Dr. philos Dóra S. Bjarnason
Professor of sociology and disability studies.
Iceland University of Education.
v/ Stakkahlíð, 105 Reykjavík, Iceland.
dora@khi.is
http://starfsfolk.khi.is/dora
SCHOOL REFORMS AND THE RECONSTRUCTION OF THE
(SPECIAL) TEACHER EDUCATION IN ICELAND IN THE
20TH CENTURY
INTRODUCTION
The Icelandic value base is ruggedly individualistic and egalitarian. For over a
millennium, the community, living on scattered farms around Iceland, has been
obliged to take care of people in need. No public schools existed in traditional
Iceland, but literacy on religious texts was apparently widespread, and became almost
universal after the law prescribing the teaching of children to read from 1790. Not
until a century later or 1880 a law was set on teaching children to write and do
arithmetic (Guttormsson 1983). The home education system was gradually replaced
by the public education law of 1907. For generations, parents, grandparents or a farm
worker able to read, served as teachers, but the parish priests supervised the learning
of reading and religion. This education culminated in the confirmation ritual which in
the 19th century took place at the age of 14-15. Some clergy and other learned men
helped a few promising and/ or better off boys and young men prepare for academic
learning. Some better off farmers hired home teachers, but with the advance of the
19th century local farmers or communities hired perambulatory teachers who traveled
between farms and taught children for a few weeks at the time. Most of these teachers
were not specially trained as teachers. In the late 19th and early 20th century towns and
villages were gradually emerging and with them schools, but the perambulatory
teachers prevailed in rural areas well into the 20th century. See (Guttormsson 1983),
(Guttormsson 2000). A one year teacher education was first provided in 1892 but the
Teachers College of Iceland was established in 1908, and provided teacher training
for compulsory school teachers. In 1971 the college was changed and upgraded to
what is now called the Iceland University of Education.
Currently there are three major teacher education institutions in Iceland; the Iceland
University of Education is by far the largest institution for educating compulsory
education teachers and developmental therapists, and it also offers a certification
program for upper secondary teachers holding diplomas in fine art, technical and
vocational areas. The second is the teacher education program at the University of
Iceland, a certification program designed for university graduates holding
Baccalaureus or higher degrees in academic subjects for upper secondary teachers.
The third is the University of Akureyri in the north, established in 1993, with a
department providing certification programs for teachers at all three educational
levels. All three institutions have built into one or more programs issues related to
1
inclusive schooling and individualized learning, all three provide optional courses in
disability studies and possibilities to do M.Ed. degrees within the areas of special
education and disability studies, but only the Iceland University of Education provides
post graduate diploma and M.Ed. program for special education teachers.
TEACHER TRAINING FOR LEARNERS WITH SPECIAL
EDUCATIONAL NEEDS OR DISABILITIES IN SOCIOEDUCATIONAL CONTEXT
In Iceland like in most other western countries the first teachers who specialized in
working with learners with special needs were trained to work with deaf learners. In
1820 to 1867 twenty- four Icelandic children described as “mute” were sent to the
Royal Deaf and Dumb Institute in Copenhagen, for their education. The Institute was
established in 1807 and based on the famous l’Epée school for the Deaf in Paris.
Unfortunately a third of the Icelandic students died due to poor hygene at the school.
This prompted the authorities to provide a grant for the training of an Icelandic
clergyman, Páll Pálsson, as a teacher for the deaf. Pálsson educated deaf children at
his home on a farm in the north of Iceland from 1867 to his death 1890. Two years
later another clergyman established a school for deaf students at his farm in the south
of Iceland and hired teachers specially trained in Denmark, as teachers of the deaf.
That school was moved to Reykjavík in 1908 and operated in one form or another
until 1944, emphasizing sign language and finger language and also educating some
learners with mild intellectual disabilities. That year a new principal educated in
Scotland brought in oral language teaching and the teaching of lip-reading, which
prevailed until 1980 when sign language teaching prevailed again. The story of deaf
education goes back to a formally traditional poor rural society with virtually no
schools. The early 20th century saw radical changes in the Icelandic society, which is
by the beginning of the 21st century a highly urban, wealthy, technological society
with a modern educational system to match.
1907-1945: THE FIRST STEPS TOWARDS CATERING FOR LEARNERS WITH
SPECIAL NEEDS
The period from 1907 until the end of the second world war can be characterized as
the formative years of developing public schools for children and youth. Educators,
doctors, parents and the first Icelandic psychologists began to point out children’s’
need for care, expressing concern for orphans, sick, poor and neglected children, and
for “problem children”, but these voices carried slowly at first. Gradually new ideas,
pedagogical skills and practices were imported. A teacher was sent to Denmark in
1932-33 in order to learn how to teach blind children, and a school for the blind was
established in 1933. The first institution for orphans and children with intellectual
impairments, a Rudolf Steiner institution, opened in 1931. The first law on the
protection of children was set in 1932, and the first law on Idiot Sanctuaries appeared
in 1936. As we come to the end of this period the stage is set for a variety of
2
institutional solutions for children and youth with special needs for care and
specialized education.
1945-1974: THE
FORMATIVE YEARS OF A MODERN EDUCATIONAL
SYSTEM AND OF SPECIAL EDUCATION PRACTICES
Iceland emerged from the WW2 period richer and more urban than ever before.
In the early WW2 years fish catches were good and prices high on the world market.
The country was taken over by first the British and then the USA armed forces during
the war, and the armed forces brought full employment, rising wages, and significant
investment in infrastructure. On the political front, Iceland gained full independence
from Denmark and became a modern democratic state in 1944. Further more, after the
war Iceland received considerable Marshall Aid which was used to modernize the
country’s main economic sectors.
The post war period brought an array of new institutions and new ideas and practices
for children and youth seen to have special needs. New professions, such as
educational psychologists, special educators and therapists of various types emerged
and began to impact schools and other pedagogical institutions. In the 1950s and
1960s psychologists pioneered research in children’s’ level of school maturity, IQ
tests gained respect and came into widespread use for placing children in ability
grouped classes. Further, teachers formed an association to help students with special
needs, special classes for the support of slow learners came into use in Reykjavík and
some of the larger towns, and in 1961 a young highly educated special educator,
Magnus Magnusson, who had studied in Germany and Switzerland, was appointed
principal of a school established by the Reykjavík town for students with mild
intellectual impairments (IQ 70-85), who lived at home with their parents. This was
the first time that such students could attend school without moving to a total
institution for people with intellectual disabilities. But four new total institutions for
people with intellectual impairments were added to the Rudolf Steiner institution
(form 1932), in this period. All these institutions had some kind of schooling for
young inmates. However a few children with intellectual impairments were admitted
to regular schools and early childhood programs, particularly in the rural areas, on an
individual basis, probably since before 1907. In such cases they sat in class with
regular students, but were not really expected to learn much and rarely got appropriate
materials or adapted teaching.
In the 1960s and 1970s most Icelandic special educators studied in Statens
Spesiallærehögskole in Oslo. But in 1968 the Teachers College in Reykjavík began to
offer a one year course in special education for practicing teachers. The course was
modeled on the first year program in Spesiallærehögskolen in Oslo, and many of the
Icelandic teachers completed the second year of studies there. In the period of 1968 to
1984 The Teachers College in Reykjavík (and after 1971 the Iceland University of
Education) offered seven such one year programs. In all 169 teachers graduated as
specialists mostly in teaching children with moderate educational needs and children
with reading problems.
3
Applications into to the special education program at the Teachers College, now
promoted to university status, began to fall of around 1974. In that year a new
comprehensive educational legislation for compulsory schools came into being,
making integration and appropriate individualized education the law of the land
(1974). (1974)The new integration ideology began to take hold and teachers became
critical of the clinical, medical model approach to special education, which had been
at the core of the special education program, and of the segregated special classes
(Sigurdsson 1993) (Kristinsdóttir 1984)
1974-2004: (SPECIAL)
EDUCATORS
TRAINED
FOR
WORKING
IN
INTEGRATED AND INCLUSIVE SCHOOLS
The Icelandic society was gradually becoming more diverse in terms of socioeconomic status, nationality and ethnic background. Most Icelanders lived in the
urban areas, particularly in and around Reykjavík. The new education law from 1974
created a frame for the modernization and reconstruction of the Icelandic educational
system. A new national curriculum from 1976 emphasized the individuals’ right to
learn and be taught in an appropriate manner for his or her ability, in concert with
typical age-peers. Grouping children into classes on the basis of ability as shown by
psychological tests and school grades was not recognised any longer. It also drew
attention to new pedagogical demands due to the new diversity of learners (1976). A
new statutory special education regulation was published in 1977, in that the Ministry
of Education attempted to bridge the gap between the old special education practices
and the new ideology of integration and the need for a variety of remedial educational
options (1977). Special schools and classes for students with significant disabilities
were to be maintained, but pull – out special education teaching arrangement and
other non-segregating teaching practices were gradually to replace the special classes
for non disabled learners with special educational needs. A new special school for
children and youth with severe intellectual and multi impairments opened in
Reykjavík in 1982, providing the last group of learners access to compulsory
education schooling. The 9th and 10th decades of the 20th century also gradually
opened upper-secondary and adult educational programs for intellectually impaired
learners, learners with hearing impairment and for blind, mentally ill and autistic
learners. By 2004 only three special schools remain in the country, two for
intellectually disabled learners and the third for compulsory school students labeled
with significant behavioral problems. Furthermore special classes for disabled
learners, particularly learners with intellectual impairments have emerged at most
upper secondary schools.
Actual change was slow in the implementation of the integration and inclusion
policy. By 1980 the number of special classes in general education schools grew again
in number, specially such classes for the older compulsory school students (aged 1216). A growing number of students were diagnosed with ADHlD, autistic and other
disorders (and some were prescribed Ritalin) (Morthens 2004). All this may suggest
that general teachers found it difficult to deal with the new diversity within their
classrooms, and that both the general – and the special educators lacked pedagogical
skills to teach effectively heterogeneous groups of students. This was further
influenced by the new and diverse gallery of specialists.
4
The Iceland University of Education responded to this in 1985 by offering a new
postgraduate program in special education. The program, which was a BA program,
consisted of a 60 unit theoretical study program in special education and 15 units of
professional development in schools. Only certified teachers were admitted. A British
special education expert, helped prepare and run the new program for two years. He
brought with him a different perspective, influenced by special education reforms in
Britain following the Warnock report. The program has also been influenced by
Swedish and American special education and disability scholars. From 1985 to 1995
the program was taught through distance learning using both the internet and small
localized groups of teachers situated at different parts of Iceland. Now, graduates
from the program are certified with a 30 unit diploma in special education, and a
number of the graduates continue and do an Med. research degree. In the 1990s
applicants for the diploma degree in special education have been practicing teachers
from all school levels from early childhood to upper secondary school teachers and
social pedagogues. Since 1985 521 students have graduated as special educators from
the diploma program and 34 have completed their Med. degree in the field. The
program aims at educating teachers to work in inclusive schools in teaching and
management. Some of its courses are still characterised by the medical model
approach, but the program is currently coming up for revision and change which
seems to bring it further in concert with the state of the art inclusion and disability
scholarship, and the new individualized learning educational policy (Marinósson
2004). The future of post graduate special education degree courses is under
discussion, and the program may within the next few years change into the training of
leaders for inclusive schooling practices, where the term special educator will be
replaced by the term inclusion facilitator.
An effort is also being made to train undergraduate general education student teachers
in individualized heterogeneous group teaching skills both at the Iceland University of
Education, at the Department of Education at The University of Akureyri, and to
some extent at the University of Iceland. This is considered necessary with regard to
the latest versions of the education legislation (1994), (1995) (1996) and the national
curricular for all school levels that emphasize inclusive education and individualized
group teaching. However it is hard to change the practice of schools, and despite
efforts to reequip general educators to teach effectively in diverse heterogeneous
schools and classes in the spirit of inclusive schooling, there is still a way to go for
that to become the reality of all school practice.
DISCUSSION
The last three to four decades of the twentieth century have seen two major reform
movements within most Western educational systems, including the Icelandic system.
These are extensive school reforms intended to lead to systemic changes in
educational structures and practices, and the movement towards integration and later
inclusion of learners with special needs. These two trends have made uneasy
bedfellows in Iceland, as in a number of other countries in the West (Barton and
Armstrong 2001).
The early 1960’s were characterized by optimistic approaches to social and school
reforms. The aim of these school reforms was to equalize educational opportunities.
5
The logic went so in a typical functionalist manner: by equalizing access to
educational establishments, providing “equality of opportunities” within the schools,
and supporting students with special educational needs within schools, outcomes
would better reflect the quality of the human resources of the school population, more
talent could be harnessed from amongst all social strata, and schools could thus
become instrumental in social reforms. These ideas swept the West, accompanied by
the ideas based on the human capital theory, that “equal and rational utilization of
ability from all social strata was considered to be a powerful way of promoting
welfare and economic growth” (Husén 1979). Despite the fact that in many Western
countries large sums of money had been poured into school reforms in the 1960’s,
education was said to remain in crisis. The optimism of the 1960’s changed with the
economic slump of the 1970’s. The reforms had not brought the desired results,
inequalities were growing, and formal equality of access did not guarantee equality of
life chances (Husén 1979). This affected Icelandic schools and school reforms
(Edelstein 1988), (Gunnarsson 1990), (Jóhannesson 1991), (Jóhannesson 1993).
With the rise of conservatism and neo-liberalism in the western world in the 1980’s,
new slogans such as ‘back to the new basics’ gained popularity and reform money.
The 1990’s were gradually characterized by what Barton describes as:
[...educational changes] driven by powerful directives, such as demonstrating value for money
with regard to educational practices and outcomes, the fundamental importance of providing
dependable assessment information, the value of competition between individuals and
institutions as a spur to improvement, and the required changes to how education is managed,
supported by a discourse of enhancing excellence in standards, quality and performance of
individuals and institutions. (Barton and Armstrong 2001)
Educational discourse and changes in western societies impacted Icelandic
educational reforms in the latter half of the 20th century and set the stage for Icelandic
education legislation, schooling, and teacher education during the 1980’s and 1990’s.
(Edelstein 1988), (Gunnarsson 1990), (Jóhannesson 1992). In the 1990’s,
international test score comparisons added color and focus to the school discourse by
focusing upon student achievements in basic subjects such as math, sciences and
mother tongue (Jóhannesson 2001). This is also reflected in the changing (special)
teacher training.
The last decade of the 20th century has seen a growing trend in making schools, also
in Iceland, more effective in terms of efficiency (in the economic sense), and to
improve ‘quality’ of individuals and schools in terms of outcomes and proficiency
(Hansen 1992), (Baldursson 1995). There has also been a move to adapt schools to
better meet the diversity of needs of increasingly heterogeneous school populations
(Thorsteinsson 1996).
The second wave of change stems from the growing attention to special educational
needs and to the inclusion-segregation debate that has marked the past two decades of
the 20th century. Like other dominant educational discourses of the 20th century, the
special education knowledge base, professional practices and discourses, can be
located within the functionalist paradigm, which, in Skrtic’s terms “presupposes that
social reality is objective, inherently orderly and rational, and that human problems
are pathological terms” (Skrtic 1995).
In Iceland, as in other western countries, special education was developed on these
premises and thus on the ‘individual’ (medical) model of disability (Barnes, Mercer et
al. 1999). The dominant emphasis of special education in Iceland in the 1970’s and
6
1980’s was to work with the individual at repairing his or her faults or shortcomings
or at least reducing them, so as to make the learner with educational needs or
disabilities as far as possible like typical learners (Bjarnason 1995).
In the West, new methods of teaching and training mostly derived from behaviorism,
improved technology in rehabilitation, and an array of new and more specific
assessment tools inspired by psychology and pedagogy became the tools of the new
therapists and special education experts, particularly post WW II. Placement of such
learners also became an issue. Segregated schools were erected in order to educate the
most severely disabled, and special classes or other specialized practices, such as
“pull out-push in” teaching. Extra teaching (individually or in groups) in certain
subjects such as reading or mathematics for slow learners, and in-class individual
instruction were developed on a sliding scale of the perceived severity of the learners’
problems. In terms of the individual model of disability, the problem was perceived to
be in the individual learner and the remedies involved were intended to address his or
her learning problems and shortcomings. Students with severe disabilities were almost
always taught separately from typical peers and frequently, the more severe the
disabilities were considered to be, the less educational practices and school
environment resembled those of general schools and classes and the more they
resembled therapeutic treatment centers. This characterized Icelandic special
education as well, but special practices were developed later in Iceland than in
neighboring countries (Bjarnason 1996a), (Bjarnason 2003), (Marinósson 2002). The
application of these special education practices resulted in new types of groupings
within the educational system. On the one hand, it opened up school opportunities to
learners with significant disabilities, in particular learners with multiple or cognitive
disabilities. On the other hand, it resulted in increased segregation and social
exclusion of labeled learners. The notion of social exclusion is, as Barton reminds us,
“both complex and contestable” (Barton and Armstrong 2001, pp. 694).
The mainstream and inclusion debates were imported into the Icelandic discussion in
the mid 1980’s and 1990’s. (Bjarnason 1995), (Marinósson 1995), (Marinósson
2002). The ideas came almost simultaneously from the Nordic countries, in particular
from Denmark and then Norway, from Britain and from the USA. A British version of
the mainstream argument with its models, practices and tools formed the groundwork
of the new special teacher training at the Iceland University of Education. Integrationinclusion arguments were introduced by US scholars from the radical camp in the
mainstreaming-inclusion debate, who tied school inclusion or systemic inclusion
(Ferguson 1996) to the notion of an inclusive society. Like in a good porridge, this
was then stirred into the Nordic value system of individualism, equality, democracy
and Protestant ethics, and mixed with Bank-Mikkelsen’s concept of normalization,
emphasizing social justice and the process of societal adjustment to the needs of
“retarded persons” in order to enable them to lead as normal a life as possible
(Kirkebæk, 2001), (Bjarnason 1995). Little theoretical discussion within the Icelandic
academic sector and elsewhere in society followed this (see however (Bjarnason
1995), (Marinósson, 1995), (Thorsteinsson 1996), but what discussion has taken place
about mainstreaming or inclusion is frequently framed within discussion about
budgetary and resource allocation (Marinósson 2002).
The current Compulsory School Education Act of 1995 does not mention the word,
special education, yet the ministry simultaneously issued a special education
7
regulation, and special education facilities have been developed in most school
districts.
What the school ‘reforms’ and changes in the education of (special) teachers mean
for the Icelandic education system must be explored within the socioeconomic and
political context of the country because education and schooling must be
contextualized within culture. The economic and social homogeneity in Iceland is
being transformed by greater diversification in its economic sector and by
immigration. This, accompanied by steady urbanization of the Reykjavík area, and a
significant pruning of the welfare system in the 1990’s, is in the process of changing
the Icelandic social structure and culture. New interests and new power structures
appear to be emerging. All this sets the stage for changes in the education system of
the country, and the schooling of the younger generation and its future teachers, both
general and special teachers. My hope for the future lies with inclusive restructured
schools aiming for excellence, with groups of well trained teachers and experts
working flexibly together like a well trained crew on a ship in rough seas. My motto
could be “all hands on deck”. This vision calls for changes in general and special
education training.
8
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Adalnámskrá grunnskóla. Reykjavík, Menntamálaráðuneytið. (1976).
Baldursson, S. (1995). "Hugmyndafrædi nýrra grunnskólalaga." Glæður 5(1): 4-8.
Barnes, C., G. Mercer, et al. (1999). Exploring disability: A sociological introduction.
Oxford, Polity.
Barton, L. and F. Armstrong (2001). Disability, education and inclusion: Crosscultural issues and dilemmas. Handbook of disability studies. G. L. Albrecht,
K. D. Seelman and M. Bury. Thousand Oaks, Sage Publication.
Bjarnason, D. S. (1995). "Heildtæk skólastefna." Throskahjálp 17(2): 38-46.
Bjarnason, D. S. (1996a). Iceland: From institutions to normalisation? Intellectual
disabilities in the Nordic States: Policies and everyday life. J. A. Tössebro, J.
A. Gustavsson and G. Dyrendahl. Kristiansand, Höjskole Forlaget.
Bjarnason, D. S. (2003). School inclusion in Iceland: The cloak of invisibility. New
York, Nova Science Publishers.
Bjarnason, D. S. (2003b). The social construction of disabled adulthood: New voices
from Iceland: A qualitative study of the perspectives of 36 disabled people,
aged 16-24. Doctoral thesis submitted at the Faculty of Education, Department
of Special needs education, University of Oslo.
Edelstein, W. (1988). Skóli, nám, samfélag. Reykjavík, Idunn.
Ferguson, D. L. (1996). Is it inclusion yet? Burstin the bubbles. Creating tomorrow's
schools today: Stories of inclusion, change, and renewal. M. S. Berres, D. L.
Ferguson, P. Knoblock and C. Woods. New York, Teachers College Press.
Gunnarsson, T. (1990). Controlling curriculum knowledge: A documentary study of
the Icelandic social science curriculum project (SSCP) 1974-1984. Faculty of
the College of Education, Ohio University.
Guttormsson, L. (1983). Bernska, ungdómur og uppeldi á einveldisöld: Tilraun til
félagslegrar og lýðfræðilegrar greiningar. Reykjavík, Sagnfrædistofnun
Háskóla Íslands.
Guttormsson, L. (2000). Frá siðaskiptum til upplýsingar. Reykjavík, Alþingi.
Hansen, B. (1992). "Mat á skólastarfi: Til hvers?" Uppeldi og menntun 1(1): 44-53.
Husén, T. (1979). The School in question: A comparative study of the school and its
future in western society. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
9
Jóhannesson, I. Á. (1991). The formation of educational reform as a social field in
Iceland and the social strategies of educationists, 1966-1991.
Jóhannesson, I. Á. (1992). "Af vettvangi íslenskra menntaumbóta: kennarafrædi sem
kapítal." Uppeldi og menntun 1(1): 147-164.
Jóhannesson, I. Á. (1993). "Principles of legitimation in educational discourses in
Iceland and the production of progress." Journal of Education Policy 8(4):
339-351.
Jóhannesson, I. Á. (2001). "Salamancahugsjónin, einstaklingshyggja og
sjúkdómsvæðing: nemendur sem viðfangsefni greiningar á sérthörfum."
Glædur 11(2): 13-20.
Kristinsdóttir (1984). Framhaldsnám í sérkennslunni við KHÍ. Afmælisrit:
Kennaraskólinn - Kennaraháskólinn 75 ára 1908-1983. [Reykjavík],
Kennaraháskóli Íslands.
Lög um framhaldsskóla. (Breyting á lögum nr. 57/1988). (1996).
Lög um grunnskóla. (1974).
Lög um grunnskóla. (1995).
Lög um leikskóla. (1994).
Marinósson, G. L. (2002). The response to pupil diversity by a compulsory
mainstream school in Iceland. Institution of Education. London, University of
London.
Marinósson, G. L. (2004). Námsbraut í sérkennslufræðum, Sjálfsmatsskýrsla. [Report
to the Dean of post graduate studies]. Unpublished manuscript.
Morthens (2004). Interview conducted by the author on the 14th of May.
Sérkennslureglugerð. (1977).
Sigurdsson, T. (1993). Thættir úr sögu sérkennslunnar. Reykjavík, Thórsútgáfan.
Skrtic, T. M., Ed. (1995). Disability and democracy: Reconstructing special education
for postmodernity. New York, Teachers College Press.
Thorsteinsson, T. (1996). "Sérkennsla og umbætur í skólastarfi: Thversagnir í lögum,
vidhorfum og framkvæmd." Uppeldi og menntun 5: 93-103.
10
APPENDIX
THE STRUCTURE OF THE MODERN EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM
The educational system is divided into four levels; preschool up to 6 years of age is
not compulsory but recognized as the first stage in public education, compulsory
school 6-16 years, upper secondary school 16-20 years, and most higher education for
students from 20 years of age onwards. The diagram below, table 1., shows the
structure of the system.
Table 1. The Icelandic Education System 2002
Source. The Ministry of Education, Science and Culture. 2002
11
The Ministry of Education issues National Curriculum Guides for preschool,
compulsory- and upper secondary school levels. These curriculum guides have the
legal status of statutory regulations. The National Center for Educational Materials,
under the Ministry of Education, develops and publishes educational materials for
compulsory education schools, and distributes them to the schools free of charge. The
Educational Testing Institute, funded by the state, is responsible for organizing,
setting and grading nationally coordinated examinations, for students at compulsory
schools.
The Ministry appoints the school boards of each upper secondary school, and three of
the five board members directly represent the Ministry, while two come from the
municipality concerned. Representatives of teachers and students are non-voting
observers at the school board.
Local municipalities are responsible for the operation of preschools and compulsory
schools as stated above. Preschools, compulsory education schools are controlled by a
local school board that supervises their affairs. Municipalities are responsible for
providing schools with educational services, such as special education advice, school
psychologists, and school related health care. Since 2001 the Reykjavík municipality,
has invoked a policy and practice of full inclusion of all learners, including those with
special educational and behavior management needs and disabilities (Reykjavík
Educational Board Manifesto 2001). Still 0,8% of the compulsory school students in
Reykjavík attend three special schools, two for intellectually disabled learners and a
the third for a few students with behavior problems. There is no available information
on the number of special classes for learners with special educational needs, but in
Reykjavík five such classes remain with a total of 38 students (students diagnosed
with autism, physical disabilities and deafness). Most urban compulsory schools have
special education centers, where students with special educational needs spend time,
but all these students belong to general classes (Morthens 2004), (Bjarnason 2003b).
12