secondary to upper secondary education and training. In upper secondary education, the projects (seven projects) aimed to raise the quality of the schools’ special education support, and on programs to improve the schools’ psycho-social environment. Two projects held an explicit focus on dropouts, while one project aimed to improve the cooperation between an upper secondary school, the municipality child welfare service and a welfare institution.

EPS’ collaboration with adjacent partners

The projects in the third category focused on the EPS internal practice and collaborations with adjacent partners (n = 7). Five projects aimed to improve the EPS’ services in kindergartens; one by establishing a municipal interdisciplinary network for children with selective mutism, and three by improving the EPS’ services for language minorities with special educational needs. Another project focused on the upper secondary schools’ follow-up on apprentices and trainees with special educational needs.

Analysis

The aim of the article is to explore what characteristics of IE are focused on when EPS advisers initiate collaboration on organizational development, and in what way the collaboration supports the development of inclusive practices. To analyze signifying elements in the EPS adviser reports (step two), we carried out a series of electronic searches for terms, concepts, and phrases representing IE (i.e., fellow*, common*, participa*, contribute*, involve*, influence*, outcome*, learn* etc.). The findings were reviewed by follow-up close readings of the context where the concepts and terms were located. As a result of the follow-up reading, in total 1944 valid representations of signature characteristics were identified. The representations were arranged in a three-by-four table at the three organizational levels; municipal level, kindergartens and schools, and the EPS’ collaboration with adjacent partners. Table 3 summarizes the EPS project reports’ foci on signature characteristics at the three organizational levels. The table values show the average occurrence (M) and variation (SD) of the number of concepts and terms traced to the signature characteristics.

Table 3. Concepts and terms representing signature characteristics of IE in the EPS advisers’ project reports.

	Fellowship		Participation		Involvement		Outcome
	M	Sd.	M	Sd.	M	Sd.	M	Sd.
Municipal level (n = 14):	19.5	5.5	2.2	(3.0)	2.2	(3.0)	3.4	(3.9)
Kindergartens and Schools (n = 44):	21.6	5.8	0.9	(1.1)	0.9	(1.1)	4.0	(3,1)
EPS’ collaboration with adjacent partners (n = 7):	21.5	5.3	1.2	(1.3)	1.2	(1.3)	3.2	(1.0)

Note: (1) N = 1944 extracted utterances. (2) M and Sd. refers to the average use of the terms in the reports.

Table 3 shows that the signature characteristics fellowship, participation, involvement, and outcome were given varying attention in the corpus of project reports. Fellowship was most frequently focused, in total 67% of the extracted phrases, approximately 19–22 times in each report. On the other hand, involvement was the characteristic least focused on, on average, only once or twice in each report. The body of extracted concepts and phrases showed that only 5.0% of the extracted utterances had connections to involvement. A nonparametric Chi-square test was used to analyze the intermediate variation across groups, municipal level, kindergarten and school, and EPS collaboration with adjacent partners, however, no significant variation showed up (χ² = n.s.).

The analysis revealed a high number of reports without any extracted indicator representing the signature characteristics. A supplementary analysis was conducted to get insight into the matter. In addition, the supplementary analysis could provide a holistic overview of the reports’ focus on the characteristics. A grand mean of the average representations of the four signature characteristics was calculated (M = 6.5, Sd. = 3.0). The grand mean was used to mathematically define the categories: Often used (M + 1 std.), Sometimes used (M) and Rarely used (M − 1 std). Figure 1 shows the cumulative percentage representation of the signature characteristics at the municipal level, kindergartens and schools, and the EPS’ practice.

Figure 1. Cumulative percentage representation of the signature characteristics on the municipal level, kindergarten and school, and EPS’ collaboration with adjacent partners.

Figure 1 shows that the percentage of concepts and phrases linked to fellowship were “sometimes” and “often” found in 97% of the reports, and concepts and phrases linked to participation were “sometimes” and “often” found in 63% of the reports. On the other hand, concepts and phrases linked to involvement and outcome were significantly less located. The percentage of utterances representing involvement were “sometimes” and “often” found in 11% of the reports (n = 7), while utterances related to outcome were “sometimes” and “often” found in 28% of the reports. In addition, the analysis revealed no findings of utterances that could be linked to involvement in about half of the reports (43%; n = 28), and likewise no utterances linked to outcome in 26% of the reports (n = 17).

Taken together, the analysis indicates that fellowship and participation frequently were highlighted. These characteristics were found in every report, indicating that the advisers to a large degree called attention to what Flem and Keller (2000) define as “regular class placement”, to avoid education in segregated settings. On the other hand, the quality characteristics, involvement and outcome, were significantly less focused on.

Three illustrative cases

To illustrate how the signature characteristics were called attention to, conventional content analysis was included. Three reports were selected as illustrating examples from the three included organizational levels: municipal level, kindergarten and school, and the EPS’ collaboration with partners. Initially, each case includes a brief contextual description. Italics will be used to highlight translated passages from the reports.

Municipal case: to improve the quality of education

The context of the first project is a municipality with a significant increase in resources allocated for special education. The municipal management appointed the EPS to initiate a collaborative process to increase the outcome of mainstream education, especially for pupils at risk and with special needs. The project used the signature characteristics of IE to focus on how all pupils could participate and learn. The project description highlighted IE as a basic principle: Inclusion and mastery, everyone can learn, based on the following aim: How can I as a change agent, in collaboration with the executives in kindergartens and schools, improve the education for children and young people in general, and for children with special educational needs in particular?

Fellowship

To anchor the project, the project management established discussions involving all of the employees in kindergartens and schools to share experiences and to analyze the ongoing practices (Fasting, 2018; Hargreaves & Fullan, 2012). Consequently, participation and involvement were focused on as prerequisites for inclusion and mastery. The project ambitions emphasized: In the process, the idea is that we jointly bring about change that has an impact on education in general, and for children and young people in need of special adaptations in particular. Three objectives were accentuated: to include all children and pupils in the ordinary education program, to improve the quality of the educational programs with a specific focus on IE, and to safeguard the quality of special education based on inclusion, mastery and learning.

Participation

Initially, the situation was mapped and described by the kindergarten and school employees, followed by mutual examinations of the practices in use. The employees were invited to reflect on the current situation and areas of improvement. In this way, participation became a thorough principle by exploring, sharing, and reflecting on the current practices, and for the development of new practices that counteracted exclusion. To achieve these objectives, the project focused on fellowship, participation, and involvement, both for the staff involved and for the children and pupils in focus.

Involvement

The report pinpoints involvement as a prerequisite for changing the current practices. Accordingly, involvement was applied by regarding the employees as educational engineers, and the children, pupils, and parents as partners in a collective learning community: Involvement and participation are primarily about giving those at the end of the chain, parents, children, and youths a voice. To strengthen the role of pupils and parents, two youths and one parent were included in the project management. These members put into words how special education was experienced and how special education ought to be applied.

Outcome

In the report, outcome was connected to the staff's awareness and competence on IE as the foundation for providing IE for children and youths. Accordingly, the report focused on system-based processes to safeguard high-quality IE and special education, and indirectly on the pupils’ education and learning outcomes.

The findings show that the report focused on fellowship, participation, and involvement of teachers and staff. Furthermore, the report underscores the significance of recognizing inclusion as a premise at the system level by using the signature characteristics of IE as collaborative tools to increase the focus on inclusive practices.

Kindergarten and school case: inclusion as a framing condition

The context of the second project is a special education unit for pupils with extensive special educational needs located at a primary school. In the project report, the unit was referred to as an island in the school. The project's aim was to develop more inclusive practices by focusing on social interaction and learning across all pupils. Initially, the following question was raised: How can the EPS, in collaboration with staff, prepare more inclusive education for pupils with extensive special educational needs? The project focused on sharing experiences of fruitful examples of best practices in various situations to establish a collective awareness of the significance of relationships. A key element was to articulate the staff's “tacit knowledge” to initiate joint reflections on current practices (Fasting, 2018; Polanyi, 1983).

Fellowship

The EPS adviser's strategy was to establish a common understanding of how to facilitate and support students with extensive special educational needs in peer interaction and learning. By creating arenas for reflection, the staff and the EPS adviser got opportunities to analyze and discuss current practices, and opportunities for microteaching, to add new perspectives and mindsets to improve the current practices. A subsequent advantage was opportunities to observe the staff's and pupils’ interaction, peer interaction with pupils in ordinary classes, and the pupils’ learning initiatives. These processes supported the development of common strategies for promoting fellowship and interaction.

Participation

A baseline was set by asking the staff to express their thoughts and understandings of how to promote social relations and enhance relevant education in terms of knowledge for life for the pupils at the unit. The staff's suggestions included descriptions of pupil-initiated interactions, learning initiatives, and how play could strengthen the pupils learning. By focusing on peer interaction and pupil-initiated play, the “pupils’ voices” were accentuated. The idea was expressed in the following vein: Unique children and magical moments, mastery of joy with attentive teachers.

Involvement

One important source of knowledge was the staff's different experiences with interaction and learning. Accordingly, the discussions focused on sharing experiences to facilitate a collective awareness of supportive practices and fruitful education. A key question was: What is schooling for pupils with severe needs? Different approaches to boost the pupils’ involvement were exemplified, discussed, and connected to the pupils’ interests and initiatives. By using sessions in which most of the staff was present, the process contributed to a common framework of how to promote and facilitate learning and interaction based on magical moments of joy and mastery.

Outcome

The project report tied the growth of more collaborative practice to the pupils’ development and learning. For the pupils, the outcome implied new opportunities for participation and learning through interaction and play with peers.

Our analysis shows that the collaborative processes strengthen the staffs’ focus on the relationships with peers, and the revision of the learning program (IEPs) through joint reflections on the current practices. The active use of interpretive communities (Fasting, 2018; Hargreaves & Fullan, 2012) empowered the staff to act in accordance with the learning program and, by doing so, stimulated the pupils’ social interaction, well-being and learning.

EPS case: inclusion through counseling and mentoring

The third project was a part of a municipality-wide OD project that included the municipality EPS office, the children's health service, and the social service. The project's aim was to strengthen the cooperation and coordination between the municipal partners for children and adolescents with social challenges and special needs. In the introduction, the project report emphasized the significance of empowering the EPS advisers as mentors for cross-professional collaboration in kindergartens and schools.

Fellowship

The report emphasized the significance of arenas for professional interaction to develop common interdisciplinary understandings of roles and work domains. Discussions were carried out in groups and plenary to identify the EPS advisers’ and the adjacent professionals’ roles and practices. During the process, it was important to challenge existing understandings and mental models of how to promote IE, both in the group of EPS advisers and among the adjacent services’ professionals. A renegotiated understanding of IE made the basis for future interdisciplinary collaboration to improve the services for children and adolescents with social challenges and special needs.

Participation

The EPS and the adjacent services had a history of projects without any improvement of the interdisciplinary collaboration or the quality of the services for the children and adolescents in question. The situation called for more extensive involvement from the included professionals. Accordingly, arenas for interpretive communities (Fasting, 2018; Hargreaves & Fullan, 2012) were established to analyze and discuss how to improve interdisciplinary collaboration to design more inclusive practices for children and adolescents with special needs. Brainstorming and collective reflections were used to identify aims and suggestions for change. The purpose was to develop a common understanding of the situation at hand and the urgency to improve collaboration and practice.

Involvement

Involvement was a signified element in the report, both to strengthen the cooperation between the municipal partners and to identify and meet the need of the children. Through discussions and brainstorming, different viewpoints and interests were given a voice. By doing so, all professionals could express their understanding of the EPS services’ role and domain of practice, and how the EPS services should be improved and organized to foster cooperation and mutual involvement for children with special needs. The process was followed up by summary feedback from the Municipal Manager for Education and Social Services. The goal was to establish a baseline for more system-oriented practices to strengthen interprofessional collaboration and to harmonize and coordinate the services for children and pupils with special educational needs

Outcome

In the project report, the signature characteristics of inclusion were linked both to the role of the EPS and to strategies for collaboration and quality practices for children and adolescents with social challenges and special educational needs. Significant importance was allocated to preventive measures, early intervention, and establishing collaborative cultures to strengthen the services for vulnerable children in the municipality.

The findings indicate that focusing on cross-professional interactions boosted the collaboration on more inclusive practices. Further, the analysis indicated that the signature characteristics of IE were used to boost and coordinate ongoing and new activities, to foster and facilitate more inclusive upgrowing and learning conditions.

Discussion and implications

Inclusive education is a key issue in the Norwegian debate on the EPS’ practices and how to provide high-quality inclusive special education. The concern is raised because the EPS still tend to focus on individual expert assessment, while professional collaboration aiming to adapt the learning environment and improve the learning outcome is given less attention (Kolnes et al., 2021; Moen et al., 2018; Nordahl, 2018). The EPS mandate is to advise and support kindergartens and schools to facilitate the learning conditions for pupils at risk and with special educational needs. Nevertheless, research shows that most Norwegian kindergartens and schools have not succeeded in offering a learning environment of quality in terms of social interaction and educational outcomes for the children with special educational needs (Nordahl, 2018; Children's Ombudsman, 2017). The learning conditions vary considerably and are better for pupils who succeed in school. The situation signifies the need to strengthen the collaboration for implementing preventive measures and more inclusive IEP for pupils with special educational needs by safeguarding fellowship, participation, involvement, and outcome. Recent reports suggest it is achievable to combine these aims (Moen et al., 2018). The findings of this study point in the same direction.

It is not surprising that a high percentage of the EPS advisers’ project reports focus on signature characteristics of inclusion (c.f. Table 3). However, it is interesting to notice the accentuated dimensions. The analysis reveals that fellowship and participation, factors related to ensuring access to mainstream education, frequently are given attention. From a critical perspective, the focus can be seen as an extension of the 1980s integration wave in which pupils in segregated settings were integrated or “placed” in public schools (Vislie, 2003). Recent reports show that special needs education in public schools does not by itself increase the quality of schooling, neither socially nor academically (Lekhal, 2018; Nordahl, 2018; The Children's Ombudsman, 2017). Additional quality factors have to be included. When it comes to involvement and outcome, the reports gave these characteristics less attention. The significance of involvement and outcome of education are explicitly highlighted in the IE literature (Booth & Ainscow, 2011; Haug, 2017; Unesco/IBE, 2005, 2015). The core of these factors is closely connected to the individual's characteristics and aptitudes, and the individual child as a unique subject. It emphasizes the need for life skills education for the future citizen when Individual Education Plans (IEP) are designed (Magnússon, 2019). Focusing on the system level, the project reports and the analysis may have suppressed information addressing the individual child's involvement and outcome. The included illustrative cases support the tendency of such generalizing. For example, involvement and outcome are linked to the teachers as “educational engineers” for developing a “collective awareness of supportive practices and fruitful education”.

The context of this study reveals the EPS adviser as an important collaborative partner when it comes to organizational development promoting IE. The EPS advisers have advanced knowledge of competence enhancement and organizational development and, in addition, access to information on the individual child's capabilities and characteristics. The teachers, on their side, have contextual and didactical classroom experiences. Taken together, the collaboration provides opportunities to discuss and develop fruitful cross-professional partnerships on how to facilitate fellowship, participation, involvement, and outcome, implying quality education in terms of knowledge for life. Furthermore, the current study underpins the complexity of developing inclusive schools and classrooms and a coherent understanding of the core aspects of IE at all organizational levels. It involves a comprehensive process of self-reviews and examinations of how barriers to participation and learning can be illuminated, analyzed, and reduced to provide effective means for high-quality inclusive IEP in kindergartens and schools (Booth & Ainscow, 2011).

The EPS adviser, an agent for inclusive education

Initially, we pointed towards a lack of conformity between the inclusive policy rhetoric and how to implement IE across contexts. A limiting factor is that IE is more or less taken for granted and seldom operationalized and defined (Rapp & Corral-Granados, 2021). In addition, education systems consist of a complex weave of external and internal policies and aspirations, socially and academically (Spillane et al., 2019). These elements affect how inclusion is realized in practice. To face the challenges, EPS and associated partners have to develop a contextually rooted co-constructed understanding of IE and of how to implement and support IE in practice. The process of co-construction implies discussing how the policy, the management, the education context, the teaching, and pupils’ interaction can be transformed into mechanisms and practices that counteract exclusion (Ainscow, 2020). Studies show that arrangements for specific groups of children with disabilities generate a lower acceptance of inclusion in mainstream education (Moberg et al., 2020). Universal declarations and agreements are essential; nevertheless, kindergartens and schools do not become inclusive until the key players, the leaders and the teachers, have a joint repertoire of strategies and means to implement IE. Accordingly, successful implementation of IE requires two-dimensional support, both top-down support (policy and leadership ambitions) and bottom-up support (teachers’ and staff's concerns and aspirations) (Moberg et al., 2020). Such processes are complex and time-consuming to achieve, but still important!

The analysis indicates that developing a contextual negotiated framework of understanding based on the signature characteristics of IE is possible to obtain. The co-constructing elements of organizational development entail opportunities to discuss how to promote and implement inclusive practices for parties at all levels of an education system. Accordingly, if inclusion is to be more than ideological rhetoric, there is a need for an overall awareness of the inherent characteristics of IE. Such a contextual negotiated framework could design opportunities for developing more inclusive kindergartens and classrooms.

Disclosure statement

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

Notes

1 SEVU-PPT (2013–2018); Strategy program for competency enhancement of the EPS, initiated by the Norwegian Directorate of Education and Training. The strategy included four sections: guidance and counseling, organizational development, group leadership and learning environment, and the leadership of EPS.