(2015) Engsig & Johnstone - The Paradoxical Policies of Inclusive Education - Lessons From Denmark

This article was downloaded by: [Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile]
On: 21 August 2015, At: 15:47

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: 5 Howick Place, London, SW1P 1WG
International Journal of Inclusive

Education
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tied20
Is there something rotten in the state

of Denmark? The paradoxical policies
of inclusive education – lessons from
Denmark
a b
Thomas T. Engsig & Christopher J. Johnstone
a
Department of Learning and Philosophy, Aalborg University and
University College Nordjylland, Aalborg, Denmark
b
College of Education and Human Development, University of
Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA
Click for updates Published online: 14 Aug 2014.
To cite this article: Thomas T. Engsig & Christopher J. Johnstone (2015) Is there something rotten
in the state of Denmark? The paradoxical policies of inclusive education – lessons from Denmark,
International Journal of Inclusive Education, 19:5, 469-486, DOI: 10.1080/13603116.2014.940068
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2014.940068
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
Downloaded by [Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile] at 15:47 21 August 2015
International Journal of Inclusive Education, 2015
Vol. 19, No. 5, 469– 486, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2014.940068
Is there something rotten in the state of Denmark?

The paradoxical policies of inclusive education – lessons from
Denmark
∗
Thomas T. Engsiga and Christopher J. Johnstoneb
a
Department of Learning and Philosophy, Aalborg University and University College
Nordjylland, Aalborg, Denmark; bCollege of Education and Human Development,
University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA
(Received 21 March 2014; accepted 11 June 2014)
By 2015, 96% of the entire student body in the Danish public school system must
receive his or her education within the regular classrooms, and referrals to
segregated special education must be reduced radically. This is the consequence
of the so-called ‘Inclusion Law’ passed in the Danish parliament in April 2012.
The law contains a political ambition that at least 80% of the students in the
public school should be proficient in reading and math when measured in
national tests, and the percentage of the most proficient students must increase
every year. Historically, Denmark’s inclusive education is informed by the rights
and ethics discourse from The Salamanca Statement. However, this article
explores the paradoxical policies of inclusive education in Denmark that seem to
lie on a continuum that ranges from Salamanca-inspired, equity-focused
inclusion to a more US-inspired, accountability-focused inclusion.
Keywords: inclusive education; accountability; USA; Denmark; discourses;
policies
Introduction
National educational policies rarely emerge in a vacuum. As Kingdon (2003) noted,
there are often a series of events, which lead to an opportunity for change. As oppor-
tunities emerge, there is often a ‘window’ of opportunity when several streams emerge
to create new policy which is either informed by, or informs policy discourse. In the
field of comparative and international education, scholars such as Steiner-Khamsi
(2006) have noted that international policy borrowing is a common phenomenon. In
such cases, policies or policy guidance may be transferred from one country to shape
the policy of another. Steiner-Khamsi (2006) argues that there is an economic incentive
to borrow policies in the Global South (e.g. if policy change is tied to a World Bank
loan or other economic aid, countries are more likely to accept changes). In other
cases where money is not an incentive, policy borrowing is utilised as a mechanism
for legitimising desired changes within a particular country by pointing to external
examples of success (Schriewer and Martinez 2004). The latter form of policy borrow-
ing is exemplified by the recent phenomenon of mimicking the Finnish education
system due to its recent success on international academic assessments (Sahlberg
∗
Corresponding author. Email: tte@learning.aau.dk
# 2014 Taylor & Francis

470 T.T. Engsig and C.J. Johnstone
2011). One essential aspect of policy borrowing is that the cultural dimension is taking
a central part in determining the degree of fit of borrowed educational models or ideol-
ogies (Lewis 2007).
In this article, we identify two major international influences that have helped to
shape inclusive education policy and discourses in Denmark, and that led to what we
refer to as the paradoxical policies of inclusive education. Over the past 15 years,
there have been two major shifts in inclusive education policy in Denmark. These
shifts can be characterised by two international policy ‘attractants’ (see Steiner-
Khamsi 2006): (1) the Salamanca Statement for Inclusive Education-informed, equity-
focused inclusion and (2) US-inspired accountability-focused inclusive education. In
this article, we emphasise that in order to understand inclusive education, global policies
– or global discourses – should be viewed as interacting with local cultural aspects and
understandings of inclusion. Furthermore, we argue that examining global discourses
and their interaction with local policy discourses provides evidence that multiple
‘inclusions’ exist in the world and are driven by a global–local interaction. We have
chosen an explicit focus on the development of inclusive education in Denmark due to
the fact that ongoing reforms of the Danish public school system, and more specifically
inclusive education in the public school system, is an evident exemplification of the exist-
ence of multiple and paradoxical inclusive educational practices and policies. We will
discuss these paradoxical inclusions through the investigation of a number of contradic-
tory developments in inclusive education in Denmark – developments that are rooted in
global discourses and policies concerning inclusive education.
Even though Denmark is targeted in this article, we find that the discussion of para-
doxical policies of inclusive education to some extent can be generalised and under-
stood as a discussion concerning multiple global discourses on inclusive education
and the problem of cultural fit. Thus, the aim of the article is to investigate how multiple
global discourses are shaping the actual development of inclusive education in
Denmark, and how the result of this is leading to the existence of multiple and paradox-
ical inclusions.
Inclusive education provides a helpful lens from which to view policy inspiration
and relevant cultural associations. The term inclusive education is understood differ-
ently around the world, prompting Kiuppis (2013) to use the term ‘inclusions’ to
describe its diversity. At its base, inclusive education is intended to provide educational
access and opportunities for all children. The reason why definitions and understand-
ings are multiple, however, frequently depends on policy- and culture-driven interpret-
ations. For the remainder of this article, we will focus our investigation on the
Salamanca Statement for Inclusive Needs Education, the ’ history of special and inclus-
ive education, and Denmark’s emergent policy and practice in inclusive education
influenced by both. Through our review of relevant literature and policy foci, we
argue that in Denmark inclusive education policies lie on a continuum that ranges
from Salamanca-inspired, equity-focused inclusion to accountability-focused inclusion
(best illustrated by current policy and narratives in the USA). The duality of foci pro-
vides an opportunity to critically examine future directions for inclusive education in
this country.
The paradoxical policies of inclusive education in Denmark

In the following, we will discuss the development of multiple paradoxical inclusion
policies in Denmark. As mentioned above, transfer of educational policies does not
International Journal of Inclusive Education 471
happen wholesale as a neutral transfer of ideas from one country to another. Because
inclusive education is multi-dimensional, policy transfer or borrowing is more
nuanced. We argue that global policies – or discourses – on inclusive education
will be culturally shaped as these interact with more local practices and cultural and his-
toric developments, and that this can lead to the existence of multiple and paradoxical
understandings of inclusive education.
A recent political decree in Denmark outlined an ambitious goal regarding the
inclusion of students with special needs in the general education. According to 2012
policy, 96% of the country’s students are to receive their education in the public
school’s general education by 2015, which means that approximately 10,000 students
with special needs are to leave their special schools and enter the regular public school
classrooms.1 Hence, more students with special education needs are today a part of the
general education in the Danish public schools, and an increasing amount of Danish
teachers do not feel they have the pedagogical resources or competences to support
these children and to ensure that all students in their classes are learning and feeling
included in the class communities (Danmarks Evalueringsinstitut, 2011).
Prior to this law, inclusive education discourse (for those included) focused on
social inclusion and student’s experience of being included, and less about academic
success. However, ‘The Inclusion law’, as it is commonly called, was a law passed
in the Danish parliament in April 2012 (Law no. 379), and the main purpose of the
law was to redefine the notion of special education and to reform the special educational
practice in the Danish public school system. As a consequence of the law, special edu-
cation, and the money that follows, is only targeted at students who need more than nine
weekly hours of support in the class or special education away from his or her class.
Thus, the amount of students who are to receive their education within the regular class-
room is increased considerably. However, data have shown that the money does not
follow the included students in the general education. The expenses per student in
the general education in the Danish public schools have decreased by 12%, which is
paradoxical when an increasing amount of Danish teachers experience a lack of
resources and support in relation to the aims of ‘The Inclusion Law’ (BDO 2010).
Furthermore, the formulation ‘inclusion of students with special needs in the
general education’ (Law no. 379 of 04.28.12) represents the first time the term
inclusion is an explicit part of the Danish collection of educational laws. The inclusion
law represents the culmination of a long history of the development of special education
and the emerging of inclusive education in Denmark.
The ‘Sputnik-shock’, that shook the American sense of self and led to a substantial
reform in the educational system, also had implications in Europe and more specifically
Denmark. It is argued that the results of the educational conference at The Woods Hole
in 1959 inspired some of the key elements in a large political reform in the Danish
public school system in 1969. Some of the central points in the reform were focused
on creating a school that provided equal opportunities for all students – including stu-
dents with disabilities. One of the central passages read: ‘Education of children with
disabilities should take place as close to the child’s home as possible’ (Hansen
2012, 19). Furthermore, this passage in the law of 1969 (later known as the The
Nine Steps Programme) was a part of the initial confrontation with the dominating cat-
egorical way of thought and practice in Danish special educational practice, and the
beginning of the end for some of the parallel educational systems that served students
with disabilities. Thus, this is an example of a global historical and cultural precursor
that formed elements of the inclusive educational development in the Danish context.
In the 1980s, thoughts on integration continued to challenge the parallel segregated

special education schools in Denmark. The quintessence was to ensure that people with
special needs were not to be hidden in special institutions away from the rest of the
society, but instead to be integrated into the society and into the public school
system. Hansen (2012) argues that the discourse of integration in the late 1970s and
the 1980s was a precursor to the notion of inclusive education, as we know it today.
However, when we discuss the fundamental differences between the thoughts and prac-
tice of integration versus inclusive education today, it is significant to note that the term
integration was used in relation to the process of integrating people with special needs
into societal systems – such as schools – and expecting them to adapt. The school – or
other institutions – did not attempt to adapt as an organisation in order to accommodate
the needs of these students. When we discuss inclusion we do so with the understanding
of adaption as a dialectic process, where schools must adapt continuously in order to
accommodate all students.
During the 1990s, we are able to trace a significant change in the discursive patterns
regarding the development of inclusive education in Denmark. Denmark signed The
Salamanca Statement at the UNESCO World Conference in 1994, and two years
later in 1996 Denmark acknowledges, as stated in the Charter of Luxembourg, that
inclusive education is fundamental in order to ensure equal opportunities for all stu-
dents and for all citizens. The discourse on inclusive education during the 1990s was
concentrated on understanding the term and the pedagogical implications hereof.
Hansen (2012) argues that the initial discourses concerning The Salamanca Statement
were primarily ethical and pragmatic. This entails that politicians, schools administra-
tors and teachers were concentrated on understanding and discussing what inclusive
education is and why, in a societal perspective, it is important. Moreover, a pragmatic
discourse on inclusive education has become increasingly dominant during the 2000s
and even today. We moved on from discussing the what’s and why’s of inclusive edu-
cation to discuss the how’s (e.g. Tetler 2011).
Traditionally, the 16 counties in Denmark had the legal obligation to offer special
education to students with special needs, and the municipalities had the obligation
regarding providing general public schooling. This led to barriers in relation to the
inclusive school due to the fact that an increasing number of students were referred
to special education within a Regional special school. However, in 2006 the responsi-
bility of all special education was placed on the municipalities, and thus one of the sig-
nificant organisational barriers of the inclusive school was gone.
The discourse of accountability was explicitly introduced to the Danish school
system in 2010 when National Testing was initiated. All students are tested in math,
reading, English, geography, biology and other subjects. The tests are all digital adap-
tive tests, and originally the results of these were to be used in the public ranking of all
Danish schools. However, an intense political and public debate regarding the online
publication of these results ended with a political decision that the results of each
school were only to be used by the school itself and, of course, by the Ministry of Edu-
cation. The National tests are not being used as a high-stakes accountability system, but
are merely for the use of teachers and school administrators in a formative way.
However, Fryd (2009) argues that the implementation of the National Testing in the
Danish public schools was directly inspired by the No Child left Behind Act
(NCLB) and its focus on the notion of accountability.
The Danish government just initiated a large reform of the school system beginning
the school year 2014. Among other central aspects, the reform entails a more
goal-oriented school with so-called quantifiable national goals. For example, 80% of all
students are to be proficient in reading and math, the number of the very best students
should increase every year and the number of students with the lowest score in reading
and math should decrease every year – finally the students’ well-being should be
increased. It is significant to note that the National Tests are central in this increased
goal-orientated way to control the school’s development, which is, until now, unseen
in the Danish context. However, the political reform text is not explicit about what
the potential consequences are regarding schools that do not meet these requirements.
It seems evident that the use of The National tests is shifting from being low-stakes to
more high-stakes testing.2 It is significant to underline that the very same reform of the
Danish school system also entails a goal regarding a more inclusive school, which
means that 96% of all students in Denmark are to be included in the regular education
by 2015 – a rather significant increase in students with special needs in the school’s
regular education.
We have discussed historical and present developments regarding inclusive edu-
cation in the Danish public school system and thus presented a number of paradoxes.
A central paradox is rooted in the fact that 96% of all the students in the Danish public
school system are to be included in the regular education by 2015, and the fact that data
indicate a 12% decrease cost per student, which is manifested in the apparent lack of
resources in relation to the inclusion of students with special educational needs. More-
over, the implementation of a standard-based accountability scheme with political and
pedagogical ambitions of a substantial increase in the amount of students proficient in
reading and math contradicts with the ambition of a significant increase in the inclusion
of students with special educational needs in the general education.
One could argue that the new quantifiable national goals stating that 80% of all
students are to be proficient in reading and math, and that the number of the very
best students should increase every year is a discourse of excellence that does not cor-
relate with the discourse of equity represented by the ambition of the inclusion of
96% of every student in Denmark in the general education. This argument is based
on a definition of inclusion that emphasises that inclusion is constituted by three
dimensions; physical inclusion, social inclusion and psychological inclusion or the
subjective experience of being included (Qvortrup 2012). From the outset of this defi-
nition, one can argue that in the increase in the inclusion of students with special edu-
cational needs, and in the increase in the use of a standard-based accountability
scheme, which represents a shift from low-stakes to high-stakes testing where the
quality of the individual school is measured by the results of the National Tests,
there is a paradoxical conflict between a discourse of equity on one side and a dis-
course of excellence on the other.
In order to gain a more comprehensive understanding of these paradoxical policies
of inclusive education, we will discuss two major international influences that have
shaped inclusive education policy and discourses in Denmark, the Salamanca State-
ment and Framework of Action for Special Needs Education and the global movement
of accountability-informed inclusion (which is frequently linked to the US education
system).
Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action for Special Needs Education
The Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action (1994) was a United Nations Edu-
cational, Science and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)-sponsored convening of the
World Conference on Special Needs Education. In fitting with United Nations procla-
mations, the conference was intended to re-affirm the commitments of Education for
All (1990, Jomtein) while focusing specifically on special needs education. The
result of the conference was the ‘Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action
for Special Needs Education.’
Because of the international nature of the conference, specific action steps were
necessarily broad in nature. However, Salamanca’s outcomes aligned closely with
United Nations’ rights-based discourses as well as highlighting the importance of
inclusion for national systems of education. An underlying argument to Salamanca
was that the belongingness of all children strengthened national educational systems.
Such belongingness, supported by children learning in the same physical space, had
the posited secondary effect of improving cost-effectiveness.

Salamanca’s tone highlighted the role of education in dismantling societal preju-
dices and cutting costs in its introduction by claiming that:
Regular schools with this inclusive orientation are the most effective means of combating
discriminatory attitudes, creating welcoming communities, building an inclusive society
and achieving education for all; moreover, they provide an effective education to the
majority of children and improve the efficiency and ultimately the cost-effectiveness of
the entire education system. (viii).
The framework focused on systems-based reforms, which were designed to leverage

community and parental inputs into the learning and evaluation of children with
special needs. Delegates agreed that nations should ‘establish decentralized and parti-
cipatory mechanisms for planning, monitoring and evaluating educational provision for
children and adults with special education needs’ (ix).
Salamanca’s focus on wrapping supports around children might be characterised as
ecological, focused on systems and communities without specific therapeutic or pro-
grammatic guidelines for children with specific special needs. The framework rec-
ommended that nations dedicated specific resources to special needs education by
mobilising:
Funds through the creation within its next Medium-Term Plan (1996 – 2002) of an
expanded programme for inclusive schools and community support programmes,
which would enable the launching of pilot projects that showcase new approaches for dis-
semination, and to develop indicators concerning the need for and provision of special
needs education. (xi)
Throughout the framework, a discourse of societal change through inclusive education

was present. Inclusive schools were cited as a pathway to changing discriminatory atti-
tudes, creating welcoming communities and creating inclusive societies. Inclusive
schools were called upon to challenge and dismantle ‘disabling societies’ (6). Such
societies were to blame for the exclusion of and discrimination against a wide
variety of children, and inclusive schools were the antidote for children facing chal-
lenges whether or not they had disabilities.
Overall, Salamanca focused heavily on access of children with special needs in
schools as part of an integrated and holistic approach to improving societies. This dis-
course became a policy attractor for Denmark’s government in the mid-1990s. The
broad themes were then reinforced in Denmark as part of the discussions in the
World Summit for Social Development, which was held in Copenhagen in 1995.
US-inspired accountability-driven inclusive education

Discourse around inclusive education in the USA has primarily followed major disabil-
ity US policies, beginning with 1975s Public Law 94-142. In the USA, the discourse of
inclusion over the past 40 years has implicitly or explicitly referred to children with dis-
abilities. Early inclusion scholars (see Gartner and Lipsky 1987; Stainback and Stain-
back 1984) attempted to push discursive focus around the word ‘inclusion’ to systems
(not populations of students), but US terminology such as ‘multicultural education’ and
‘language learning’ have evolved alongside the term ‘inclusive education’ (in contrast
to countries informed by United Nations proclamations, such as the Salamanca Frame-
work for Inclusive Education) (Kiuppis 2013).
Beginning with PL 94-142, the Education for All Handicapped Children Act and
subsequent Regular Education Initiative (REI) – children with significant disabilities
were moved from institutional settings to community education settings. The main
focus of REI was a philosophy of ‘mainstreaming’. Boiled down, this approach
called for students to participate in general education classrooms as their abilities
and motivations allowed (Skrtic, Sailor, and Gee 2006). For the above-mentioned
inclusion advocates, the REI created a scenario whereby mainstreaming was synon-
ymous with professionalised support and pathologisation of disability. In response to
the shortcomings of REI, Gartner and Lipsky (1987) and Stainback and Stainback
(1984) advocated for a systems-level approach, which examined the general capacity
of schools to create learning opportunities for all children in general education settings.
Debates regarding themes of mainstreaming and integration (which relied on
student characteristics for entry into regular classroom environments) vs. inclusive dis-
courses continued through the 1980s. In 1990, the USA passed the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The passage of IDEA brought about more specific
language related to disability types and guidance on best practices related to service
delivery. As Individualized Education Plan (IEP) processes evolved in the USA, an
increasing focus was placed on the terms ‘Least Restrictive Environment (LRE).’
According to Kliewer (1998), LRE was a term developed by disability advocates in
the 1960s (originally termed ‘Least Restrictive Alternative’) and was designed with
an assumption that inclusive environments were to be the norm, with exclusions
only allowable after all reasonable accommodations exhausted.
According to Kliewer (1998), however, LRE was misunderstood in the 1990s.
Rather than an assumption of inclusivity with changes of environment made as a last
resort, LRE was (and still is) used by some practitioners as a legal method to
promote exclusion. Thus, in the 1990s the notion of integration was still present in
the USA. Although the term mainstreaming was disappearing from the literature,
‘LRE’ was being used in both intended and unintended ways by local IEP teams. In
contrast to many countries in the world, educational decisions for children with disabil-
ities are made at the local level by multi-disciplinary teams. These teams are designed to
protect the rights of children but also may interpret the intention of national law to fit
local needs. Thus, despite a strong discourse promoting the rights of children with dis-
abilities in the USA, inclusion advocates were concerned that the principle of LRE left
too much wiggle room for exclusive practice (Kliewer 1998).
During the 1990s, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and its reauthori-
sation (1994s Improving America’s Schools Act – IASA) exemplified a gradual shift
that had been occurring over the past two decades. Historically, funding to support at-
risk students (students coming from economically impoverished areas, students with
disabilities, English language learners, etc.) was framed as an inducement to support

local processes. Beginning in the 1980s, the Reagan administration slowly shifted
the US’ educational approach from one of ‘equity’ to one that focused on ‘excellence’
(McDonnell 2005). For the first time in the 1990s, IASA tied federal support and
funding to the reporting of results on standardised assessments. Beginning in 1994,
states were required to report disaggregated results of assessments on statewide stan-
dards by race, gender, English proficiency, migrant status, disability and economic
status (McDonnell 2005). The new era of President Bill Clinton’s IASA created a
policy arrangement which allowed states the opportunity to set standards and
oversee educational practices, but would face increasing federal scrutiny if results
were not acceptable.
By the year 2000 (a timeline set by IASA), states were expected to produce plans on
how they would meet new requirements for how students would reach proficiency on
statewide standards. According to McDonnell (2005), state approaches varied widely.
States set deadlines for reaching 100% proficiency on timelines ranging from 6 to 20
years. Furthermore, states’ definitions of unacceptable performance for certain popu-
lations ranged widely. For example, when asked to designate a percentage of schools
which needed improvement, Texas identified 1% of its schools while Michigan ident-
ified 76% of its schools (2002).
In 2001, the US Federal Government reauthorised the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act as the NCLB. Although NCLB received significant press for its focus
on accountability, McDonnell (2005) argued that the Federal Government’s focus on
accountability really began with IASA, and that NCLB was simply an ‘evolution’ of
policy, not a ‘revolution’ for the education sector. According to NCLB, all states
were required to develop a plan for 100% proficiency of all students on statewide stan-
dards-based assessments by 2014 (Linn, Baker, and Betebenner 2002). Within the
12-year proficiency, the requirement was a mandate to set targets for Adequate
Yearly Progress (AYP) for all students, with disaggregated data reported by student
socioeconomic background, race –ethnicity, English language proficiency and disabil-
ity. During the past decade, school districts expressed trepidation about how to bring
students in certain populations to proficiency, while research and advocacy organis-
ations generally supported the principles of the Act. The Council for Exceptional Chil-
dren, for example, supported the policy because of the forced focus on improving
educational outcomes for students with disabilities. At the same time, the organisation
questioned some of the areas of foci (including provisions for funding to implement the
law, highly qualified teacher requirements, assessments for children with disabilities,
the system of sanctions for schools that fail to meet adequate yearly progress –
AYP – requirements and attention paid to children who are gifted and talented)
(Council for Exceptional Children 2007).
The evolution of policy in the USA created a discourse where participation in
general education classrooms had a sole focus on academic success – as measured
by statewide assessments. At the time of writing this paper, the NCLB is in its
sunset. It is clear that states will not reach 100% proficiency by 2014. As a stopgap,
the US Federal Government has introduced new ‘flexibility’ around AYP (for
example, for several years, states were allowed to engage more than 1% of their stu-
dents in alternate assessment practices if they can show that they are making meaning-
ful instructional and assessment decisions for students with disabilities) (United States
Department of Education n.d.).
In summary, although the USA will soon be embarking on a new era in educational
policy and discourse beginning at the sunset of NCLB, there is a clear linkage between
‘inclusion’ and ‘accountability’ in the USA. The slow evolution of policy and discourse
from a focus on access to a focus on academic success provides a unique unit of analy-
sis in a global inclusive education study. In the USA, a descending world power, there
are at once cultural concerns for global competitiveness and the rights of individuals.
Furthermore, the historic focus on equity for all students appears to be present in the
USA, but measured by academic success for a variety of ‘subgroups’. It is likely that
the bipartisan support once experienced by IASA and NCLB were garnered by a com-
bination of market-focused accountability (Republican focus) with assurances that mar-
ginalised populations in the US education system would be protected under the law
(Democratic focus).
Salamanca and accountability-inspired inclusion: Four discourses

In order to identify the global discourses of the policies that appeared to have influenced
or attracted Denmark in its development of inclusive education, it is important to under-
stand and organise the policy discourses of the Salamanca framework and accountabil-
ity-focused inclusion. Artiles and Dyson (2005) argue that discourses can be
understood as a central part of culture, and that dominating global discourses can
form educational developments. Dyson (1999) recognised that there are multiple dis-
courses around inclusive education, but such discourses are categorised in four ways:
Rights and ethics discourse emphasises every child’s right to education and right to
be educated alongside with their peers. This discourse is constituted by the ideas of
social justice in the civil society, and by (among others) Bourdieu and Passeron
(1977) structuralist critique of educational systems – emphasising that these systems
reproduce social inequities rather than reducing them. It is the consequence of this dis-
course that only inclusive education can deliver social justice and equity.
In the case of the Salamanca Framework, rights are characterised as children’s
belongingness in classrooms and the greater society. According to the framework, chil-
dren have the right to participate and contribute to their home society. Inclusive edu-
cation is the pathway to such engagement. Accountability-based models, on the
contrary, focus on children’s rights to opportunity in their home country. Accountabil-
ity-based systems focus on children’s rights to a high-quality education as measured by
academic success. There is an implicit assumption in this model that outputs on aca-
demic measures will lead to successful outcomes in life (including employment and
financial well-being).
Efficacy discourses are to some extent rooted in a critical perspective on special edu-
cation in its traditional segregated form. The Salamanca Declaration argues that the
inclusive schools are bringing greater social and academic benefits to all students. Fur-
thermore, the efficacy discourse is drawn upon when practitioners or politicians argue
that the rising costs of special education does not equal a higher quality concerning
factors as learning outcome and well-being. On the contrary, efficacy in accountabil-
ity-based models is focused on successful acquisition of knowledge and skills in
school-based environments. Target knowledge and skills are often dictated by curricu-
lar standards, which are translated into assessment targets.
Political Discourse: Where the two previous discourses were concerning rationales
for inclusive education, the following two are discourses concerning the realisation of
inclusive education. Dyson (1999) argues that inclusion arises within a national
education system that in most cases is characterised by a system of segregated special

education – in terms of institutions, professionals and legislative premises. The politi-
cal discourse has to do with not only the particular forms that will realise inclusion, but
also the transition from a more segregated system to an inclusive one.
The Salamanca Declaration emerged from the ‘policy window’ (Kingdon 2003) of
the Education for All (EFA) proclamation. By leveraging the well-supported language
of EFA, Salamanca authors were able to convince governments and civil society that
‘all’ includes even the most marginalised children in the society. It is likely that the Sal-
amanca Declaration and Framework would not have emerged if there were no political
will (and a logical connection) emerging from EFA.
The accountability-focused model in the USA framed ‘inclusion’ as inclusion into
the existing system of evaluating school success. The NCLB provision to include
specific sub-groups in accountability measures fit within the political discourse of the
law. The bipartisan excitement over educational reform in the USA and its requisite
accountability focus had to be inclusive in nature lest it appear to be weak or compro-
mising for certain populations. Although some evidence demonstrates that states
‘game’ the system to exclude students with disabilities from participating in assess-
ments (see Jones 2013), the political discourse in the USA has emerged as primarily
inclusive.
The Pragmatic Discourse is concerned with what inclusive education looks like in
practice, and how a practice can become inclusive. Within this discourse, the notion is
that inclusive schools – or inclusive pedagogical settings – have certain characteristics
(e.g. professional competences, organisational structures, etc.). The Salamanca State-
ment outlined its recommendations for how inclusive schools should look like. Pragma-
tically, inclusive schools would look much like schools that followed other United
Nations proclamations and guidance. Generally, these schools would be child-friendly,
parent-involved, have flexible curriculum and be supported by a variety of services and
other support mechanisms (e.g. technology, resource schools, etc.).
The pragmatism of accountability-based systems lies in a unified set of curricular
standards for all children, and an expectation that those standards will be tested at
regular intervals. In the USA, there have been provisions for curricular and assessment
flexibility for students with significant disabilities, but the vast majority of students are
engaged in a general, standards-based education system. A common feature of such
accountability-based systems is that curriculum is locked but classroom-based peda-
gogy and supports are determined by teachers and support teams.
The discourses proposed by Artiles and Dyson provide a lens from which to view
both Salamanca- and accountability-based inclusive education strategies. Readers
should note that we use these types of inclusion as exemplars of policy and practice
but do not hold them in direct opposition to each other. Rather, in this paper, we
examine the discursive and political inspiration behind diverse forms of inclusion,
recognising that there are grey areas among both forms, but that adopting both
models at once may deliver contradictory outcomes.
Global inclusive education discourses and Denmark’s policy Agenda

In this section, we investigate Denmark’s policy shifts using Dyson’s discourses as ana-
lytic tools. We look closely at possible inspirations for Denmark’s recent changes in
policy based on existing models (Salamanca- and accountability-inspired), in hopes
of better documenting the complexity of inclusive education. Through this discursive
investigation, we identify external factors influencing inclusive education policy devel-

opment and internal cultural indicators, which may predict successful implementation.
Denmark’s Rights discourse appears to align closely with The Salamanca State-
ment. The notion of belongingness and participation are important discourses in
Danish policy and practice. Its Efficacy discourse, on the contrary, appears to be
newly focused on efficiency. More children than ever are participating in general edu-
cation classrooms and these children are increasingly participating in general education
classroom functions – including large-scale testing. Although Denmark’s assessment
system does not have the accountability components common in systems like the
USA, there is evidence that the country is moving more towards accountability-
based inclusion, and the use of more high-stakes testing.
Denmark’s Political discourse around Law 379 is about national dissatisfaction

with segregated schooling. The political pushback against Law 379 is that teachers
and administrators are expressing fear about the rapid inclusion of children with a
variety of special needs. Finally, Denmark’s Pragmatic discourse is focused on effi-
ciencies. By only considering children who require 9 hours or more of assistance as
‘special needs’, the country is placing the burden for making accommodations for
children with mild to moderate special needs on regular classroom teachers. The
above-mentioned teachers are expressing fears about this arrangement, but policy-
makers likely view the law as one that increases efficiencies in the overall education
system.
Overall, it is difficult to say whether Salamanca-inspired or accountability-inspired
inclusion has had greater influence on Denmark’s policy narratives. Figure 1 demon-
strates the two models of inclusive education on an artificial continuum. Beneath this
continuum are the different discourses described to this point. Dyson’s (1999) dis-
courses help demonstrate that there is not currently a scenario where either Sala-
manca-inspired or accountability-inspired inclusion is adopted in full. Rather,
Denmark appears to have woven its policy discourses between the two, depending
on the particular discourse. Placement of Denmark on the continuum represents
approximate levels of influence behind policies.
Figure 1. Continuum of inclusions.

Explaining policy transference in Denmark: Cultural considerations
Policy is paradoxical, the product of struggles and contradictions. (Armstrong 2003, 5)
Denmark’s inclusive education policy narrative appears to be informed by multiple

global influences, some, which critics may argue, are contradictory. We argue that
global inclusive education policy discourses require a more nuanced approach than
policy transfer or policy-borrowing literature can provide. In the case of inclusive edu-
cation, there are often multiple discourses (in this case, we selected rights, efficacy, pol-
itical and pragmatic). Furthermore, there are multiple influences from which nations
may borrow (in this article, we have outlined Salamanca-inspired and outcomes-
focused inclusions). The complexity, interpretations and influences are simply too
complex to ascribe to economic interest, internal policy manoeuvring or other policy
borrowing theories:
Rather than referring to a simple top-down process, policy needs to be understood in the
wider context in which it occurs and in the terms of its relationship to people’s lives.
(Armstrong 2003, 5)
To help understand inclusive education, we posit that global policies – or global dis-
courses – should be viewed as interacting (and thus potentially influencing) with
local cultural aspects and understandings of inclusion. We argue that examining
global discourses (manifested through global policies) and their interaction with
local policy discourses provides evidence that multiple ‘inclusions’ exist in the world
and are driven by a global–local interaction.
Thus, global discourses on inclusive education will be culturally shaped as these
interact with more local practices and cultural and historic developments, and so pol-
icies that vary on the Salamanca/accountability continuum, that may seem incongruous
to the outside observer, are likely to have cultural and historical explanations, which
may help in understanding policy narratives as well as charting future trends. The dis-
cussion of global discourses and how these might influence local educational policies
and practice is merely a part of the cultural complexities that we need to analyse and
understand in order to fully grasp the development of inclusive education in
Denmark or in other countries where multiple ‘inclusions’ exist. Therefore, we argue
that applying Dyson’s (1999) discourses regarding inclusive education only is one
aspect of a culture-based understanding of the development of inclusive education.
As stated earlier, inclusive education – in policy and practice – is among other
aspects constituted by dominating discourses, which are interpreted in the social
lives of policy-makers, teachers, students and parents.
The histories of inclusive education in Denmark and the USA, as discussed earlier,
are examples of linguistic and/or semiotic elements that constitute discourses, which
inform the ways we understand and practice inclusive education. According to Hunt
(2011), particular choices can be informed by a discourse, and single elements can rep-
resent a whole way of seeing a phenomenon:
Each time a world is created in discourse it becomes easier to create that world again in
subsequent discourse. Particular choices can come to stand for whole ways of seeing
things, whole ways of being, and those ways of seeing things can come to seem
natural, unchallengeable, and right. (Hunt 2011, 468)
Thus, one can argue that the notion of multiple inclusions in the Danish educational
context, which is illustrated in Figure 1, is plausible, and that multiple – and perhaps
conflicting – ideologies can act as the underpinnings of a country’s inclusive edu-
cational directions. It is central to emphasise that discourses, concerning educational
policies, is not ‘possessed’, and thus only controlled by policy-makers, but discourses
are produced and re-produced in social practices. Armstrong (2003) argues that dis-
courses play a central role in producing, maintaining and deconstructing educational
policies:
. . . discourses play a pivotal role in the making and breaking and re-ordering of education
policy at all levels. (Armstrong 2003, 111)
Hence, as discussed above, the notion of discourses can assist in explaining the multiple
understandings and practices of inclusive education in Denmark.
In the following, we will discuss the various discursive movements (on the above-
illustrated continuum of inclusions in Denmark) that, as we are writing this article, are
re-ordering our understanding of inclusive education, and will have substantial effects
on policy-making regarding inclusive education in Denmark.
Inspired by Armstrong (2003), we will apply the notion of landscapes as referring
to the history, the practices and the changes associated with specific contexts. Further-
more, the term arena is used to refer to areas where policies are opposed, advanced and
mediated through discourses. These arenas can be produced by events that refer to situ-
ations with political, pedagogical or economical significance.
Global discourse and local interpretations: Rights

As discussed previously, The Salamanca Statement has had a significant influence on
the development of inclusive education in the Danish public school system as a land-
scape, and more specifically it has strengthened the rights and ethics discursive under-
pinnings of inclusive education. Equity is a fundamental value and ideology in the
Danish welfare system, and is furthermore a central value in the Danish school
system. Danish schools used tracking and divided students into categories that
marked them after their academic abilities. However, this so-called ‘divided’ school
was ended by law in 1993 where schools no longer could divide students into
groups based on academic and intellectual capacities alone.3 Thus, due to some funda-
mental core values of equity and the emphasis on The Salamanca Statement, teachers,
school administrators and parents are very much informed by the rights and ethics dis-
course when understanding inclusive education. This seems to be evident in the
massive critique of the excluding mechanisms of segregated special educational set-
tings that, among other aspects, lead to the political and pedagogical focus on inclusive
education. Furthermore, there is a focus on the belief that heterogeneous learning com-
munities are effective when it comes to learning outcome – both for students with
special needs and students without special needs (Engsig 2012).
There are two central events that have affected inclusive education in Denmark as
an arena, which signifies an area with opposed or even contradictory policies. As men-
tioned earlier, the Danish government set a goal that 96% of all students in the public
school system should be included in the regular classrooms by 2015. The discourse
informing this can be linked to a rights and ethics discourse, where the placement of
students in heterogeneous communities is central. In order to support this political
ambition, the government has launched several consultant services, where schools can
get assistance and inspiration in relation to their inclusive practices. There has also been
political focus on the transition from a more segregated special educational system to
the idea of the inclusive school. A central point of focus has been the emphasis put
on the paradigm shift from a deficit perspective on inclusion to a more social construc-
tivist stance on inclusion. This suggests that pedagogical professionals must understand
a student’s special needs not as an essence within the student, but as a contextual dis-
ability that manifests itself in the social and relational realities (Dudley-Marling and
Burns 2014; Hansen 2012).
However, another event that has contributed to the arena of inclusive educational
policy in Denmark is the ongoing reform of the public schools, where the schools
must reach the new quantifiable goals:
(1) At least 80% of the students in the public schools should be proficient in reading
and math when measured in the national tests;
(2) The percentage of the most proficient students must increase every year;
(3) The percentage of students with poor test results in reading and math must
decrease every year and
(4) The well-being of every student must be increased.
As discussed in the paragraph concerning US-inspired accountability-driven inclusive

education, it is possible to identify a global discourse that entails a linkage between
inclusion and accountability. It seems plausible to argue that we can identify a shift
in focus from access to heterogeneous communities and learning opportunities to a
focus on academic success as an indicator for inclusion. Persson and Persson (2013)
argue that measurement of student’s achievement is playing a more significant role
in the development of national educational systems, and that economical discourses,
informed by a wish of an increase in leadership, competition and control, are becoming
more dominant in the western world’s educational systems.
Global discourse and local interpretations: Efficacy

As discussed previously, the efficacy discourse is underpinned by the understanding of
inclusive education bringing social and academic benefits and being more cost-
effective than segregated special educational settings, and there is a close tie
between the ethics discourse and the efficacy discourse. Although there are public ques-
tions about the efficacy of inclusive classrooms, debate is informed by several empirical
studies showing that inclusive education is effective regarding students’ possibilities of
participation and learning outcome. In the Scandinavian context, Persson and Persson
(2013) have conducted follow-up research on a Swedish municipality, Essunga, which
ranked last on students’ test results in all of the Swedish municipalities. Following a
capacity-building process where teachers and school administrators identified some
areas of focus, supported by research, the municipality of Essunga ranked Number 3
after a three-year period (an accountability-based ‘victory’). It is imperative to under-
line that the schools in Essunga all are inclusive schools, and that both students with
and without special needs increased their academic abilities. Policy-makers in
Denmark are very much informed by this discourse of efficacy and are continuously
stating that the inclusive school is effective for all students.
As discussed, there is a linkage between the discourse of rights and ethics and the
discourse of efficacy. However, it is possible to understand the discourse of efficacy, in
relation to the accountability-based inspired inclusive education, as successful acqui-
sition of knowledge and skills that can be dictated by curricular standards and tested
through either high-stakes or low-stakes testing schemes, such as Programme for Inter-
national Student Assessment (PISA) and the Danish National Tests. As illustrated in
Figure 1, we argue that the discourse of efficacy has moved towards a notion of
accountability and academic success as an indicator for inclusion. The new quantifiable
goals for the Danish public school system entail the evident premise, that proficiency in
reading and math is equivalent with success and hence, inclusion. Furthermore, where
the efficacy discourse, rooted in The Salamanca Statement, was linked to every stu-
dent’s right to be educated alongside his or her peers, the accountability-based efficacy
discourse leaves less room for those who struggle and have special educational needs.
Global discourse and local interpretations: Political

The political discourse, according to Dyson (1999), is centred on the realisation of
inclusive education within a national education system. As argued previously,
policy-makers were motivated by a continuous increase in referrals to segregated
special education in Denmark. The political goal is that 96% of the entire student popu-
lation must be educated within the general education by 2015. The political discourse of
inclusive education has to do not only with the strategies that will realise an inclusive
school, but also the transition from a segregated system to an inclusive school. The pol-
itical discourse has been informed by the notion of rights and ethics rooted in the Sal-
amanca Statement, and when critics have argued that economical reasons for the
implementation of the inclusive school have guided the policy-making, the reply has
often been that every child has the right to be educated in heterogeneous class commu-
nities near their homes, and not in segregated and marginalising special education
classes.
With the ongoing school reform and the previously discussed quantifiable goals, the
political discourse is moving towards an accountability-based understanding of
inclusion, meaning that an indicator of inclusive education is more about academic
success – measured through the percentage of students who are proficient – than
belongingness, focused on possibilities of participation and the subjective experience
of being included.
Global discourse and local interpretations: Pragmatic

As stated previously, the pragmatic discourse is concerned with how inclusive edu-
cation looks like in practice, and how a practice can become (more) inclusive. A sig-
nificant aspect of the pragmatic discourse regarding inclusive education, in the
Danish context, is that of the teacher’s experience of lack of sufficient competences
to include students with special educational needs. Thus, a substantial element of the
pragmatic discourse is that inclusive education is difficult, and that there are a
number of organisational or structural barriers, such as the lack of in-class
support, adequate special educational knowledge and competences and consultative
services.
The number of students receiving special education in the Danish public school
system has decreased dramatically since the passage of the Inclusion Law, and
inclusion of students with special needs in the regular education increased. The redefi-
nition of special education has already led to a significant decrease in referrals to seg-
regated special education in the Danish public school system. According to the Local
Government Denmark (LGDK), which is the interest group and member authority of
Danish municipalities, there was a decrease in the referrals during the school year
2012–2013, and approximately 7000 students need to be included in the general edu-
cation in order to reach the 96% in 2015.4
Future directions
The Danish model was selected as a case study in order to highlight how global influ-
ences (specifically The Salamanca Statement and accountability models) shape policy.
We found that there is not a clear-cut answer to why certain policies transfer. In fact,
through a discourse review, we discovered that Denmark’s policy narratives were
not aligned completely to either Salamanca or accountability models (such as those
found in the USA). Rather, we found that policies and narratives moved across a Sal-
amanca – outcomes continuum. For some narratives (rights and, to some extent, pol-
itical), Denmark appeared to be more influenced by The Salamanca Statement
objectives. For other narratives (efficacy and pragmatic), Denmark appeared to be
moving closer to a US model of inclusion.
Through this analysis, several themes emerged. First, policy transfer does not likely
happen wholesale in inclusive education efforts. Because inclusive education is multi-
dimensional, policy transfer or borrowing may be more nuanced, with different policies
influencing different narratives. Second, in order to understand why such external pol-
icies may influence internal models, knowledge of the cultural aspects of the country in
question is necessary.
We propose a new way of examining policy influence in inclusive education. In this
paper, we found shortcomings in the way that policy transfer was analysed in compara-
tive education literature. At the same time, we found helpful tools for examining such
transfer through identifying discourses and cultural components (Dyson 1999).
Through this discourse inquiry, we were able to identify why a particular country
may have policy discourses that reflect multiple influences. Furthermore, through
understanding the nation’s culture, we are better able to pinpoint how external policy
influence and internal policy and practice interact.
Because inclusive education is a global phenomenon and because policy transfer-
ence is not drawn from one source alone, we contend that inclusive education scholars
can create deeper and more nuanced understandings of inclusive policies if they
(1) Analyse external policies that may be influencing internal dialogue;

(2) Analyse the rights, political, efficacy and pragmatic discourses of both external
and internal policies and
(3) Analyse internal cultural for explanatory aspects of the interaction between
external influence and internal policy narrative.
This three-step process builds on existing literature in inclusive education and may
provide scholars and practitioners with evidence of future directions. Such future direc-
tions, if troubling, may be the focus of future policy or research.
Notes
1. www.uvm.dk (The Danish Ministry of Education).
4. www.kl.dk
Notes on contributors
Thomas T. Engsig is an Assistant Professor at University College Nordjylland and a Ph.D.
Fellow at Aalborg University.
Dr. Christopher J. Johnstone is the Director of International Initiatives for the University of Min-
nesota’s College of Education and Human Development and a Senior Research Associate at the
Institute on Community Integration.
References
Armstrong, F. 2003. Spaced Out: Policy, Difference and the Challenge of Inclusive Education.
Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Artiles, A., and A. Dyson. 2005. “Inclusive Education in the Globalization Age: The Promise of
a Comparative Cultural-historical Analysis.” In Contextualizing Inclusive Education, edited
by D. Michell, 37– 62. Oxfordshire: Routledge.
BDO. 2010. Opgørelse af udviklingen af udgifter til undervisning i folkeskolen pr. elev.
Copenhagen: BDO.
Bordieu, P., and J.-C. Passeron. 1977. Reproduction in Education, Society, and Culture. 2nd ed.
London: Sage.
Council for Exceptional Children. 2007. “CEC calls for reform of the No Child Left Behind Act
on its fifth anniversary.” http://www.cec.sped.org/~/media/Files/Policy/ESEA/Historical%
20Documents/CEC%20Calls%20for%20Reform%20of%20the%20No%20Child%20Left%
20Behind%20Act%20on%20Its%20Fifth%20Anniversary.pdf
Danmarks Evalueringsinstitut. 2011. Indsatser for inklusion i folkeskolen. København:
Danmarks Evalueringsinstitut.
Dudley-Marling, Curt, and Mary Bridget Burns. 2014. “Two Perspectives on Inclusion in the
United States.” Global Education Review 1 (1): 14 –31.
Dyson, A. 1999. “Inclusion and Inclusions: Theories and Discourses in Inclusive Education.” In
Inclusive Education, edited by Daniels and Garner, 36 –53. London: Routledge.
Engsig, T. 2012. “Inclusive and Supportive Practices in the General Education – Paths to
Experienced Inclusion and Learning Outcome.” In Are You In? About Inclusion in
Schools and Pre-Schools, edited by T. Næsby, 36 –43. Aalborg: UCN.
Fryd, P. K. 2009. Team og test – systemteoretisk komparativ interviewundersøgelse af imple-
menteringen af accountability-reformpolitik i grundskolen i Danmark og USA. Aarhus:
DPU.
Gartner, A., and D. K. Lipsky. 1987. “Beyond Special Education: Toward a Quality Education
System for All Students.” Harvard Education Review 57 (4): 367 – 396.
Hansen, O. 2012. “A Brief Historical Perspective on the Development from Segregation,
Integration and Mainstreaming to Inclusion (My Translation).” In Are You In? About
Inclusion in Schools and Pre-Schools, edited by T. Næsby, 17 –24. Aalborg: UCN.
Hunt, P. F. 2011. “Salamanca Statement and IDEA 2004: Possibilities of Practice for Inclusive
Education.” International Journal of Inclusive Education 15 (4): 461 –476.
Jones, E. 2013. “Maryland’s Successful Test Scores Undermined By High Exclusion Rate.” The
Rundown: A Blog of News and Insight (PBS News). http://www.pbs.org/newshour/
rundown/eyebrows-raise-over-marylands-national-test-scores/
Kingdon, J. 2003. Agendas, Alternatives and Public Policies. 2nd ed. New York: Longman.
Kiuppis, F. 2013. “Why (not) Associate the Principle of Inclusion with Disability? Tracing
Connections from the Start of the ‘Salamanca Process’.” International Journal of inclusive
Education 18 (7): 746 – 761.
Kliewer, C. 1998. “The Meaning of Special Education.” Mental Retardation 36 (4): 317 –322.
Lewis, T. 2007. “The Problem of Cultural Fit—What Can We Learn from Borrowing the
German Dual System?” Journal of Comparative and International Education 37 (4):
463– 477.
Linn, R. L., E. L. Baker, and D. W. Betebenner. 2002. “Accountability Systems: Implications of
Requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001.” Educational Researcher 31 (6):
3– 16.
Lov nr. 379 af den. 2012. Lov om ændring af lov om folkeskolen, lov om friskoler og private
grundskoler m.v. og lov om folkehøjskoler, efterskoler, husholdningsskoler og
håndarbejdsskoler (frie kostskoler). April 28.
McDonnell, L. M. 2005. “No Child Left Behind and the Federal Role in Education: Evolution or
Revolution?” Peabody Journal of Education 80 (2): 19 –38.
Persson, B., and E. Persson. 2013. Inklusion og målopfyldelse. Frederikshavn: Dafolo.
Qvortrup, L. 2012. “Inclusion – a Definition.” In Are You In? About Inclusion in Schools and
Pre-Schools, edited by T. Næsby, 5– 16. Aalborg: UCN.

Sahlberg, P. 2011. Finnish Lessons: What Can the World Learn from Educational Change in
Finland? New York: Teachers College Press.
Schriewer, J., and C. Martinez. 2004. “Constructions of Internationality in Education.” In
Global Politics of Educational Borrowing and Lending, edited by G. Steiner-Khamsi,
29– 52. New York: Teachers College Press.
Skrtic, T. M., W. Sailor, and K. Gee. 2006. “Voice, Collaboration, and Inclusion: Democratic
Themes in Educational and Social Reform Initiatives.” Remedial and Special Education
17 (3): 142– 157.
Stainback, W., and S. Stainback. 1984. “A Rationale for the Merger of Special and Regular
Education.” Exceptional Children 51 (2): 102 –111.
Steiner-Khamsi, G. 2006. “The Economics of Policy Borrowing and Lending: A Study of Late
Adopters.” Oxford Review of Education 32 (5): 665 – 678.
Tetler, S. 2011. Inkluderende specialpædagogik – som en konstruktiv selvmodsigelse.
Copenhagen: DPU.
UNESCO. 1990. World Declaration on Education for All: Meeting Basic Needs. Paris: Author.
United States Department of Education. n.d. “No Child Left Behind Fact Sheet.” http://www2.
ed.gov/nclb/freedom/local/specedfactsheet.pdf

(2015) Engsig & Johnstone - The Paradoxical Policies of Inclusive Education - Lessons From Denmark

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

(2015) Engsig & Johnstone - The Paradoxical Policies of Inclusive Education - Lessons From Denmark

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

This article was downloaded by: [Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile]

On: 21 August 2015, At: 15:47

International Journal of Inclusive

Is there something rotten in the state

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2014.940068

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Is there something rotten in the state of Denmark?

# 2014 Taylor & Francis

The paradoxical policies of inclusive education in Denmark

In the 1980s, thoughts on integration continued to challenge the parallel segregated

the posited secondary effect of improving cost-effectiveness.

The framework focused on systems-based reforms, which were designed to leverage

Throughout the framework, a discourse of societal change through inclusive education

US-inspired accountability-driven inclusive education

disabilities, English language learners, etc.) was framed as an inducement to support

Salamanca and accountability-inspired inclusion: Four discourses

education system that in most cases is characterised by a system of segregated special

Global inclusive education discourses and Denmark’s policy Agenda

investigation, we identify external factors influencing inclusive education policy devel-

Denmark’s Political discourse around Law 379 is about national dissatisfaction

Figure 1. Continuum of inclusions.

Explaining policy transference in Denmark: Cultural considerations

Policy is paradoxical, the product of struggles and contradictions. (Armstrong 2003, 5)

Denmark’s inclusive education policy narrative appears to be informed by multiple

Global discourse and local interpretations: Rights

must reach the new quantifiable goals:

As discussed in the paragraph concerning US-inspired accountability-driven inclusive

Global discourse and local interpretations: Efficacy

Global discourse and local interpretations: Political

Global discourse and local interpretations: Pragmatic

(1) Analyse external policies that may be influencing internal dialogue;

Pre-Schools, edited by T. Næsby, 5– 16. Aalborg: UCN.

You might also like