International Journal of Inclusive Education

Vol. 11, No. 1, January 2007, pp. 97110

Language of inclusion and diversity:

policy discourses and social practices
in Finnish and Norwegian schools
Anne-Lise Arnesena*, Reetta Mietolab and Elina Lahelmab
aOslo

University College, Oslo, Norway; bUniversity of Helsinki, Finland

International
10.1080/13603110600601034
TIED_A_160086.sgm
1360-3116
Original
Taylor
02006
00
annelise.arnesen@hio.no
Anne-LiseArnesen
000002006
and
&
Article
Francis
(print)/1464-5173
Francis
JournalLtd
of Inclusive
(online)
Education

The terrain of inclusion studies in discussed in this paper from the perspective of policy discourses
and teachers constructions on student diversity. We start by discussing the concept of inclusion
from normative and analystic perspectives. We then look at the kinds of discourses that can be found
in the Finnish and Norwegian curricula, as well as teachers interviews when they talk about their
students. On this basis we analyse how the patterns of diversity and inclusion are conceived and
constructed; the phenomenon of diversity, as it is formulated in policy documents and as it is
expressed in categories with which teachers operate and act upon in school; and, diversity in the
context of inclusive practices. We draw from ethnographic studies in Finnish and Norwegian
schools; both from mainstream and from special classes.

Introduction
This paper enters the terrain of inclusion studies from the perspective of policy
discourses and teachers constructions on student diversity. It explores, in particular,
ways of cultural reasoning that underpin articulation and narratives, and the practical
implications of these ideas on the ways in which schools differentiate and divide
students. We draw from studies focusing on citizenship, difference and marginality,
including policy document studies and ethnographic studies from the Finnish and
Norwegian schools; both from mainstream and from special education classes.1
The ethnographic perspective that we have adopted is informed by different
sources. The way that we contrast and reflect data from two different national contexts
is inspired by contextualized, cross-cultural and comparative ethnography in Helsinki
and London (Gordon et al., 2000). We also use ideas of Lindblad & Popkewitz (2003)
on comparative ethnography, stressing the importance of seeing the global in the local
(also Beach et al., 2003). Educational discourses on inclusion can be seen to travel
*Corresponding author. Oslo University College, PO Box 4, St Olavs plass, Oslo N-0130, Norway.
Email: annelise.arnesen@hio.no
ISSN 13603116 (print)/ISSN 14645173 (online)/07/01009714
2007 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/13603110600601034

98 Anne-Lise Arnesen et al.

from one country to another in the form of ideas, theories and categories of international statistics. National policies can be traced back to formulations in international
policy documents, such as UNESCO (2004).
We recognize that neither policy statements and rhetoric, nor teachers reflections
are voices in any simple notion of authenticity or wisdom, but reasoning formed
historically (Popkewitz, 2001, p. 166). We look upon schooling as fields of cultural
practice by which our understanding of it may be seen as a dialogue between the
present and the past (Hamilton, 2001, p. 188). When we use some extracts as illustrations of specific discourses, our aim is to point to this kind of rhetoric as a way of
reasoning, not to suggest anything about the ethical or professional character of the
authors or persons in question.
Changing discourses of inclusion
This paper scrutinizes discourses used by the Finnish and Norwegian education
systems at the turn of the 21st century. Our focus is on inclusion as one central value
and target constructing the practices and language of education. While focusing on
inclusion, we do acknowledge the presence of other, parallel and competing discourses
which have impact on the perception of inclusion in these particular contexts.
From the 1990s onwards, inclusion has been a central concept in policies internationally, and it has been adapted to education, social policies and welfare development (Befring, 2002). It has gradually replaced the integration concept from the
1970s. Integration emphasized justice and rights associated with non-segregation for
formerly invisible and excluded groups, particularly students with disabilities, aimed
at reducing institutionalization and including handicapped and problem children in
regular schools. The integration concept was also used in relation to policies of pluralism focusing on new groups of students with different national, religious and linguistic backgrounds (Engen, 2004), and the concept is still in use regarding the process
of adapting to a new society for lingual and cultural minorities. Befring (2002) argues
that the inclusion concept has attained wider significance than integration. Whereas
integration was linked to issues of accepting disabled students in the ordinary schools,
and to counteract segregation of immigrants, Befring, in accordance with international policy, defines inclusion in terms of democratic values and ideals, which is
closely linked to the whole life and societal perspectives, as well as experiences of
belonging and acceptance. In policy documents inclusion is also being associated with
diversity and pluralism as a value that should characterize mainstream schools.
According to Thomas & OHanlon (2001, p. vii), inclusion has become a clich
obligatory in the discourse of all right-thinking people. Most policies and research
on inclusion have become normative; formulated in written policies across countries
(Vlachou, 2004) or visible in tensions between policies and practices in the context of
civil rights and social justice. At the same time as inclusion has gained an established
position in educational policy-making and the language of institutions, research into
inclusive education has noted that changes in the practices of institutions are not
equally remarkable as the simultaneous conceptual change experienced (Vlachou,

Policy discourses and social practices in Finnish and Norwegian schools 99

2004). This has prompted several researchers to ask if the move from integration to
inclusion is only rhetorical by nature, a reconstruction of traditional special education
as inclusive education (Slee & Allan, 2001), or as Clough (1999, p. 65) asks, just
[o]ld wine in new bottles? Slee (2001a, p. 117) calls the way vocabulary of inclusion
and social justice have been adopted and used by special education professionals neotraditional special educational knowledge: new language is used to signify its connection
to contemporary attitudinal and policy shifts while the underlying traditional
assumptions of pathology of the failing individual student remain untouched.
The way in which the concept of inclusion has been adapted and normatively used
in the policy documents has been confronted critically by researchers, who point out
that inclusion does not only question the language used, but that it also challenges the
schooling practices in use (e.g. Barton & Armstrong, 2003). Slee & Allan (2001, p. 177)
argue that inclusive education represents a fundamental paradigm shift, meaning that
the traditional special education knowledge cannot be reconciled with inclusion. Inclusion is not only a question of moving those in the margins into the centre, but rather
indicates a radical change in the ways of knowing. Along these lines of thought, Slee
& Weiner (2001) identify two groups of researchers within inclusive education differentiated by their research interest: (1) researchers seeking practical solutions for the
technical problem of inclusion (indicating marginal reforms), and (2) researchers who
see inclusion as cultural politics (demanding educational reconstruction and new ways
of thinking). Some writers have noted a need for research that is critical of traditional
special education, that aims for cultural reconstruction and, at the same time, looks
for and offers ideas for alternative forms of practice (Skidmore, 2004; Vlachou, 2004).
Anastasia Vlachou (2004, p. 9) suggests that inclusive policy practices and
discourses strike at the heart of the endemic tensions and contradictions inherent
within mass education as a whole. Recent research has also highlighted the tensions
between competing policies, e.g. policies of inclusion on the one hand and general
policies for productivity and raising standards on the other (Barton & Slee, 1999;
Armstrong, 2003; Ainscow et al., 2004). In a market-driven culture where efficiency
and competition are stressed, ideals such as equity and collaboration may seem
subsidiary, and a strong commitment to inclusion at school level can be considered
as not a real option or even as a burden (Armstrong, 2003, Vlachou, 2004).
Arguments based on economic rationality can even make discriminatory statements
and practices that contradict the overall commitment to inclusion seem acceptable (Armstrong, 2003). If critical policies of inclusion persuade us to look at the
institutions and the education system, market-led policies redirect our gaze back on
the individual, placing the responsibility on the individual and thereby failing to
challenge the existing (unequal) practices and structures (Barton & Slee, 1999).
In the context of education, inclusion is often connected to the questions of disability
and special education. Nevertheless, the concept of inclusion does reach further. Feminist scholars of education, for example, have been using the term inclusion since the
late 1980s, phrased as inclusive curriculum and inclusive pedagogy, implying the
need for a new expansion and transformation of pedagogy, a belief that different
groups taking part in schooling have specific qualities which need to be taken into

100 Anne-Lise Arnesen et al.

account (Yates, 1993, p. 51). Recently some researchers from the field of disability
studies and special education have stressed the need to break the ghettoization of
inclusion as a disability or special education issue (Vlachou, 2004, p. 9) and bringing
forth the mutual interests of researchers studying marginalization in education (cf. Slee
& Weiner, 2001; Slee, 2001a, b; Arnesen, 2002). Slee (2001a, p. 116) argues that:
inclusive education is not about special educational needs, it is about all students. It asks
direct questions: Whos in? and Whos out? The answers find their sharpest definition
along lines of class, race, ethnicity and language, disability, gender and sexuality and
geographic location.

The focus in the present paper is on how inclusion is conceived and constructed in
a context of contradictory aims, values and discourses. In the following we focus on
both social practices and cultural categories people use that have significance for
inclusion and exclusion of individuals and groups in school. We look at the ways in
which diversity and inclusion are discussed in Finnish and Norwegian curricula, and
the ways which teachers make sense of inclusion and diversity. We pay particular
attention to the principles underpinning the conceptions of equality and social justice
that the accounts and practices reflect.
In our analysis we draw on ideas by Popkewitz & Lindblad (2000), who formulate
an understanding of inclusion/exclusion as effects of power placed within discourses
of governance, equity and knowledge (Popkewitz, 1998; Popkewitz & Lindblad,
2000). They argue that the politics of equity and inclusion may mask continued exclusion. What is implied, taken for granted, unnamed, will then embody the normative
centre/core against which deviance what discursively is articulated as children
with special needs, children with low self-esteem, children lacking in proper
language skills is constructed. Universalized concepts such as citizenship and
competence, represent certain norms for conduct. The language of success and failure
in school is a particular area of interest for understanding the interconnectedness of
inclusion and exclusion. Although, in continual transformations, norms of participation and behaviour can produce exclusions both through what is clearly defined and
what is more subtly effected by hidden categorization through social practice in school.
Inclusion from the equity perspective: diversity as a hidden categorization
Norway and Finland are Nordic welfare states in which equality and inclusiveness are
central values for educational policies. In both countries the comprehensive school
reforms in the late 1960s and 1970s introduced equal opportunities for participation,
and from the 1980s to the 1990s inclusion has been a predominant idea, with an
emphasis on pedagogical differentiation and adapted instruction instead of tracking.
Also a more general inclusive aim can be found behind the idea and practice of having
heterogeneous learning groups in which students are supposed to learn to get along
with different people. Both countries see education as a means for reducing inequality.
These ideas are maintained in the new school curricula in both countries. For
example, according to the new Finnish curricula, education as a whole should aim
towards developing communality based on equality and tolerance, alongside with

Policy discourses and social practices in Finnish and Norwegian schools 101
promoting individuality and self-respect (NBE, 2004, p. 36). The Norwegian curriculum (UFD, 1996) seems to have an even stronger emphasis on social community as
a requirement for learning, and inclusion as a core value is referred to throughout the
curriculum.
The compulsory school includes all groups of pupils. The school is a workplace and a
meeting place for everyone. It is a place where pupils come together, learn from and live
with differences, regardless of where they live, their social backgrounds, their genders,
their religions, their ethnic origins, and their mental and physical abilities. The compulsory
school shall help pupils to develop their abilities by being, learning and working together.
The school thus helps to reduce social inequality and to develop a sense of community
between groups. In a multicultural society, education must promote equality between
pupils with different backgrounds and counteract discriminatory attitudes. (UFD, 1996,
p. 56)

The idea of a multicultural society and cultural diversities are celebrated in the
Norwegian (in the way it is presented above) as well as in the Finnish curricula. At
the same time, curricula in both countries are vague in terms of classifications of
students, especially when learning is discussed. Instead of classifications, the curricula is highlighting the nature of the pupil and her/his aptitude for learning in neutral
terms. Differing positions of the students, in relation to the contents and culture of
schooling, are rarely brought up.
This kind of lack of consideration for differences, implying hierarchies, can also be
found in some of the teacher interviews. The professional ethos of Finnish teachers,
for instance, is not to point to differences as social categories (Lahelma, 2004b; cf.
Gitz-Johansen, 2003 in relation to Danish teachers). In teacher interviews, social
class or social and cultural background were very seldom referred to in sociological
terms (Gordon et al., 2000).2 When the teachers were explicitly challenged to think
about differences by asking whether the school makes or emphasizes differences, it
turned out to be a difficult question that was not immediately answered but led to,
rather, much hesitation: I cannot say, It is very difficult for me to answer this question. When asked specifically, they might deny having seen any differences in this
respect, as a Finnish teacher of physical education argued:
I dont [know] about social background. I think, I havent noticed that they were visible in
any way. Or at least I havent kind of paid attention to it. The young people here, they
kind of take care of themselves, they are tidy and clean.
(interview with a Finnish teacher)

The above extract suggests that social background, for this teacher, is reflected in
students ability to take care of themselves. More generally, terms reflecting (good/
bad) home conditions were used: I mean, I dont mean affluence so much, but
whether parents care, argues another teacher. Accordingly, even if the teachers do
not regard the concept of social background as being suitable to describe their
students, the cultural connotations of tidiness, cleanliness or caring which can be
traced back to the ideal constructed on the basis of the middle-classed family model
(Burman, 1994; Mietola & Lappalainen, 2005) are present in their thinking.

102 Anne-Lise Arnesen et al.

Moreover, the Norwegian teachers interviewed were generally inclined to address
social differences in terms of the background of the students. Some of them talked
openly of social problems among the students:
The Sentrumsbyen school is a typical east, central city school, with many social problems.
Everybody used to know each other; everybody knew that Pers mother was drinking, so
it would explain why he didnt show up to the first lesson. And they were not embarrassed;
it was completely accepted to be different at our school. Those who went to psychiatric
treatment did not try to hide it. That was a strength, but there were serious social and disciplinary problems, in the 70s, including drug problems. Gradually the school has transformed into being a central city school with a set of problems based on students of foreign
origin or languages.
(interview with a Norwegian school adviser)

Even if these kinds of problems, and the way students are positioned by these, were
spoken about in the interviews, the distinctions were more a fact taken for granted
than something to be taken into consideration in teaching and schooling. Social
distinctions were made based on students behaviour in the school, creating links
between the students academic activity in the classroom and their home background:
They just sit there and I cannot get a word out of them, I assume their passivity has to do
with their home background.
(interview with a Norwegian teacher)

When listening to teachers accounts on diversity and difference, there seems to be

ambivalence in their talk: is it possible to talk about differences and if it is, how should
they be talked about, with what kinds of concepts? In our studies we found it relevant
to pay attention to when and where differences were discussed: although teachers
seemed to find the general question of differences difficult, when asked to describe
their students (one by one), they did use lots of different kinds of categorizations,
which imply social distinctions. When talking about their own students, teachers use
a wide repertoire of concepts including everyday concepts of individual traits mainly
framed by psychological reasoning; the students are talked of as quiet, modest, extrovert, talkative, high achievers, low achievers, lacking in concentration, active, having
concern for others, dutiful, and equipped with greater or lesser self-confidence. They
are students who work hard, do nothing, are bullied or bully others, disrupt lessons,
are provocative, nice. There are students who are seen as outsiders, students with
diagnoses, students that the teachers can rely upon and students they like or dislike
(Arnesen, 2002).
The described diversity is, however, not neutral, even if the way teachers comfortably describe their students could suggest this. Looking closer at the ways in which
teachers use categories, in referring to, for example, ability and school achievement,
students attitudes towards school, behaviour in class, working skills, personality,
status and hierarchies, relations between teachers and students, students relations to
their fellow students, special problems and needs, diagnosis and special placements,
gender, home background, ethnicity, culture (other), language background, religion,
special interests, show that teachers in open or subtle ways position the students

Policy discourses and social practices in Finnish and Norwegian schools 103
differently (Arnesen, 2002, 2004). There is a common character in the descriptions:
the tendency to homogenize the majority of students and set up a division between
the majority and a minority that is special. These dimensions imply norms that may
construct some as different in ways that exclude them (Popkewitz, 1998; Arnesen,
2000).
Categories in use can be seen to constitute a way of reasoning by defining where to
focus the attention and what it is legitimate to speak about (e.g. learning difficulties),
and what is not (e.g. social class), and what kind of relations that are supposed to exist
between e.g. academic achievement, conduct and the home background.
Although teachers in our data seem to be kind of uneasy about using sociological
categories in their descriptions of students, these categories and the notions of
students that they invoke work subtly. What is not spoken of or named can be equally
forceful as a means for differentiation. When social categories are unspoken, their
social character how they are constructed in specific social contexts vanishes.
The most hidden of the unspoken categories and at the same time the most evident
category is the category of normal. This is the starting point for most of the categorizations, the normality against which the other categories are constructed and
against which the others become visible (Frankenberg, 1993). This is evident in the
following extract from a teacher interview:
Nafissa. As you can hear by her name, she is burdened by a foreign origin. It doesnt affect
her in any way other than her lack of Norwegian frames of Norwegian frames of reference. Besides that, there is nothing wrong with her intellectual capacity, and she is fluent
in Norwegian, and I think she understands everything.
(interview with a Norwegian teacher)

Just the one word here creates a border between the normal and that which is
defined outside that norm; to be of foreign origin is taken to be a burden by definition, because to be foreign is by definition to be an outsider. An outsider must
make efforts to be able to meet the expectations of what it means to be, in this case,
Norwegian.
From this perspective, the categorizations and the policies of naming including
silencing differences seem to carry an understanding of equality as sameness. The
ideal of a comprehensive school in which everybody has the same opportunities
resides in the thinking of the following Finnish teacher: At least the comprehensive
school should not [make differences], because everybody has the same possibilities.
Through the hidden categorizations, teachers emphasize differences that are seen
as natural and self-evident: differences in competence,3 gender differences, ethnicity,
differences in characteristics, etc. The impact of these differences on school practices
or teaching are not often problematized though: equal opportunities is regarded as
equal worth and inclusiveness, particularity in the meaning of an equal right to
common school and tolerance towards those who are different. Accordingly, the
unified school system and claims of a common body of knowledge for all children
raise the issue of contradiction between equality as sameness and acknowledgement
of diversity and plurality (Seeberg, 2003).4

104 Anne-Lise Arnesen et al.

Diversity in social and discursive school practices
As discussed above, there is a kind of ambivalence present in the teachers talk when
differences are discussed. In the everyday schooling, teachers constantly deal with
differences among students. The practices and contents of schools are built on
expectations towards the students with regard to specific competences and specific
development regarded as normal (Arnesen, 2005). When a student does not fit these
expectations, the teachers have to look for an explanation and solutions for the situation from the discourses available.
Educational psychology has, since its establishment, had a privileged position in the
service of understanding challenges in school (Danzinger, 1997; Popkewitz, 1998).
Influenced by the medical profession, psychology has served to normalize certain
ways of being a child and a student. Particular expert groups, affiliated with schools,
such as psychologists and social workers, have developed classifications of students
that have become part of the taken-for-granted vocabulary, through its language of
mind, motivation, anxiety, intelligence, attitudes, attribution, learning difficulties,
special needs, empowerment, self-confidence, etc. These terms firmly locate problems in the individual, and thereby establishes the tendency to interpret problems in
terms of lacking in a variety of respects. According to Clough (1999, p. 67) [t]hrough
teacher education psychology has imposed frameworks of interpretation which
have fundamentally conditioned teachers understanding of what happens in their
classrooms and schools.
The most visible practice that is built on the psychological discourse is naming
some of the students as special. These are students that differ from those who are
normal, whose behaviour, learning or development does not reach the expectations.
Along with current terminology they have special needs that, by implication, differ
from universal, human needs, thus indicating a division between them and the
normal ones (those with a power of defining).
[In the discussion in a teachers meeting,] one of the teachers mentioned that she has heard
comments concerning whether the students in special education learn as much as others.
She continued: Well, they wouldnt be in need of special education if they would learn in
the same way.
(notes from a teachers meeting in a Finnish school)

The above statement by a Finnish teacher clearly indicates a regime of classification

that assumes that the majority (those not needing special education) have similar
ways of learning and pace and order of development. This is a widely held form of
pedagogical reasoning, based on theories of developmental psychology, embedded in
schools across countries.5 This way of reasoning has implications for conceptions of
the ways children should be helped to succeed and what should count as a standard
for success.
The identification of some students having special needs also has implications for
the ways in which equality is conceived. The field of special education provision is
constructed on the idea of what is best for the child: while the identification and labelling of a student to be outside of the norm may have negative consequences, this is

Policy discourses and social practices in Finnish and Norwegian schools 105
legitimated through the provision of individualized support to this student (Saloviita,
1998).6 This also means that equality is seen to follow from offering the best possibilities for every student to learn. Looked at in this way, equality cannot be evaluated
through comparing the educational opportunities of different categories of students,
but through evaluation of individual possibilities for learning and for acquiring qualifications achieved through education.
The aim of special education is to help and support a student, so that she/he has equal
opportunities to complete compulsory education according to her/his abilities together
with her/his peers.
(NBE, 2004, p. 27)

When talking about diversities in hierarchical terms, teachers tend to use categories
according to who they assess as being talented or strong and those who are
weaker. In a Finnish school from a middle class area, one teacher admits that
talented students are spurred, and another argued that in the class with a very good
student population, teaching goes with the rhythm of the 80% who are talented, and
the rest try to keep up. At a school in a working class area, teachers report that they
pay special attention to those who have difficulties. One teacher reflects that she often
finds herself following the rhythm of the weakest student, and feels that the others are
cast adrift. The Norwegian study suggests that, in contrast to statements in teacher
interviews, classroom observations demonstrate that teachers in mainstream classrooms seem to overestimate their time with the weak (Arnesen, 2002). In fact, there
are indications that those who are regarded as being talented, able and active, get
more of the teachers time and attention than those who are silent and considered as
being weak.
When the Finnish teachers were asked to reflect on whether the school makes
differences (see above), some of them expressed the view that differences are innate
differences in achievement, and thus something distinctly outside pedagogy and the
schools role:
Well, I dont know, I rather think that it is those who are poor achievers, they have
achieved poorly already before, so it is not necessarily the teacher who is to blame if she
does not get along with the student well, even such things also happen, certainly but
it is a fact that some are less talented.
(interview with a Finnish teacher)

It is not surprising that teachers tend to pay attention to differences in achievement

this is what they are mandated to do; from the first year onwards teachers are
supposed to test students abilities, as well as teach the children to evaluate themselves (Kasanen & Rty, 2002). Evaluations and assessments are increasingly emphasized in schools, and teachers are aware of their self-verifying impact on students:
Evaluation is always there, so that the good ones always get good grades, and it gets
stronger all the time.
The line between those who can and those who cannot is never obvious, even if
certain students are positioned outside the normal and seem to fit these positions

106 Anne-Lise Arnesen et al.

naturally due to their difficulties in learning or due to their behaviour. The inclusion
discourse will, by implication, question these positionings and their legitimacy for
intervention. The teachers are aware of the rights of the students and of the general
ideal of equality and inclusion, and seem to move between different kinds of
discourses in their considerations of the principles of schooling and the practical
arrangements.
Teachers are planning an integration model for the school in a teachers meeting. One of
them comments on the idea of having certain criteria that have to be met in order for a
special education student to be placed into a mainstream education group: Do we
measure the criteria [that the student has to meet] for being able to participate in the mainstream education? Or does it make any sense, because everybody should have the possibility according to this. Having these criteria, it cant be the idea, it cant be like that.
(notes from a teachers meeting in a Finnish school)

Whereas the curriculum regards the universal student in terms of being (by nature)
active, with an ability to reflect critically, the teachers who are confronted with the
actual diversity of students, know otherwise. They may not make explicit distinctions or borders considering who are seen as insiders and outsiders. The mechanisms work subtly by norms embedded in central notions of pedagogy such as
intelligence, learning, self-esteem and conduct. The norms function to disqualify
certain children who do not fit the norms of the average (Popkewitz, 1998). Those
who fail to achieve according to the norms of normal development, seem to be at
risk of being marginalized or excluded.

Conclusions
Inclusion has become a global issue but, as has been demonstrated, the national policies adjustment in terms of stated intentions and implementation differ between
nations (Vlachou, 2004). Analyses of inclusion contribute by throwing light on the
nature of tensions, which exist between conflicting interests. Although the position of
inclusion and equality today has a sustained place in the comprehensive school and
the teachers value base, the educational rhetoric and reforms in both countries are
influenced by conservative restructuring of education and neo-liberal ideas, articulated as a movement toward greater freedom, student autonomy, and individual
responsibility for ones own learning (Beach et al., 2003). National policies for raising
standards, as determined by the aggregation of test and examination scores, seem to
contradict policies for celebrating diversity and inclusion while simultaneously
enhancing marginalization and exclusion (Dyson et al., 2003).
Our initial analysis of curricular documents in both countries suggests that individualization is increasingly emphasized. However, the countries differ slightly in the
ways policies of inclusion are embedded and the overall organization of mainstream
and special educational provisions are organized. In the Finnish documents (NBE,
2004) there is a less explicit emphasis on the heterogeneous mix of students within a
common social context and community than there is in the Norwegian curriculum.

Policy discourses and social practices in Finnish and Norwegian schools 107
Furthermore, discrimination is being addressed in terms of something that has to be
counteracted in the Norwegian curriculum (UFD, 1996).
From the point of view of inclusion as a political concept, it turns out being a
common value, a principle towards which our institutions should progress. The idea
is based on the notion of an ideal society in which none is an outsider, the harmonious functioning of relations between a diversity of people among which hierarchies
and divisions based on differences are erased.
This paper has identified two different stances to diversity and difference, and their
implications for how equality and justice in education are conceived. Equality and
inclusiveness are still strongly based on the idea of universal rights of all to receive
education of the same standards, offering them the same kind of opportunities to get
educational qualifications. Simultaneously, there are other discourses used, which
emphasize individualization, focusing on individual students, their capacities and
differing needs determined by differences, for example, in their academic abilities
(Mietola et al., 2005). In the curriculum this is embedded in a discourse of diversity
and inclusion underlining the rights for all to belong to a normal (heterogeneous)
social community.
In their talk, teachers seem to carry both of these viewpoints and move between
them: in line with the individualistic ethos of schooling, they hesitate to make strong
categorizations, and simultaneously differentiate on the basis of psychological
descriptions and identifications of different types of students. Teachers work in a situation in which the overall political commitments towards inclusive education collide
with other political aims, in combination with the practical challenges of handling
diversity faced by the teachers.
Notes
1.

2.

3.

The first of the Finnish studies, conducted by Lahelma and colleagues, is an ethnographic
research project in two secondary schools in Helsinki, with parallel studies in schools in
London (e.g. Gordon et al., 2000). The second Finnish study (conducted by Reetta Mietola)
is an ethnographic study of special education provision in one secondary school in the Helsinki
area. The Academy of Finland and the University of Helsinki have supported both studies.
The Norwegian studies, both conducted by Arnesen, include two ethnographic studies, a
research project in three secondary schools in Oslo (Arnesen, 2002, 2004) and a follow-up,
ongoing study (200206). The first was funded by Oslo University College; the second by The
Norwegian Research Council.
Social or ethnic backgrounds of students are not routinely used as categories in the evaluation
reports of the National Board of Education in Finland this is argued to be due to the attempt
to use discretion. Students achievements are predominantly compared only by location and
gender; therefore, there is more public debate about gender difference than about class difference in achievement (Lahelma, 2004a; Mietola et al., 2005).
In the most recent Norwegian school reforms, a particular emphasis is placed on competence,
which is defined in terms of effective and creative deployment of knowledge and skills in human
situations drawing on attitudes and values as well as on skills and knowledge. The rephrasing
of competence as an all-encompassing term is a decision taken in reference to OECD and EU
committee work to achieve a common understanding of competence across countries, for the
purpose of developing common indicators for evaluation of outcomes. This notion becomes a

108 Anne-Lise Arnesen et al.

4.
5.

6.

backdrop for assessing the individual as against the norm, the competent child (Arnesen,
2005). In a complex between the operation of such norms, assessment procedures and interpretation of the status of the school (e.g. by national tests and international assessment),
combined with the medias handling of what has been defined as a crisis, have influenced a
movement based on what is called quality of teaching which shall remedy what is wrong in
school and bridge the gap between those defined as competent and those who lack sufficient
competence. The tendency in Finland is the same, and through international comparisons
(PISA and others) the norms travel from one country to another.
This is about to change with the most recent reforms, which intend to give priority to the individual learner, individualization and adapted teaching in flexible and changing groups.
The needs for special provisions have traditionally been defined in terms of individual deficiencies, rather than external factors (Skrtic, 1995; Haug, 1999; Haug & Tssebro, 1998). Fulcher
(1989) suggests that deficiency discourse is based on a medical tradition that tends to individualize disabilities as attributes and professionalize them by making them parts of a persons
technical trouble (Allan, 1999).
For example, both the Norwegian and the Finnish national curricula are based on the idea of
one school for all, but while stating the shared targets and contents for education, it also
includes, in a separate section, that special education can be organized either as integrated or
in a special class if, as formulated in the Finnish curriculum, it is not possible for the students
to study in the context of other teaching or if it is not appropriate considering the development
of the student (NBE, 2004, p. 27).

Notes on contributors
Anne-Lise Arnesen is professor at the Faculty of Education, Oslo University College,
Norway, annelise.arnesen@lu.hio.no.
Reetta Mietola is researcher at the Department of Education, University of Helsinki,
Finland, reetta.mietola@helsinki.fi.
Elina Lahelma is professor at the Department of Education, University of Helsinki,
Finland, elina.lahelma@helsinki.fi.
References
Ainscow, M., Booth, T. & Dyson, A. (2004) Understanding and developing inclusive practices in
schools: a collaborative action research network, International Journal of Inclusive Education,
8(2), 125139.
Allan, J. (1999) Actively seeking inclusion: pupils with special needs in mainstream schools (London,
Falmer).
Armstrong, F. (2003) Difference, discourse and democracy: the making and breaking of policy in
the market place, International Journal of Inclusive Education, 7(3), 241257.
Arnesen, A. L. (2000) Masculinities and ethnicities at play: a discourse analysis of conflict in a
Norwegian classroom, Pedagogy, Culture and Society, 8(2), 157172.
Arnesen, A. L. (2002) Ulikhet og marginalisering med referanse til kjnn og sosial bakgrunn. En
etnografisk studie av sosial og diskursiv praksis i skolen [Difference and Marginalization with
Reference to Gender and Social Background. An Ethnographic Study of Social and Discursive Practice in School]. HiO Report 13/2002 (Oslo, Oslo University College Press).
Arnesen, A. L. (2004) Det pedagogiske nrvr. Inkludering i mte med elevmangfold [The Pedagogical Presence. Inclusion and Diversity] (Oslo, Abstrakt).
Arnesen, A. L. (2005) National imaginaries: the new competent child of the inclusive school.
Paper presented at the Symposium on Inclusion, NERA Congress, Oslo, Norway, 1012 March
2005.

Policy discourses and social practices in Finnish and Norwegian schools 109
Barton, L. & Armstrong, F. (2003) Engaging with disabling policies. Troubles and contests in a
local education authority in England, Research in Education, 70, 3749.
Barton, L. & Slee, R. (1999) Competition, selection and inclusive education: some observations,
International Journal of Inclusive Education, 3(1), 312.
Beach, D., Gordon, T. & Lahelma, E. (Eds) (2003) Democratic education: ethnographic challenges
(London, Tufnell).
Befring, E. (2002) Utstting eller inkludering. Skelys og synspunkter p to ulike prosesser [Exclusion and inclusion: a review and views on two different processes], in: E. Befring (Ed.) Barn i
Norge 2002 [Children in Norway 2002] (Oslo, Voksne for Barn).
Burman, E. (1994) Deconstructing developmental psychology (New York, NY, Routledge).
Clough, P. (1999) Exclusive tendencies: concepts, consciousness and curriculum in the project of
inclusion, International Journal of Inclusive Education, 3(1), 6373.
Danzinger, K. (1997) Naming the mind. how psychology found its language (London, Sage).
Dyson, A., Gallannaugh, F. & Millward, A. (2003) Making spaces in the standards agenda:
developing inclusive practices in schools, European Educational Research Journal, 2(2),
228244.
Engen, T. O. (2004) Inkludering og tilpasset opplring: to perspektiver [Inclusion and adapted
instruction: two perspectives], in: G. Hie & A. E. Kristoffersen (Eds) Inkluderende eller ekskluderende klasserom [Including and Excluding Classrooms]. Skdalen Publication Series No. 22.
(Oslo, Skdalen Resource Centre).
Frankenberg, R. (1993) White women, race matters: the social construction of Whiteness (London,
Routledge).
Fulcher, G. (1989) Disabling policies? A comparative approach to education policy and disability
(London, Falmer).
Gitz-Johansen, T. (2003) Representations of ethnicity: how teachers speak about ethnic minority
students, in: D. Beach, T. Gordon & E. Lahelma (Eds) Democratic education: ethnographic
challenges (London, Tufnell).
Gordon, T., Holland, J. & Lahelma, E. (2000) Making spaces: citizenship and difference in schools
(London, Macmillan, and New York, NY, St Martins).
Hamilton, D. (2001) Notes from nowhere. (On the beginnings of modern schooling), in: T. S.
Popkewitz, B. M. Franklin & M. A. Pereyra (Eds) Cultural history and education: critical essays
on knowledge and schooling (New York, NY, RoutledgeFalmer).
Haug, P. (1999) Spesialundervisning i grunnskolen. Grunnlag, utvikling og innhald [Special Education
in Compulsory School] (Oslo, Abstrakt).
Haug, P. & Tssebro, J. (Eds) (1998) Theoretical perspectives on special education (Oslo, Hgskoleforlaget).
Kasanen, K. & Rty, H. (2002) You be sure now to be honest in your assessment. Teaching and
learning self-assessment, Social Psychology of Education, 21, 116.
Lahelma, E. (2004a) 20 vuotta koulun tasa-arvotyt entnyt? [20 years of work for education
for gender equality what now?] in: M. Taajamo (Ed.) Suunnistuksia: tiede, kasvatus, taide
[Orienterings: Science, Education, Arts]. Koulutuksen tutkimuslaitos, Jyvskyln yliopisto
(Jyvskyl, Jyvskyln yliopistopaino).
Lahelma, E. (2004b) Tolerance and understanding? Students and teachers reflect on differences at
school, Educational Research and Evaluation, 10(1), 319.
Lindblad, S. & Popkewitz, T. S. (2003) Comparative ethnography: fabricating the new millennium and its exclusions, in: D. Beach, T. Gordon & E. Lahelma (Eds) Democratic education:
ethnographic challenges (London, Tufnell), 1023.
Mietola, R. & Lappalainen, S. (2005) Hullunkurisia perheit. Perheen saamat merkitykset
kasvatuksen kentll [Funny families. Meanings of families in educational arenas], in: T.
Kiilakoski, M. Vuorikoski & T. Tomperi (Eds) Kenen kasvatus? Kriittinen pedagogiikka ja toisin
kasvatuksen mahdollisuus [Whose education? critical pedagogy and possibility for educating
other ways] (Tampere, Vastapaino), 112135.

110 Anne-Lise Arnesen et al.

Mietola, R., Lahelma, E., Lappalainen, S. & Palmu, T. (2005) Johdattelua kohtaamisiin koulutuksen ja kasvatuksen kentill [Introducing to encounters in the fields of education], in: R.
Mietola, E. Lahelma, S. Lappalainen & T. Palmu (Eds) Kohtaamisia kasvatuksen ja koulutuksen kentill. Erontekoja ja yhdess tekemist [Encounters in the fields of education. making
differences and working together] (Turku, Suomen Kasvatustieteellisen Seuran julkaisuja 22),
920.
NBE (2004) Framework curriculum for the comprehensive school 2004 (Helsinki. National Board of
Education, Painatuskeskus).
Popkewitz, T. (2001) The production of reason and power. Curriculum history and intellectual
traditions, in: T. S. Popkewitz, B. M. Franklin & M. A. Pereyra (Eds) Cultural history and
education: critical essays on knowledge and schooling (New York, NY, RoutledgeFalmer).
Popkewitz, T. S. (1998) Struggling for the soul: the politics of schooling and the construction of the
teacher (New York, NY, Teacher College, Columbia University).
Popkewitz, T. & Lindblad, S. (2000) Educational governance and social inclusion and exclusion:
some conceptual difficulties, Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 21(1), 544.
Saloviita, T. (1998) Erityisopetus kouluorganisaation patologiana [Special education as a pathology of the school organisation], in: R. Laukkanen (Ed.) Poikkeava vai erityinen? Erityisopetuksen monet ulottuvuudet [Deviant or special? many dimensions of special education] (Jyvskyl,
Atena).
Seeberg, M. L. (2003) Dealing with difference: two classrooms, two countries. a comparative study of
Norwegian and Dutch processes of alterity and identity, drawn from three points of view (Oslo,
NOVA).
Skidmore, D. (2004) Inclusion: the dynamic of school development (Buckingham, Open University
Press).
Skrtic, T. M. (Ed.) (1995) Disability and democracy. Reconstructing (special) education for postmodernity (New York, Teachers College Press).
Slee, R. (2001a) Inclusion in Practice: does practice make perfect?, Educational Review, 53(2),
114123.
Slee, R. (2001b) Social justice and the changing directions in educational research: the case of
inclusive education, International Journal of Inclusive Education, 5(2/3), 167177.
Slee, R. & Allan, J. (2001) Excluding the Included: a reconsideration of inclusive education, International Studies in Sociology of Education, 11(2), 173191.
Slee, R. & Weiner, G. (2001) Education reform and reconstruction as a challenge to research
genres: reconsidering school effectiveness research and inclusive schooling, School Effectiveness
& School Improvement, 12(1), 8398.
Thomas, G. & OHanlon, C. (2001) Series Editors Preface, in: G. Thomas & A. Loxley (Eds)
Deconstructing special education and constructing inclusion (Buckingham, Open University Press).
UFD (1996) The curriculum for the 10-year compulsory school (Oslo, Norwegian Ministry of Education
and Research).
UNESCO (2004) The Education For All (EFA) flagship: the right to education for persons with disabilities, towards inclusion, conceptual paper, December 2004, ED/BAS/EIE/2004/1REV
(UNESCO).
Vlachou, A. (2004) Education and inclusive policy-making: implications for research and practice,
International Journal of Inclusive Education, 8(1), 321.
Yates, L. (1993) The education of girls. Policy, research and the question of gender, Australian Education
Review No. 35 (Melbourne, ACER).