The purpose of this study is to investigate how five educators define the concepts of inclusion and children in need of special support. The purpose is also to see in what way they in the discursive practice design an inclusive curriculum. The research questions posed were: 1) in what way do educators define the concept of children in need of special support, 2) in what way do educators speak when describing an inclusive preschool and 3) in what way do educators design an inclusive curriculum based on their understanding of the definition of children in need of special support. To answer these questions, we have used a qualitative method where we conducted observations and interviews. The study was based on post structural theory. We analyzed the results based on the educators' linguistic expressions and definitions. The conclusions in this study showed that educators have similar definitions of the concept of inclusion and children in need of special support. Some of these definitions concern children with diagnoses and children without, children with difficulty, special children, children who run away, children who do not follow instructions, children with various physical and cognitive barriers. Furthermore, the results showed that all participants believe that the environment is the most important factor in creating an inclusive curriculum thusly that it is the environment that should be adapted to the child and not the child to the environment.

<p>Abstract</p><p> </p><p>This licentiate’s dissertation is about how school staff talk about pupils having difficulties in relating to teachers and other pupils. It’s specific focus is on pupils which are described as “disturbing”, “troublesome”,”unruly”, “unconcentrated” or characterised by similar concepts. The main aim is to elucidate and discuss how school staff explain pupils’ difficulties, what measures they state that they undertake and what measures they consider necessary.</p><p>The study is based on a social constructive approach. This means that the way we understand the world we live in is seen as shaped by social and cultural processes mediated through language. A consequence of this is that the way the staff talk about pupils in difficulties will influence how they relate to those children and how they work at solving the problems.</p><p>The empirical material consists of interviews with six principals, six Special Educational Needs Co-ordinators and six class teachers from six different schools. 15 of the people interviewed work with 11–13 year olds and three of them with 7–9 year olds. The material from the interviews is categorised into themes and further analysed in order to present a systematic overview of the ways in which the staff talk about children in difficulties.</p><p>The result shows that the problems are understood as complex and full of nuances. Explanations of the problems from medical/psychological perspectives have no distinguished status. It is more common that the problems are related to social conditions, family situation and school environment.</p><p>The study also shows that different professional groups usually place the responsibility for solving the problems with other professional groups. The way the concerned principal looks upon the problem seems be important for the way the problem is dealt with.</p><p>The way the staff studied talk about the school activities indicates that schools differ concerning issues like organisation, the role of the Special Needs Co-ordinator, co-operation between different professional groups etc. As a consequence pupils having difficulties in relating to other people will be subjected to different conditions depending on what school they attend. The school as an arena of identity creation and citizenship education will offer hence different opportunities to different children in difficulties.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p><em> </em></p><p><em> </em></p><p><em>Keywords:</em><strong> </strong>special educational needs, social constructionism, children in need of support,</p><p>problem behavior in schools</p><p><strong> </strong></p><p><strong><em> </em></strong></p><p>Hans Larsson, Department of Education,</p><p>Örebro University, SE-701 82 Örebro, Sweden, hans.larsson@oru.se</p>

<p>The purpose of this study is to find whether there is any truth in the thesis that adopted children from abroad is in greater need of special support, in particular regarding factors that might inhibit the language development that may cause language problems.</p><p>To achieve knowledge for this study, the methods have been to seek and analyze literature that discusses theories about language development and language socialization. To understand if theory and reality is cohesive, two interviews was conducted with special teachers that have had experiences teaching adopted children, analyzes of the results contra literature has been somewhat important and necessary. To ensure the reliability the interviews was recorded on tape and later transcribed.</p><p>The results from literature studies indicates that adopted children are more likely to be in need of special support in school due to factors concerning, among other things, adaptation difficulties, language progress and identity. Overall, language progress is depended on children’s total progress that includes physical, emotional and psychological condition. The results of the interviews agree in many aspects and outline the importance of giving such adopted children correct and individual support.</p><p>The conclusions of this study is that adopted children from abroad can, in some cases, be in need of special support in school, but not necessarily just because they are adopted. Language socialization explains how a language is learned and used and in that sense, it’s very important to be aware of the responsibility you have as a teacher to overview large spread of individuals and their progress.</p>

The purpose of this study is to find whether there is any truth in the thesis that adopted children from abroad is in greater need of special support, in particular regarding factors that might inhibit the language development that may cause language problems. To achieve knowledge for this study, the methods have been to seek and analyze literature that discusses theories about language development and language socialization. To understand if theory and reality is cohesive, two interviews was conducted with special teachers that have had experiences teaching adopted children, analyzes of the results contra literature has been somewhat important and necessary. To ensure the reliability the interviews was recorded on tape and later transcribed. The results from literature studies indicates that adopted children are more likely to be in need of special support in school due to factors concerning, among other things, adaptation difficulties, language progress and identity. Overall, language progress is depended on children’s total progress that includes physical, emotional and psychological condition. The results of the interviews agree in many aspects and outline the importance of giving such adopted children correct and individual support. The conclusions of this study is that adopted children from abroad can, in some cases, be in need of special support in school, but not necessarily just because they are adopted. Language socialization explains how a language is learned and used and in that sense, it’s very important to be aware of the responsibility you have as a teacher to overview large spread of individuals and their progress.

This report is going to discuss the relatively new and in schools, frequently debated concept of inclusion. The concept inclusion, easily explained means that all children, regardless of special needs or other conditions should be involved in the schools ordinary environment. In the democratic school of today, the education is supposed to be adapted to every individual and its special needs. The dilemma of the special need education is described as giving all children the same, but at the same time adapt to each and everyone’s differences. This study describes the teachers approach to the concept of inclusion and especially the inclusion of children in need of special support. And the teachers experience of possible advantages and disadvantages in their work to include all children. The method’s that were used to collect the empirical information to this report were qualitative interviews. The questions at issue were: How do the teachers include children in need of special support in the education? The teachers experiences of advantages and disadvantages in the way they work whit inclusion Partly for the children in need of special support Partly for the teachers Partly for the rest of the class

The overall aim of this thesis is to increase our knowledge of different occupational groups´ views on work with children in need of special support. This is explored in four separate studies. The first study investigates the views of occupational groups in preschools and schools in one municipality. A questionnaire was handed out to all personnel (N=1297) in the municipality in 2008 (72.5 % response rate). The second study explores the views of educational leaders (N=45) in the same municipality. Questionnaire # 2 was distributed in 2009. All the educational leaders responded to the questionnaire. The third study describes the views of different occupational groups concerning special educational needs coordinators´ (SENCOs) role and work. This was highlighted by comparing responses from questionnaire #1 and # 2. Responses concerning SENCOs´ work were also added using a third questionnaire. This questionnaire was handed out in 2006 to chief education officers (N=290) in all municipalities in Sweden. The response rate was 90.3%. Finally, the fourth study presents five head teachers´ descriptions of their work with special needs issues. Study four was a follow-up study of questionnaire # 2. These head teachers were selected because of their inclusive values and because they seemed to be effective according to certain criteria. They were interviewed in January 2012. The results reveal a number of interesting findings. For example, there are both similar and different views among the occupational groups concerning work with children in need of special support. A majority of the respondents in all groups state that children´s individual deficiencies is one common reason why children need special support in preschools/schools. Differences between the occupational groups become especially visible regarding their views of SENCOs‟ work. Critical pragmatism (Cherryholmes, 1988) is applied as a theoretical point of departure. Skrtic´s (1991) critical reading and analysis of special education relative to general education is specifically used to interpret and discuss the outcome of the studies. Additionally, Abbott´s (1988) reasoning concerning the “division of expert labor” is used to discuss the occupational groups´ replies concerning “who should do what to whom”. The findings in the studies are contextualized and theoretically interpreted in the separate articles. However in the first part of this thesis (in Swedish: Kappa), the theoretical interpretations of the empirical outcome are discussed in more detail and the results are further contextualized and synthesised. Inclusion and premises for inclusive education are also discussed in more depth in the first part of the present thesis.

The overall aim of this thesis is to increase our knowledge of different occupational groups´ views on work with children in need of special support. This is explored in four separate studies. The first study investigates the views of occupational groups in preschools and schools in one municipality. A questionnaire was handed out to all personnel (N=1297) in the municipality in 2008 (72.5 % response rate). The second study explores the views of educational leaders (N=45) in the same municipality. Questionnaire # 2 was distributed in 2009. All the educational leaders responded to the questionnaire. The third study describes the views of different occupational groups concerning special educational needs coordinators´ (SENCOs) role and work. This was highlighted by comparing responses from questionnaire #1 and # 2. Responses concerning SENCOs´ work were also added using a third questionnaire. This questionnaire was handed out in 2006 to chief education officers (N=290) in all municipalities in Sweden. The response rate was 90.3%. Finally, the fourth study presents five head teachers´ descriptions of their work with special needs issues. Study four was a follow-up study of questionnaire # 2. These head teachers were selected because of their inclusive values and because they seemed to be effective according to certain criteria. They were interviewed in January 2012. The results reveal a number of interesting findings. For example, there are both similar and different views among the occupational groups concerning work with children in need of special support. A majority of the respondents in all groups state that children´s individual deficiencies is one common reason why children need special support in preschools/schools. Differences between the occupational groups become especially visible regarding their views of SENCOs‟ work. Critical pragmatism (Cherryholmes, 1988) is applied as a theoretical point of departure. Skrtic´s (1991) critical reading and analysis of special education relative to general education is specifically used to interpret and discuss the outcome of the studies. Additionally, Abbott´s (1988) reasoning concerning the “division of expert labor” is used to discuss the occupational groups´ replies concerning “who should do what to whom”. The findings in the studies are contextualized and theoretically interpreted in the separate articles. However in the first part of this thesis (in Swedish: Kappa), the theoretical interpretations of the empirical outcome are discussed in more detail and the results are further contextualized and synthesised. Inclusion and premises for inclusive education are also discussed in more depth in the first part of the present thesis.

Earlier studies shows that democracy within the preschool is an important and on-going work, but could implicate certain consequences. For example that goals regarding democracy and influence in the preschool, rarely is done in practice but instead remains just words on a paper. It could also mean that the pedagogues lack education and knowledge within the area, but also how they react to the influence of children.   Preschool is expected to be a place for all children, no matter what luggage the child is carrying. The luggage is filled with the life experience, the personality and in this case the needs that the child has. The needs could be anything from nearness to physical and psychological disorders that requires more pedagogical attention. We have in this study looked closer into how children in need of certain support are allowed to influence the everyday work in the preschool. We have observed two different preschools within the same school district, interviewed teachers and handed out questionnaires to parents and legal guardians. The object has been to study if children with disabilities and children without disabilities, gets the same opportunity to influence and to participate in the everyday work in the preschool. Our question formulation in this study is; How does children with special needs get the opportunity to influence the everyday work within the preschool?   By comparing these preschools we have been able to draw the conclusion that differences exist regarding how the children gets to influence the everyday work in the preschool. A lot of it has to do with what approach and viewpoint the pedagogue has regarding inclusion. The goals from the curriculum and other steering documents, often ends up only being guidelines and are not fulfilled. The children we have studied has disabilities which are both neurological and neuropsychiatrical. The result in this study does not represent the entire teacher community. It is only based on the preschools that we have decided to observe.

Inclusion enable children with special needs pursue their education or activities with their peers who are not disabled. Participation of children can be promoted by inclusion. Teachers are key for developing inclusive schools and improve the participation of children with special needs. The aim of this study is to describe strategies teachers use to facilitate participation of children in need of special supports in three ‘inclusive schools’ in Finland. To study this issue, interviews were conducted with eight participants from these three schools. The ICF-CY model was used to analyze the interview data. Results show that teachers’ strategies of promoting children’s participation in these Finnish ‘inclusive’ schools are diverse, teachers use strategies that focus on children’s environmental factors as well as factors that relate to children themselves. Most of teachers believe strategies that make changes on children environmental factors can help children participate in classroom tasks and activities. Some factors to influence difference of the strategies in different schools were found, different school situations and seems to be a decisive role on teachers’ strategies of improving the participation of the children. This study gives a promising view of the actions that teachers take to promote participation of children in need of special support.

This licentiate’s dissertation is about how school staff talk about pupils having difficulties in relating to teachers and other pupils. It’s specific focus is on pupils which are described as “disturbing”, “troublesome”,”unruly”, “unconcentrated” or characterised by similar concepts. The main aim is to elucidate and discuss how school staff explain pupils’ difficulties, what measures they state that they undertake and what measures they consider necessary. The study is based on a social constructive approach. This means that the way we understand the world we live in is seen as shaped by social and cultural processes mediated through language. A consequence of this is that the way the staff talk about pupils in difficulties will influence how they relate to those children and how they work at solving the problems. The empirical material consists of interviews with six principals, six Special Educational Needs Co-ordinators and six class teachers from six different schools. 15 of the people interviewed work with 11–13 year olds and three of them with 7–9 year olds. The material from the interviews is categorised into themes and further analysed in order to present a systematic overview of the ways in which the staff talk about children in difficulties. The result shows that the problems are understood as complex and full of nuances. Explanations of the problems from medical/psychological perspectives have no distinguished status. It is more common that the problems are related to social conditions, family situation and school environment. The study also shows that different professional groups usually place the responsibility for solving the problems with other professional groups. The way the concerned principal looks upon the problem seems be important for the way the problem is dealt with. The way the staff studied talk about the school activities indicates that schools differ concerning issues like organisation, the role of the Special Needs Co-ordinator, co-operation between different professional groups etc. As a consequence pupils having difficulties in relating to other people will be subjected to different conditions depending on what school they attend. The school as an arena of identity creation and citizenship education will offer hence different opportunities to different children in difficulties.