Conference Agenda

Inclusive education was introduced as a means to overcome the exclusionary practices and experiences of mainstream and special education systems. Its’ apparent success is that it has globally taken hold even in systems where there is a well-established history of segregatory structures. However, it is understood in many different ways in relation to policy, practice and research (Amor et al, 2019) and in most countries the initial enthusiastic narrative has been met by a continued and frequently resurgent role for special education in various guises (Slee, 2018; Rix, 2015; Hausstatter & Jahnukainen, 2015). For example, in Ireland there is much made of the drive for an inclusive ethos and culture, however any changes are cosmetic and surface-level (McKeon, 2020), with over 140 special schools, and nearly 25% of the school population identified with special educational needs (Kenny et al, 2020); in Finland, 9% of children in 2020 were identified for special support with over 40% receiving all education in a special education setting (Statistics Finland, 2021); in the Czech republic 33% of those identifed with Special educational needs were in special settings (EASNIE, 2020), whilst in England special school numbers have grown by over 20% since 2011 (Selfe & Richmond, 2020) and in Italy over 26% of disabled children spend more than 50% of their time out of mainstream class (Anastasiou et al, 2015).

Even if efforts are made to accept the historical value of special education and to shift the focus onto a singular inclusive pedagogy (Florian, 2013), it does not seem to be happen as we may wish. In practice, even when asked to enact an pedagogy underpinned by inclusive aims and principles, (e.g.: focussed upon whole class activity and student strengths), practitioners still feel the need to adopt practices for learners identified with special eduational needs that are associated with the special education paradigm (e.g. individualised seating arrangements and behaviour strategies) (Losberg & Zwozdiak-Myers, 2021).

In this context that this symposium will explore whether we need to reimagine the nature of special education rather than seek to consign it to history. We wish to consider the possibility that inclusion has re-legitimised special education and become a barrier to special education’s necessary transformation. We are interested in:

• considering ways in which the re-legitimisation of special education may be happening
• introducing practical possibilities that can move us beyond this impasse
• exploring what alternative special education may emerge.

This is a double symposium designed to allow space for four papers, a round-table discussion and the development of a special issue proposal for the European Journal of Inclusive Eduction.

In the first 90 minutes of the symposium there will be 4 presentations by Rune Hausstatter, Ilektra Spandagou, Thorsten Merl and Anabel Granados. These will consider challenges presented by individualisation, relationships with support services, administrative processes, ownership of knowledge and the legitamising nature of caterories. The second part of the symposium will begin with the discussants, the editors of the British Journal of Special Education, Graham Hallett and Fiona Hallett, reflecting on the 4 presentations and the wider issue of the symposium. This will be followed by a round table discussion (involving the presenters, discussants and open to the floor) chaired by Jonathan Rix. Our opening points of discussion will be

• Why does special education fill a gap which inclusion does not?
  • Are there aspects of special education which we should be seeking to retain and redevelop?
  • What would happen to special education if we prioritise participation and social justice (rather than inclusion)?
  • In addition to the presentations in the first part, what topics should be included in the proposed special edition?

The expansion of special education in educational systems that have introduced inclusive education policies and practices appears paradoxical, but it is not. Inclusive education initiatives have followed the trajectory of previous attempts (e.g., mainstreaming, integration) of reforming the education of students that teachers in general classrooms perceived difficult to teach. Skrtic (1991) described the ways that schools respond to public demands for change by creating the illusion of change. In this process, specialised arrangements and provisions expand, increasing the number of students who are identified as requiring such specialised arrangements in separated programs. Hence, policy and practice initiatives fail because they are not radical enough to disrupt the purpose and organisation of schools for all students. Moreover, the identification of an ever-increasing proportion of children and young people in schools cannot be separated from uncertain economic, social, and political conditions and the fundamental limitations of schooling to provide the promise of education. Again, this is not new (Tomlinson, 1985). What changes is the cultural dynamics that inform the identities produced for individual students. Starting from these premises, this paper explores special education in the inclusive education era. The Australian and Greek education systems are used as illustrative cases. The comparative analysis of policy documents, statistics and reports covers the period 1990-2022. The history, organisational arrangements, and loci of special education in the two systems are markedly different. Both systems have introduced policies that promote inclusive education but have maintained a special education orientation, language, and provisions. In both systems, special education has experienced continuous expansion and the education of students perceived as requiring special education is considered inadequate and in crisis. The analysis illustrates the changes over time in the core elements of special education as an administrative function of identifying, diagnosing, and allocating funding and resources. The paper postulates that there are limits to this expansion of special education as a mechanism for regulating educational systems and in this sense, special education exemplifies the limits of hope and despair (Ball, 2020) about the potential of education.

Ball, S.J. (2020). The errors of redemptive sociology or giving up on hope and despair, British Journal of Sociology of Education, 41(6), 870-880. Skrtic, T. (1991). The special education paradox: Equity as the way to excellence, Harvard Educational Review, 61(2), 148-207. Tomlinson, (1985). The expansion of special education, Oxford Review of Education, 11(2), 157-165.

A central aim, when inclusion was introduced almost thirty years ago, was that the need for additional special education systems should be redundant or at least reduced (Kiupis & Hausstätter, 2014). However, as seen in the general description of this symposium special education systems is still very central in many countries. The outset of this paper is to point to the dependency between special and general education. As partly outlined by Richardson and Powell (2011), the historical and cultural development of both general and special education has led to this dependency and further created a complexity that inclusive education is not able to solve. A central part of this complex relationship, is that the educational system in essence is not inclusive and special education has played and still play, a central role to support a system that contain the elements of marginalization (Hausstätter & Nordahl, 2013; Hausstätter, 2013). There are elements of special education that is needed both in practice, but also as a legitimation of general education . In order to understand this relationship better this paper will outline this dependency and investigate which what makes special education a necessity? Such areas could be the need for extra resources, the need for specific knowledge about disability, the need for alternative teaching and learning environments and the need to establish alternative learning goals instead of following a national curriculum. However, these areas are all variables of the core argument legitimizing special education: the need for individualization. The idea of individual oriented education is part of the general focus of education, however it seems that this is more central for the legitimation of special education (Gjessing, 1974; Vygotsky, 1993; Hausstätter, 2023). This focus of individualization will be explored in this paper, and further connected to the dependency described. A second question for analysis is if inclusive education have a solution to this need of individualization?

Gjessing, H-J. (1974). Om sanering av spesialundervisning, og om alternative tilbud. Skolepsykologi 9(4). Hausstätter, R. (2013) «20-prosentregelen» - omfanget av spesialundervisning i norske skoler. Spesialpedagogikk nr 6 Hausstätter, R. (2023). Spesialpedagogikkens samfunnsmandat. Fagbokforlaget Hausstätter, R. and Nordahl, T. (2013) Spesialundervisningens stabiliserende effekt i grunnskolen. In B. Karseth, J. Møller, P. Aasen (ed) Reformtakter. Universitetsforlaget (p. 191-210) Kiuppis F. & Hausstätter, R. (2014). Inclusive Education Twenty Years After Salamanca. Peter Lang Richardson J. G. and Powell J.J.W. (2011), Comparing Special Education: Origins to contemporary Paradoxes. Stanford University Press

In Spain, nearly the total of the school population since the age of 3 is attending school, and around 9 % have a diagnosis of SEN Necesidad Específica de Apoyo Educativo (NEAE) (special needs education, high abilities and specific learning disabilities (LSD)). From this group, Andalusia region has the highest number of children incorporated into integrative settings in the whole country, meaning children with SEN being taught in settings where they are segregated into special classes. In the academic year 2021/22, 40% of children with NEAE were attending special schools and the 60% were integration classes in ordinary schools (Junta de Andalucia, 2022). Whether the decision-making of selecting the setting is done by families or external professionals, teachers are the ones that implement the daily basis practices with the children. These teachers have to work using the principles of non-discrimination accessibility and universal design following the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) (United Nations, 2006). This qualitative study aims through a sociocultural approach to examine the teacher’s agency. Using happenstance learning theory (Krumboltz, 2009) and in-depth semi-structured interviews (Deterding & Waters, 2021), it examines practices which are trying to be inclusive but failing, and the practices that are seen as being alternative to inclusive practices. We will be exploring the importance of teachers attached to the leadership functions and in which way they seem themselves as leaders (York‐Barr et al, 2005) and their implications on the school culture (Gurr et al, 2022). In this study will be participating two special schools and two ordinary schools. The research participants of this study are key actors from the education system which are 4 regular education teachers, 4 special needs educators, and 4 NGOs teaching assistants working in special schools, in ordinary settings with integration classes and combined schooling programmes. There is limited research on the coordination and shared decision-making among professionals working with children with SEN in the Spanish context (Corral-Granados, 2022), and none of them study why inclusion is not working for them and their views on alternative approaches to inclusion, including those which arise from special education”

Corral-Granados, A. (2022). Challenges in continuing professional development on inclusion in early years in Spain. Journal of Educational Change, 1-23. Deterding, N. M., & Waters, M. C. (2021). Flexible coding of in-depth interviews: A twenty-first-century approach. Sociological methods & research, 50(2), 708-739. Gurr, D., Drysdale, L., & Goode, H. (2022). An open systems model of successful school leadership. Journal of Educational Administration. Krumboltz, J. D. (2009). The happenstance learning theory. Journal of career assessment, 17(2), 135-154. Junta de Andalucia (2022)Educacion informe OIAA- 2022. Estado de a infacia y de la adolescencia de Andalucia. Cuaderno n 3. United Nations Equality and Human Rights Commission. (2020). UN Convention on the RIghts of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). Equality and Human Rights Commission. https://www. equalityhumanrights. com/en/our-human-rights-work/monitoring-and-promotin g-un-treaties/un-convention-rights-persons-disabilities. York‐Barr*, J., Sommerness, J., Duke, K., & Ghere, G. (2005). Special educators in inclusive education programmes: Reframing their work as teacher leadership. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 9(2), 193-215.

To understand the re-legitimisation of special education by inclusion, it is necessary to further investigate what functions special education has for everyday practices in self-proclaimed inclusive schools. Even though it might seem contradictory to ask for functions of special education in inclusive schools, empirically we can see that teachers in Germany simultaneously understand their school as being inclusive and yet draw from key concepts of special education to describe some of their pupils as different or to argue for the need of pedagogical differentiations (Merl 2021). The presentation analyses the functions that special education and especially different categories of special educational needs have theoretically and empirically, based on an ethnography in inclusive schools (Merl 2019): Thus, based on existing studies, the presentation first examines the basal functions of pathologization for the school system and for the existence of special education itself (Tenorth 2006; Bühler 2017). One central function in this regard appears to be the authorisation of pedagogical differentiations. To put it briefly: (Naturalised) Differences legitimise differentiation. I will therefore present the concept of authorisation and its relation to educational norms (Jergus & Thomspon 2017). The concept of authorisation provides a sensitising concept for the following reconstructive analysis of an observed pathologization, which took place in class in the form of the public outing of a pupil as being autistic. The analysis leads to a final discussion of equality and equal treatment as an educational norm in schools, which is an underlying condition for the authorising function of pathologisations in inclusive schools. A more precise understanding of the authorising functions which pathologies and their underlying norms of equal treatment have in inclusive school contexts, will allow for a concluding discussion of the following questions: 1.) How may these functions be substituted without having to refer to discriminatory categories? 2.) How may the underlying norm be challenged and changed? Both Questions could be a means of exploring the possibilities of alternative special education and its emergence.

Bühler, P. (2017). „Diagnostik“ und „praktische Behandlung“. Die Entstehung der therapeutischen Funktion der Schule. In R. Reichenbach & P. Bühler (Eds.), Fragmente zu einer pädagogischen Theorie der Schule (1st ed., pp. 176–195). Beltz Juventa. Jergus, K., & Thompson, C. (Eds.). (2017). Autorisierungen des pädagogischen Selbst: Studien zu Adressierungen der Bildungskindheit. Springer VS. Merl, T. (2019). un/genügend fähig: Zur Herstellung von Differenz im Unterricht inklusiver Schulklassen. Klinkhardt. Merl, T. (2021). In/sufficiently able: How teachers differentiate between pupils in inclusive classrooms. Ethnography and Education, 16(2), 198–209. https://doi.org/10.1080/17457823.2021.1871853 Tenorth, H.-E. (2006). Bildsamkeit und Behinderung – Anspruch, Wirksamkeit und Selbstdestruktion einer Idee. In L. Raphael & H.-E. Tenorth (Eds.), Ideen als gesellschaftliche Gestaltungskraft im Europa der Neuzeit (pp. 497–520). Oldenbourg. https://doi.org/10.1524/9783486596342.497