2007
DOI: 10.1080/13603110600601034
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Language of inclusion and diversity: policy discourses and social practices in Finnish and Norwegian schools

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
36
0

Year Published

2013
2013
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
5
2
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 48 publications
(37 citation statements)
references
References 18 publications
1
36
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Secondly, it seems that inclusion remains a political concept and is rarely an organising principle for daily practice in school settings (Haug 2010). Similar to findings in the United Kingdom (Sikes, Lawson, and Parker 2007), inclusion in Norway is most often defined along the binaries of inclusion/exclusion and of normality/abnormality (Arnesen, Mietola, and Lahelma 2007), or in relation to mainstream/special schools (Haug 2010), and consequently, rests paradoxically upon a discourse of exclusion and the Other (Slee 2011). Thirdly, inclusion is often used as a synonym for special education (Haug 2010), and therefore masks the deeper issues of how best to include all students in education as a human rights issue.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 74%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Secondly, it seems that inclusion remains a political concept and is rarely an organising principle for daily practice in school settings (Haug 2010). Similar to findings in the United Kingdom (Sikes, Lawson, and Parker 2007), inclusion in Norway is most often defined along the binaries of inclusion/exclusion and of normality/abnormality (Arnesen, Mietola, and Lahelma 2007), or in relation to mainstream/special schools (Haug 2010), and consequently, rests paradoxically upon a discourse of exclusion and the Other (Slee 2011). Thirdly, inclusion is often used as a synonym for special education (Haug 2010), and therefore masks the deeper issues of how best to include all students in education as a human rights issue.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 74%
“…First of all, there is the tension between education for equality and social justice and the moral panics about lowering standards and the subsequent increased marketization of schooling (Arnesen, Mietola, and Lahelma 2007;Barton 2004;Nes 2004;Slee 1998;Stromstad 2004). Secondly, it seems that inclusion remains a political concept and is rarely an organising principle for daily practice in school settings (Haug 2010).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Equality and inclusiveness are central values for Norwegian educational policies (Arnesen, Mietola, and Lahelma 2007), and exceptions to the principle of the unitary school are strictly regulated by the Education Act. From the first grade in elementary up to and including the third grade of upper secondary, education is free of charge and based on right.…”
Section: The Political Contextmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Niemi, 2014;Sigurðardóttir & Óskarsdóttir, 2012). Arnesen et al (2007) have brought together these three positions and searched for new ways to analyse inclusion and diversity in the school policy and practice drawing from ethnographic studies in Finnish and Norwegian schools, both from mainstream and from special classes. The importance of disability as a category of difference that has conceptual potential in theorising education, teaching and pedagogy becomes visible in these three positions and perspectives of researchers.…”
Section: Discussion Of Finnish and Icelandic Contributions To Dsementioning
confidence: 99%
“…Most of these researchers have come to DS from outside the discipline of special education, and they concentrate on the critical analysis of inclusive education and on cultural practices of inclusion and exclusion (e.g. Arnesen, Mietola, & Lahelma, 2007;Hakala, 2010;Mietola & Lappalainen, 2006;Niemi, 2008).…”
Section: Finlandmentioning
confidence: 99%