2006International Journal of Inclusive EducationRequires access

Strengthened adapted education for all — no more special education?

Kari Nes, Marit Strømstad

Open publisher page 8 citations

Abstract

We do not see what we do not see because we see what we see. (Moe, 1995 Moe, S. 1995. Sosiologisk betraktning, Oslo: Universitetsforlaget. [Google Scholar] with reference to Luhmann) In this paper, we will present some proposals by a committee whose mandate was to review basic education in Norway, and more importantly, we will discuss the reactions to these proposals. The committee made more than one hundred different suggestions. Our focus will be on inclusion in a broad sense. The proposal to receive the most attention was a suggestion to replace the right to extra resources earmarked for special education for individual students by an improved legal right to adapted education for all. This proposal and the arguments underpinning it may in some respects be compared to the ideas behind the Regular Education Initiative (REI) in the USA in the 1980s (Will, 1986 Will, M. C. 1986. Education children with learning problems: a shared responsibility. Exceptional Children, 52: 411–415. [PubMed], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]; Smith, 1998 Smith, J. D. 1998. Inclusion. Schools for All Students, New York, NY: Wadsworth. [Google Scholar]; Kauffmann & Hallahan, 1998). It may also be seen in the context of the current debate on inclusion in other countries, such as the discussion about the Additional Support for Learning Bill in Scotland in 2003 (Allan, 2004 Allan, J. 19–21 July 2004. The repetition of exclusion, paper presented at the seminar Critical Analyses of Inclusive Education Policy, 19–21 July, Montreal, , Canada: McGill University. [Google Scholar]; Scottish Executive, 2004 Scottish Executive. 2004. Report of the Consultation on the Draft Additional Support for Learning Bill Available online at: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/library5/education/rcasl-00.asp (accessed December 2004) [Google Scholar]). The report’s proposals concerning inclusion will be introduced below. Finally, after presenting and analysing the reactions from respondents we will discuss the various views expressed.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

We do not see what we do not see because we see what we see. (Moe, 1995 Moe, S. 1995. Sosiologisk betraktning, Oslo: Universitetsforlaget. [Google Scholar] with reference to Luhmann) In this paper, we will present some proposals by a committee whose mandate was to review basic education in Norway, and more importantly, we will discuss the reactions to these proposals. The committee made more than one hundred different suggestions. Our focus will be on inclusion in a broad sense. The proposal to receive the most attention was a suggestion to replace the right to extra resources earmarked for special education for individual students by an improved legal right to adapted education for all. This proposal and the arguments underpinning it may in some respects be compared to the ideas behind the Regular Education Initiative (REI) in the USA in the 1980s (Will, 1986 Will, M. C. 1986. Education children with learning problems: a shared responsibility. Exceptional Children, 52: 411–415. [PubMed], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]; Smith, 1998 Smith, J. D. 1998. Inclusion. Schools for All Students, New York, NY: Wadsworth. [Google Scholar]; Kauffmann & Hallahan, 1998). It may also be seen in the context of the current debate on inclusion in other countries, such as the discussion about the Additional Support for Learning Bill in Scotland in 2003 (Allan, 2004 Allan, J. 19–21 July 2004. The repetition of exclusion, paper presented at the seminar Critical Analyses of Inclusive Education Policy, 19–21 July, Montreal, , Canada: McGill University. [Google Scholar]; Scottish Executive, 2004 Scottish Executive. 2004. Report of the Consultation on the Draft Additional Support for Learning Bill Available online at: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/library5/education/rcasl-00.asp (accessed December 2004) [Google Scholar]). The report’s proposals concerning inclusion will be introduced below. Finally, after presenting and analysing the reactions from respondents we will discuss the various views expressed.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 8 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

We do not see what we do not see because we see what we see. (Moe, 1995 Moe, S. 1995. Sosiologisk betraktning, Oslo: Universitetsforlaget. [Google Scholar] with reference to Luhmann) In this paper, we will present some proposals by a committee whose mandate was to review basic education in Norway, and more importantly, we will discuss the reactions to these proposals. The committee made more than one hundred different suggestions. Our focus will be on inclusion in a broad sense. The proposal to receive the most attention was a suggestion to replace the right to extra resources earmarked for special education for individual students by an improved legal right to adapted education for all. This proposal and the arguments underpinning it may in some respects be compared to the ideas behind the Regular Education Initiative (REI) in the USA in the 1980s (Will, 1986 Will, M. C. 1986. Education children with learning problems: a shared responsibility. Exceptional Children, 52: 411–415. [PubMed], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]; Smith, 1998 Smith, J. D. 1998. Inclusion. Schools for All Students, New York, NY: Wadsworth. [Google Scholar]; Kauffmann & Hallahan, 1998). It may also be seen in the context of the current debate on inclusion in other countries, such as the discussion about the Additional Support for Learning Bill in Scotland in 2003 (Allan, 2004 Allan, J. 19–21 July 2004. The repetition of exclusion, paper presented at the seminar Critical Analyses of Inclusive Education Policy, 19–21 July, Montreal, , Canada: McGill University. [Google Scholar]; Scottish Executive, 2004 Scottish Executive. 2004. Report of the Consultation on the Draft Additional Support for Learning Bill Available online at: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/library5/education/rcasl-00.asp (accessed December 2004) [Google Scholar]). The report’s proposals concerning inclusion will be introduced below. Finally, after presenting and analysing the reactions from respondents we will discuss the various views expressed.

Key concepts: Special education, Mainstreaming, Pedagogy, Higher education, Mathematics education, Sociology, Psychology, Economic growth

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Strengthened adapted education for all — no more special education? — Research Paper | ScholarLens