Conference Agenda

Despite the widespread recognition of inclusion as a fundamental value in education over the past three decades (UNESCO, 1994), schools worldwide continue to struggle with the practical implementation of this ideal (Keles et al., 2022).

In Norway, the introduction of the new Education Act in August 2024 further emphasizes the value of inclusion by highlighting that all students have the right to a safe and positive learning environment that promotes health, inclusion, well-being, and learning (Opplæringslova, 2023). However, a recurring challenge persists in determining whether the broad political support actually translates into tangible outcomes in practice (Ainscow, 2020). Haug (2022) raises the question of whether this lack of impact can be explained by the concept of "frozen ideologies" coined by Liedman (1997), suggesting that ingrained mentalities, regulations, and practices hinder progress.

The concept of inclusion can be understood in the light of what Røvik & Pettersen (2014) refer to as a master idea. A characteristic of master ideas is that over time they have gained great legitimacy and spread across sectors and countries. Furthermore, they have the power to trigger a number of reforms and initiatives and being more or less self-justifying. The fact that the ideas are self-justifying can be positive in the sense that one does not need to spend time and effort arguing for inclusion. At the same time, the danger is that a lack of argument leads to skipping important discussions which also identify challenges and dilemmas when translating the idea into educational practice (Øen et al., 2024). Mhairi et al. (2021), therefore call for a new approach to professional learning for inclusion that "takes as its starting point the complex professional dilemmas that educators articulate rather than viewing them as discrete issues that can be addressed separately" (p. 2166).

According to Dignath et al. (2022), schools often prioritize structural and organizational changes in their efforts towards inclusion. While these aspects are crucial, organizational change ultimately relies on professionals’ ability to change their own practices. Therefore, schools are advised to consider teachers' individual perceptions of reality when implementing reforms, particularly in the context of inclusive education. This aligns with research suggesting that significant improvements to practice necessitate discussions surrounding the underlying understandings or theories that inform practice (Robinson, 2018).

Mhairi et al. (2021) emphasizes the importance of collaborative learning within the professional community as a key factor in developing inclusive practices. The Norwegian Core Curriculum consequently clarifies the significance of schools functioning as professional communities where all employees engage in reflective dialogues about value choices and developmental needs (Kunnskapsdepartementet, 2017).

The development of inclusive practices involves the engagement of the schools' external support services within the professional community. In this paper, the external support services will be limited to the Educational and psychological counselling service (EPS). This entails collaborating with professional groups who have; varying mandates, perspectives, concept of knowledge, and results in offering alternative solutions (Haug, 2022). Within this dynamic, there exists the potential for the emergence of innovative practices. However, for effective collaboration to take place, curiosity, a willingness to learn, humility, and respect must prevail. Without these qualities, differing mandates, legal bases, and perceptions of reality may hinder productive collaboration (Øen & Mjøs, 2023). This could potentially lead to a situation known as the "Blame Game" (Hood, 2002), where parties attribute problems, solutions, and need for expertise to external sources rather than taking personal responsibility (Mjøs & Øen, 2022).

The research question for this paper is:

How can a survey contribute to exploring and challenging existing practice and collaboration in terms of developing a more inclusive practice?

In 1994, the UNESCO Salamanca Declaration stated that inclusion should be an issue of concern for all countries, and in 2015, the UN Sustainable Development Goals also marked inclusive and equitable quality education for all children in one of the 18 sustainability goals (goal no. 4 Quality Education) as a prerequisite to realise a sustainable development of the society. Despite political agreements, legislation and great effort in research and practices, the realisation of inclusive education (IE) has continued to prove challenging (Nilholm 2021). Among several explanations, a lack of a unified understanding of IE (ibid.) and a clash between IE values and values aimed at students’ academic achievements (Ainscow & Messiou 2018) are suggested to be two main obstacle. In order to advance the field of IE, researchers have explored inclusion as a multifaceted phenomenon that requires contemporaneous analysis on macro, meso, and micro levels (Schuelka &Engsig 2022, 449). Macro aspects such as ideologies, policy and laws, meso aspects such as school contexts and teachers’ practices and micro aspects such as psychological and learning dimensions must be considered and understood by focusing on their mutual interaction (A. Qvortrup and Qvortrup 2018; Messiou 2006). Qvortrup & Qvortrup (2018) further argue that we should avoid thinking about IE in an either-or-perspective, and they develop ‘…a framework for understanding and working with inclusion in schools that take into account the dynamic relationship between inclusion and exclusion and the fact that inclusive work will never reach a stable state of total inclusion’ (810). The framework relates to the broader trend of viewing the concept of special educational needs (SEN) from a perspective focusing on individual factors (the individual approach) but also focusing on the school’s failure to accommodate human diversity, which in turn necessitates a focus on the school context and its conditions for inclusion (social-contextual approach) (Skidmore, 1996). To meet these requests, holistic approaches have emerged, in which the shortcomings of previous approaches are highlighted, as they ‘[…] share common limitations of reductionism’ (Skidmore 1996, 33). As also suggested in Amartya Sen’s capability approach (2009), attention caused should be placed on both human diversity (we are all different), impairment and disability (as specific variables of human diversity) and barriers and inequalities by the social environment (see e.g. Reindal, 2009). In this way the contradictions and practical dilemmas of IE become visible: While on the one hand, IE involves identifying students’ differences to meet their individual needs, on the other, it is also about maintaining a sense of normality and treating all the same (Norwich 2002). Additionally, an enrichment approach arose, arguing that experiences with human diversity as crucial for students’ understanding and respect for others and themselves. Thus, this approach is about preparing for a future life in heterogeneous society (Befring 1997, 184).

In line with Kiuppis (2014) the development of different and apparently conflicting perspectives in the field of IE reflects ambiguities about the values of inclusion in the Salamanca Declaration (UNESCO 1994). Thus, this paper aims to contribute to the advancement of the field by providing a deeper understanding of the complexities surrounding the implementation of IE from the ideological/political level, to the practical and individual one (inclusionary outcome for the student). The following research question was formulated to guide our study:

How should one understand the phenomenon of IE when analysing the dynamic interaction between the ideological value of IE, inclusive practices, and students’ inclusionary outcomes in schools?

The concept of participation in educational research comprises a complex field which involves issues of democracy, children’s rights and inclusion in schools, and it is a field “in search of definition” (Percy-Smith & Thomas, 2010, p. 1). Although there is no unifying definition of children’s participation, most definitions contain the elements of the child as a subject or agent, engaging with others around tasks or issues of concern to them (Malone & Hartung, 2010, p. 27). Drawing on Bae’s (2009) notion of mutual recognition, emphasising that “partners in interactions are of equal worth” (Bae, 2009, p. 397), leads the attention to how to create mutual conditions for everybody’s participation in joint activities. In a Norwegian context, although building a safe learning environment for everybody is not a specific part of a particular subject, it is clearly articulated in the Education Act, (1998, § 9 A-2) and in the overall part of the curriculum (Udir, 2017). Hence, in this study, participation is understood as linked to the three perspectives, the student, interactions with others, and what they do to collaborate in “shared learning experiences” (Booth & Ainscow, 2002, p. 3). Further, in their “framework for participation”, Florian et al. (2017) refer to how students’ participation is linked to the dimensions of access, collaboration, achievements and recognition and acceptance of all students, by students and teachers in a way that fosters a sense of belonging to the class as a learning community (Florian et al., 2017, p. 54). This paper reports on teacher-student interactions’ role in promoting students’ participation in singing as a joint start-up routine in a 5^th grade classroom. The main objective is on exploring why and how the students participate in classroom singing when the activity is conducted as a joint start-up routine. The purpose of the article is to gain insight about the role of the students’ and the teacher’s participation in a joint activity. Conducting singing activity as a routine at the beginning of the day may imply that the content and the form of singing promote students’ participation, since routines consist of both “structure and agency” (Feldman & Pentland, 2003, p. 95). In this way, conducting singing as a classroom activity might reinforce relationships (Savage et al., 2021, p. 2) and contribute to shape a learning environment where every student can belong, since “participation is part of belonging” (Lansdown, 2010, p. 11). Further, Savage (2021) argues that human musicality is a coevolved system for social bonding, where the phrase “social bonding refers to the formation, strengthening, and maintenance of affiliative connections” (Savage et al., 2021, p. 2) that brings forth the bonded relationships that underpin prosocial behaviour. As such, musical activities like group singing can enhance students prosocial behaviours towards others as well as their social inclusion in school (Barrett et al., 2019). To investigate the students’ and the teacher’s participation in singing as a start-up routine, the following research questions will be answered: How can the teacher’s and students’ participation in the singing activity be described, and how can the descriptions contribute to increased understanding about the appearance and significance of participation in the joint activity?