Students' voices: how does education in Iceland prepare young people with significant impairments for adulthood?

Dóra S. Bjarnason
Iceland University of Education, Reykjavík, Iceland. E-mail dora@khi.is

Paper presented at the European Conference on Educational Research, University of Hamburg, 17-20 September 2003
Encouraging voices: respecting the insights of young people who have been marginalized - a critical factor in promoting inclusive
educational practices (Symposium)

The paper is based on one part of an extensive research conducted 1998-2002 into the world of young disabled adults in Iceland who have grown up with the ideology of integration and inclusion as the law of the land. This is a qualitative study of the experience of being a young disabled adult (16-24 years old) in Icelandic upper-secondary schools, university or equivalent educational settings, in the job market and in society. The term disability is used here with caution since it is a socially constructed category with moral implications for those so lab led. Attention is paid to the young peoples experiences of schooling; compulsory- and upper-secondary schools, in general education schools and classes, special schools, and special classes. Further, how the structure and practice of the educational environment; including the organisation of teaching, learning and evaluation, and students experiences of participation in school community life, hinder or promote their full active participation as a learning member of their school. The paper also discusses to what extent the young peoples experiences of schooling prepare them for adulthood. The conclusions point at inclusive and exclusionary processes affecting students learning and membership in inclusive educational settings, and pinpoint also strengths and weaknesses of educational experiences in segregated special education settings. The main conclusion indicates that schooling is a powerful agent for placing these young people on vastly different tracks, independent of their disability labels, either on a track that leads them to an interdependent adulthood or to a track within a special world for "eternal children".

The main study found that choices made early on in the disabled person's life between generic and special services are of importance for launching the disabled child on to what I call the highway (group A), a road often leading to fragile "adulthood with a difference" in mainstream society, or on to the narrower and often paternalistic path (group C) to a "special world of disabled people". In between these I found a small group of young disabled people who belonged to neither road and I compared to "nomads walking about in the wilderness (group B). The former road holds the promise of greater personal freedom and quality of life for disabled adults, despite significant risks of loneliness and isolation. The latter promises protection and safety at the risk of remaining in the limbo of "eternal youth" within segregated settings, subjected to a degree of paternalism and diminished personal freedom. The "nomads" seemed either to have lost hope of belonging to either mainstream society or the special world of disabled people, or had dropped out from these paths for the time being. , (Bjarnason, 2002b) (Bjarnason, 2003a) (Bjarnason, 2003b)

I work within the interpretivist paradigm. My theoretical framework rests on research and theory which considers disability as a social construction ( , ,. Nordic research into disability, youth and the welfare state has also inspired and informed my work, as our cultures, schools and legal systems are similar. , Finally, the British school concerned with the social model of disability has also been an inspiration to me. It has politicized the concept of disability even further, focused and radicalized advocacy and self-advocacy of "the disabled people". , ,

Adulthood and disability are both taken to be socially constructed phenomena that take meanings and content from culture and socio-economic conditions in society in time and space. The status of adulthood is endowed with rights including an array of choices (Ziehe 1993, Giddens 1994) and obligations due to a fully participating, responsible member of society.

Biological factors such as chronological age and physical maturity signify approaching adulthood, but do not determine when a person is socially recognized as a fully fledged adult. The transition into adulthood is a process embedded in culture. (See also I borrow Bates' definition of the concept:

Research shows that disabled young people have problems largely due to social barriers, including parental over-protection, lack of peer group interaction and job opportunities, in gaining the role and status of adulthood as defined above. , , ,

Disability is another term that, to most people means a medical condition or a learning deficit to be prevented or cured or at least diminished. I adhere to the school of thought , (Williams 2001) that defines disability as a phenomenon emerging and resulting from the values and practices embedded within culture , . This approach can be linked back to the tradition of symbolic interactionists. (See for example , , but also to the more recent strands of the social model of disability and developments within the disability studies field. (See for example Gabel 2001, Oliver 1990). Thus the concept 'disability' is political, used to enforce and sometimes even legitimate exclusion, or social marginalization, exploitation and poverty. From this point of view, the construction of disability is both a complex social construction and a personal identity, but neither a medical condition nor a learning problem.

School inclusion refers to a process, which implies not only that all students are welcomed to generic schools, but that teaching and learning is organized so as to meet a diversity of talents and learning needs. I am partial to inclusive schooling. Not because of a naive belief that bringing disabled children to typical schools will automatically solve students' problems; however I do think that a school striving for inclusion can provide disabled students with an opportunity for participation and appropriate education. .

Barton (citing: ) points out "that it is useful to think of inclusion involving two processes":

That lens focuses my research on the complexities of inclusive and exclusive practices in general schools. Dyson, from his pragmatic strand, applying Booth's position, opens up the possibility to develop a more sophisticated understanding of the implications of particular forms of educational provision, avoiding the more black and white debate on inclusion or exclusion as states of educational practice.

The Icelandic value base is ruggedly individualistic and egalitarian, and there is a tradition of self help, hard work, and of mutual help in hardship situations. In modern Iceland, as in every other country, some are more equal than others. Differences in wealth and status are growing; marginalization of minority groups is a known phenomenon and disabled people tend to be less equal than most according to any measurement one might select. , (Bjarnason, 2002b), (Bjarnason, 2003a), Bjarnason, 2003b),

The state and local communities provide free education from the age of 6 to 16, and a largely free education at upper-secondary and university levels. The Education Laws of 1974 made, - for the first time in Icelandic education history -, provision for all students, including students with impairments, to be educated within the compulsory public school system. Lög um grunnskóla no. 63/1974)

Special schools for students with cognitive impairments and special classes for students with a variety of labels such as autism, mental illness, ADL and others were gradually opened. (Students who were deaf or labeled blind, however, had had access to special education since the late 19^th century). Students with a variety of disability labels were not generally invited into upper secondary schools until some years after the Education Act of 1994, amended 1996 and 1998. Lög um framhaldsskóla no. 81/1994 and Statutory Regulation on Upper Secondary Education from 1996 and 1998)

Adult education courses are available for a limited number of people with cognitive and multiple impairments. The 1974 law on compulsory education opened up the school system for disabled students. With the 1979 law on Support for the Mentally Retarded , and subsequent legislation regarding disabled people, normalization and integration became the law of the land. These two milestones opened up possibilities for disabled persons to become fully included active members of society and to obtain services adapted to their needs in general schools and other institutions in the community. However the spirit of a law is one thing, and its implementation quite another. Sub-clauses in the laws and statutory regulations defined an array of specialized services, from special classes to segregated group homes and sheltered workshops. Consequently, a battery of segregated services has been developed in the past two decades, as never before in Iceland. (Bjarnason 1996, Mostly these services have opened up in urban areas. At the same time, and in particular after the mid 1980s, the ideology of inclusive schooling and society has been gaining momentum. In the 1980s and 1990s parents, parent associations and some associations of disabled people pushed for inclusive services both in the urban and rural sectors. Two schools of thought have marked the lifetime of the young disabled adults of this study; on the one hand the development of a variety of special services and inclusive services on the other. (Bjarnason 2003d)

The educational system is traditionally organized within the public sector. The few private schools in the country are largely financed by the tax money. The Althing is responsible for the educational system both legally and politically, and determines its basic objectives and administrative structure. The Ministry of Education has jurisdiction over the system. Since the mid 1990´s the educational system has been somewhat decentralized. Responsibilities and decision making about the running of individual schools, that before belonged solely to the Ministry of Education, have been turned over to the local authorities. Local municipal authorities are thus responsible for the operation of preschools and compulsory education schools including special education schools, units and special classes. The state runs the upper secondary schools, and most schools at the higher educational level. 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 higher education level from 20 years of age onwards. The diagram below, table 1, shows the structure of the system.

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.

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.

Most schools have voluntary parent associations, but each and every compulsory education school must have a Parents' Council, a school advisory body, made up of three parent representatives.

School evaluation of preschools and compulsory schools are the responsibility of the Ministry of Education, voluntary internal evaluation is becoming more widespread within individual schools, and the Ministry is responsible for initiating external quality control of upper secondary and higher education schools.

Table 1. The Icelandic Education System 2002
Source. The Ministry of Education, Science and Culture. 2002

The current education structure is the result of changes in education laws in the 1990's. These changes are related to education reform efforts that are for example affected by changes in education policies in many western countries in the past two decades of the 20^th century, the international test comparisons, and partly related to the diversification of compulsory education from being state run to being turned over to the local communities.

Qualitative research methods are based on the view that reality is a product of society . Little research has so far been done on disability issues in Iceland. The main source of data are interviews and their analysis. I interviewed 36 young adults with a variety of severe impairments, one or both parents of 30 young adults (44 people in all), 12 teachers , and 12 friends. The interviews were in depth, semi-structured and lasted from 45 minutes to over 2 hours. They are typed, and coded and analyzed. (See Bogdan and Bicklen (1982), Taylor and Bogdan (1984) and others). Documents and interviews with key bureaucratic workers also form part of the data.

Disability Labels	Number
Cognitive Multiple Physical Sensory (3 deaf/hard of hearing, 1 visual impairment) Emotional (autism) Physical illness/accident Total	18 2 7 4 2 3 36

As the interviews developed, I looked for young adults with a wide range of backgrounds; from urban and rural settings around Iceland, from different social classes and family structures, and people with a wide range of abilities, interests and impairments.

School Type		Home			Work Place		Region
Special school	0	Parental home	22		Regular work	4	Reykavik and greater Rvik area	16
Special class in high school	12	Own flat/living alone/living with partner		8	Sheltered workshop	7	Towns and villages		16
Regular high school/Tertiery ed/ University	11	Group home		5	Unemployed but available to work	1	Farms		4
Adult education for disabled learner	4	Other		1	Farms	1
TOTAL	27	TOTAL		36	TOTAL	13	TOTAL		36

My own professional and personal experience over the past 20 years as a university teacher and a researcher of sociology and disability studies, and as a single mother of a son with severe disability, inform and focus my research. (Bjarnason 1996b, 2003c)

The young people in the sample were placed in the following educational settings for the most part of their compulsory school years or were moved between schools or within the same school in that time.

Special School Only	Moved from Special Class to Special School	Special Class	Moved from Typical Class to Special Class/ Special School	General Ed. School Only
5i	1 ii	5iii	7iv	18 v Tot 36

As table 4 shows, compulsory school placement varied across the spectrum from segregated to inclusive settings, but school placement does not provide information about what the learner experienced, felt or thought about his or her schooling.

The special schools or units are all in urban areas, and serve under 0,6% of the compulsory school population. 6% of all labeled school children attended these schools according to data collected in 1998, and the teacher student ratio was then 1 to 1,9 . These schools cater for students with cognitive or multi impairment, to deaf students, and the units for students labeled mentally ill or autistic. These schools are small and homely and adorned with students' art work. Team-teaching and planning are built into teachers' work, and students have IEP´s. Students get much individual attention, and sometimes additional services such as physiotherapy or speech therapy. Many are driven to and from school by a drivers-service for disabled people, and for some additional day care (after-school) services are available either as part of the schools or in close connection with the schools. The catchment area for these schools was, at least formally until 1996 all Iceland. With the changes in the law (1995) the administration of the special schools moved to the local communities. The special schools organize summer camps, trips abroad, sport and other leisure activities for their students, have parent-teacher associations, and provide parent support.

Five of the key informants had been in special schools during their ten years of compulsory schooling. All had labels of cognitive disability or multi disability. Mostly, they had fond memories of the school. Some parents also stressed that they had appreciated the personal support provided to them by staff. Some complained that they had not been taught enough at the special school. Klara enjoyed her friends and teachers, but she said:

Sólrún's mother worried that her daughter had not been helped to stretch her abilities at the special school. She echoed the views expressed by a number of parents of children in special schools when she said:

These examples are typical of the narratives from the special school students who spent their 10 years at compulsory school level in the special schools, and for some of their parents.

0,7% of all students are placed in special classes on a full time or part time basis. These are special classes in general education schools. Staff-student ratio is high 1,6 to 1, students get individual attention, some have IEP´s . They work individually with a staff member, in small groups and many visit or join general classes for one or more subject. Teacher's work individually, in teams, and some have developed a cooperative relationship with some of the general educators at their schools. The special classrooms also tend to be homely, with soft furniture as well as some general school furniture, and resemble in many ways the classrooms of younger typical children.

One of the young people, Hjalti, was moved at the age of 11 from a special class for learners with physical disabilities to a special school for students with a variety of labels of moderate to mild cognitive and other disabilities (IQs not below 50). He was not too happy in the special class:

Other things frustrated him too. He felt he had spent too much time waiting for people; to be pushed in his chair, for help to use the bathroom, to eat, and for the other children to finish what they were doing. But there were also good memories from the special class. He found a friend there, a boy with physical disability, and he was sometimes allowed to sit in typical classes with non-disabled peers. He described that so:

He said that he was pleased about moving to the special school. There he learnt to love one of his teachers who later became a trusted friend and mentor.

Hjalti moved across the school spectrum from integrated to segregated settings in compliance with his family's wishes, gained new companions and friends and learnt practical skills. He became embedded within the special world for labeled people .

María belonged in the special class for learners with physical impairments, but also spent time in general classes. She is still angry at the teachers in her special class for over protecting her and doing things for her that she later had to learn to do for herself, the hard way. She remembers the special class like this:

She did get help from classmates and teachers in typical classrooms, where she participated on a level playing field academically and made friends. However she felt herded against her will with the other labeled students .

According to María, there were certain good points about being a member of the special class, but they did not outweigh the negative aspects. She said:

She also had problems with the feedback her teachers gave her on her work in the special class. She said:

María' s complaints were not the least directed at how she felt the special class prevented her from making mistakes and learning from them. She said:

Her parents remember the special class years as a difficult, and a lonely time (the teenage years in particular) for their daughter. She learnt to adapt her needs and wants in compliance with the support system's ability to respond. This theme of paternalism goes through the narratives from special schools and special classes. Staff's paternalism in the special classes is likely to bread learned helplessness in several ways, it may curtail students' courage to act for themselves in unfamiliar surroundings, in exploring the unknown, and their belief in their own accomplishments and judgment. Reports of staff erring towards paternalism, are here placed under exclusionary processes within the education system

Not all the students or their parents complained of such over-protectiveness. Most appreciated the support and efforts of the special teachers, even though many mentioned the lack of educational demands made upon their children in the special class. Underestimation of students' ability to learn can also be placed within exclusionary processes.

Seven youth went directly from a typical class where they had been from 1-6 years, into special class or special school. The were two main reasons for such moves; the students were teased or bullied by fellow non labeled students, and to get their educational- or, (in the case of two students with hearing problems) communication needs better met.

Three students were moved from a typical school into special class or special school because they suffered from harassment from their peers. The story of Jóhanna provides a good example of this. Jóhanna is a married woman, labeled with mild cognitive disability. She glowed with pride and happiness at her sparkling clean home and well-dressed children, but when I asked her about her compulsory schooling she started to sob.

She said that everything changed when, at the age of 13, she went to a special class in another town.

The memory of being bullied in general school or in special classes, is shared by too many students in the sample. In all, fifteen students said that they had suffered aggressive teasing by some of their schoolmates or from neighboring children while in compulsory school. A few were moved into more segregated settings, others to another school. Most reported that they were made to endure their torture, but the bullying sometimes changed into their being ignored by peers and even some teachers, resulting in isolation and increased stigmatization. Such suffering is likely to be devastating to a person's self-image, self-confidence, coping mechanisms and enjoyment of life. Being teased or bullied means that the person is seen and given attention , however unfortunate that attention may be. Being isolated and ignored may be even worse; " It is like being invisible or dead", a young disabled man told me. For these students, the move to segregated educational settings offered a respite; a safer place where they found more understanding, better support and sometimes a new friend.

Four young people were moved from general schools to special schools or classes for educational- or communication reasons. Pála was moved from a typical school to the special school for the Deaf.

She had one good friend from her preschool days, who helped her and told her what was going on, "almost like an interpreter". Pála kept up with the academic subjects in school but felt increasingly lonely. She said:

Then she got introduced to the Deaf School, where she met other deaf students and where she later enrolled and learnt to sign. Learning to sign opened a new world for her and "gave her a sense of belonging.." ,

Many of the students who had experienced being moved from typical school to special school or special class shared this complaint; the special school or class was reported to make too few academic demands on students, and teachers were felt to be kind but somewhat patronizing in comparison to their experiences from general schools and typical classes. Almost all said that their social world seemed too narrow in the new segregated settings, but their view on whether that was good or bad varied.

Iceland has about 200 general compulsory schools, with from almost 900 to fewer than 10 students. The students numbered some 43.500 from 6-16 in 1997-98. Fewer than 2% attend private schools at that level. Aprox. 17% of all students in general education classes are reported to have some special education needs, some 10% are on group education programs and 7% on individual education programs (IEP´s). General education teacher student ratio is 1 to 12, but class size is aprox. 20-24 children in general urban schools. , . Many schools are new, almost all are well cared for, and most have a reasonable supply of books, computers, and other teaching aides. The National Curriculum (from 1976, and 1999) provides schools at that level with reasonable flexibility as to the organization of teaching and learning. While a number of these schools, teachers or teacher groups, have worked hard at adapting and adopting new and progressive methods of organizing teaching and learning so as to meet a variety of needs and interests, most schools are reported to tread along a much more traditional road at the time my subjects were at compulsory school.

Small country schools (approximately half of all Icelandic compulsory schools), have 50 students or fewer. . These are schools in rural areas or schools in small fishing villages. They have the advantage of being able to provide individual students with a certain amount of flexibility; solve most obvious access problems, such as getting a student into a building, or on to a bus for a school outing, as such problems arise. , .

Eighteen students attended general education schools at compulsory school level. Two of the young people did not have any impairment until late in their compulsory school education. They participated in general school in the typical way. A third gradually took to his wheelchair at that time.

Sigurður was more or less included with typical peers in general classes where teachers emphasized flexibility. He said:

He was different in the way he looked and moved from the other children at school, and his speech was slurred to the extent that it was hard to understand him. He said:

These student narratives suggest that they experienced high expectations, pride in their efforts, and joy in learning despite difficulties, and in being with typical peers, respect and non-patronizing supports from most teachers. Still, most reported some loneliness, and lack of active social participation with non-labeled peers. All saw themselves as a part of the school, but not always as part of the social community of their class, some had experienced passive participation at times in the curriculum work. A few had been pulled out more and more with advancing years for individual tuition or parallel teaching in a group of other students with learning problems.

Access was a problem for some disabled students in many general education schools, both to the curriculum and to the physical buildings. Access problems are ranked with exclusionary processes. , , Most of the young people in wheelchairs who attended general education schools had problems persuading the schools to put up ramps. The parents often had to fight with the school to secure these, and in two cases their fathers built the ramps themselves. Transport to and from school could also be problematic. Again, this was a problem some of the time for all the students in wheelchairs, and for some students labeled with cognitive disabilities in general schools, who lived outside urban areas. Lack of access to physical buildings, to the school curriculum and to the school's community results in exclusion.

Pétrún, who has physical impairment, started her education in a small traditional village school. She learnt that she was different while in school.

She moved and changed schools when she was 13 years old. The new school, in a bigger town, received her well.

Most of the disabled students appreciated being in general education schools and classes. They appreciated their opportunities to learn with the typical students and were proud of their achievements. Still, life in the typical class could become very difficult and lonely for such students. Exclusionary pressures began to outweigh inclusive processes as academic subjects became more prominent, particularly in more traditional schools. Still most of the students in general schools found themselves near the periphery of the school curriculum and the school social life as they got older.

Inclusive education in upper secondary schools is more complex and problematic for teachers, than in the case of compulsory education, because upper secondary schools are mostly large, bureaucratic institutions set up to prepare young people for work or further studies in the adult world. , .

The young people in the sample have all been entitled to some further education under the law, but their opportunities to go to an upper secondary school in their neighborhood has varied. Most of the young people labeled cognitively disabled have had a possibility of two to four years further education in brand new special classes. Others with that label, have stayed on at their special school or entered adult education classes that provide short courses for adults labeled with cognitive disabilities. Those with other disability labels have been entitled to a maximum 4-5 years of upper secondary education, before university. Disabled students who do not fulfill admittance qualifications of the upper secondary schools, are to be admitted at the discretion of the school principals. . This means that despite the fact that all disabled students have the right by law to enter upper secondary schools, principals in each school can decide who gets admitted and who does not. Basic qualifications such as being able to read, or having a steady hand are amongst criteria set down by some of the principals.

Between 70% and 80% of each cohort of students 16 years or older enroll in upper secondary schools (academic, technical or other) each year since the 1980's. Approx. 70% graduate from compulsory school having passed the national exams with the required minimum for entry, up to a further 10% of students are enrolled in general preparatory classes, that enable them to enhance their skills or grades from compulsory school. The drop out rate from upper secondary education is high but differs according to streams, or well between 30% to 40% of each cohort, depending on the year in question. Less than 1/2 to 1/3 of each cohort of students who enter traditional academic streams complete in the prescribed 4 years. , , . Many students take time out for a year or switch streams or schools, and a considerable proportion drop out all together. At this school level students are more or less expected to be or become adults. The organizational structure provides a certain amount of flexibility to individual students, but flexibility according to bureaucratic rules. The students education is thus formally more aimed at "Tilpassning" to the particular curriculum and to organizational forms than to "Dannelse". . In such a system students are expected to keep up with the material taught, or fail.

General Comprehensive Gymnasium Commercial College	University	Special class Comprehensive Technical College	Adult Education for students with disabilities	Other; compulsory ed., not in school, etc.
9	2	15	4	6

The young people in the sample were divided between schools at the upper secondary and university level as shown by table 12. Nine young people attended general upper secondary schools, and the two who had entered university were graduates from such schools, fifteen were (or had been) in special classes at this school level, four were in adult education for persons with cognitive disabilities, and six were either still in compulsory education, individual special education, or they had quit school.

Individual stories varied, but a number of common themes emerge from the data. The themes revolve around accessing the school and the school community, educational provisions, teachers and teachers' quality, and the participation or lack of participation in the school community, friends, isolation and loneliness.

Bullying is not reported from this school level, but more young people mention isolation and being overlooked. The special class students complained about being grouped with the same old crowd from the special schools or classes or even from preschool. A number of the young people who attended general upper secondary school, also mentioned that some teachers did not treat them like the other students, for example shied away from asking them questions in class, or paid them over-much or inappropriate attention.

Table 5 shows that eight of the young people in the sample were placed in general education classes both at compulsory and upper secondary levels. These were all students primarily with physical disabilities. Þór's narrative provides a good example of how students with complex needs were enabled to participate actively in the curriculum, and in Þór's case also in his school's culture.

Before Þór joined the school, his father made sure that relevant ramps and electric gadgets were put in place to reduce his problems accessing the school buildings. Þór remembers his upper secondary schooling fondly. He was at a boarding school and returned home for weekends and holidays. Þór arrived knowing that he had friends and old classmates at the upper secondary school. The guidance counselor, who was also a teacher, helped organize the supports he needed.

He found it easy to get friends to help him, and was not shy to ask for such help.

Þór said he liked his teachers, but because there was a high turnover of teachers in country schools at the time, he did not form any special attachment to any of them. He valued that no teacher treated him differently from any other student. Þór's only complaint from those years were related to his problems getting the wheelchair between buildings through the snow.

Others met with more hindrances. Örn entered upper secondary school some years after his illness which left him blind and tied to a wheelchair. He spends much of his time in typical class, but gets some special education support. His approach to his impairment is a matter of fact one; " It's OK to need help. I am just the way I am, and have to accept that". He does not mix much with his schoolmates and has a relative, but no close friends at school. After school he returns home and spends his time listening to music and doing his homework.

Örn has problems getting adequate technical aids to help him take notes or read what the teachers write on the blackboard. He mostly sits in class and tries to listen to the lessons.

Despite this he was happy with most of his teachers, and especially with a special teacher at his school who has proved himself very helpful over the years. He got to know many of them personally, while waiting by the staff room for his helpers or his next class, and he defended their forgetfulness, by saying:

None of the disabled students in general classes at upper secondary school had specific learning problems, but all had significant needs for personal supports, and for minor adaptation in the organization of the class work, particularly when students took notes, had tests or laboratory work. Because of these needs they had problems with the "Tilpassning" (the process of the student's adaptation to the school rules and norms) , problems that school staff and the student body either did not notice, or approached with indifference at times.

The general upper secondary schools were not seen to be very able in dealing with the educational or social needs of students who did not quite fit the norm. Attempts were certainly being made, but with varying success. Yet these students were prepared to overlook the schools' inadequacies as long as they did not feel directly and deliberately humiliated or undervalued. Friendship with typical students, and an ability to access the curriculum were the keys to overcoming access problems at this school level.

Three of the young people who participated in general education alongside non-labeled peers in upper secondary school, came from special class or special school at the compulsory school level.

María experienced a traumatic change when she moved from the special class into an upper secondary school, and almost gave up in her first year.

María realized that she had to get accepted "at a table"¹ if she was to continue in the school. No one spoke to María. She began to wander if the other students were not just as shy as she was, or if they were scared of her difference, and she decided to act. Before being accepted she experienced several rejections but kept on trying.

Personal support was inadequate at the upper secondary school. María needs support to go to the bathroom but that was at first hard to find.

She solved this, like so many other problems, by getting trusted friends to help her.

Educational supports could also be a problem. For the first year María was insecure about the quality of her work, because she did not get all the praise she was used to, and the teachers did not monitor her work closely. Some teachers did not put the same educational demands on her as they did on their non-disabled students. She gave this example:

Part of María's baggage when she arrived at the upper secondary school was learnt helplessness, which made it enormously difficult to overcome the exclusionary hindrances at her school. But she also brought with her strong academic skills, and determination to overcome the barriers that faced her.

Disabled students in general upper secondary school experienced a number of similar problems. Problems of access, isolation and stigmatization run through these narratives as they did in narratives from general compulsory schooling, but with a difference. Being accepted into the school community, gaining friendships, and becoming a part of a peer group is very important to upper secondary school students. . Despite the fact that most of the disabled students in general upper secondary schools had at least one friend, the isolation is apparently an even greater problem at this school level than in compulsory school. Almost all tried to adapt to the schools bureaucratic and other organizational requirements and took pride in doing so and succeeding. For some "Tilpassning" was as hard, as if they were Cinderella's stepsisters trying to fit the famous glass-slipper.

All these students, and almost all the disabled students in the sample, appreciated their schooling and their opportunity to get education, despite having to take on a kind of "steeplechase" to access it. Many tried to change their situation in order to get their teachers to adapt their teaching, struggled to get necessary technical aids, and to "break the ice" with peers. Fewer make use of their own resources, adjusted their needs to available resources, made do with their interests and their few friends and tried to accept their situation as it was. Only one person had lost hope in benefiting from school, and admitted that she was afraid of new people trying to communicate with her; She spent her life on the internet.

Almost all the young people in general upper secondary schools admitted to being angry about particular problems related to their personal supports, their teachers' lack of awareness or understanding or low expectations, and problems related to "breaking the ice " with non-disabled peers. Still, almost all explained and generally excused their teachers, the schools inflexibility, or their peers' shyness, taking some of the blame for such problems onto themselves. "I was not bold enough....so I am partly to blame", was a common explanation in such cases. Nobody said they wanted to join a special class or school.

Inclusive and exclusionary processes seesaw on the upper secondary school cliffs; some hang on, and others fall off. Having friends who are active learning members of their school and community helps students with and without disabilities to hang on.

Fifteen of the young people were part-time or full-time in special classes at upper secondary schools. Eight came from special schools or special classes, and seven from general schools and typical classes. The special classrooms had an air of intimacy and cosines, in distinct contrast to rather cold and bare typical classrooms. They were also tidier and for the most part much less noisy. Special classrooms or units of special classrooms were to be found in various locations at the schools, some near the center of communal activities, others in basements, separate wings, or in separate buildings, and makeshift huts on the school grounds. Common to all was that these classrooms remind me of classrooms for much younger students in compulsory schools. Students' work was on display, and an assortment of books, teaching material, computers, and sometimes plants and soft furniture adorned these classrooms. The classes were small, with from 6-8 students, and interaction between students and teachers and paraprofessionals was informal and personal.

The common themes that emerged from their interviews centered around problems in special schools or classes at compulsory level. These were: problems of access, to get admitted to school, the small unvaried group of schoolmates, lack of educational challenge, controlling teachers or staff, good caring teachers, safety and security. It seems that their schooling was marked more by teachers' attempts to individualize teaching and learning, that is towards "Dannelse" ( the stimulation of personal development) , and to make them feel good and break their isolation by organizing activities within the special group. These students did not mix much with typical students, although some partook in certain communal activities at school. Most of the students came directly from the special schools. In one school a typical student suggested to me, that the behavior of the students in the special class was "childish. We try to help them stop that - it is fucking embarrassing", but I was not told for whom.

In one of the schools, efforts were being made to include the special classes as groups within the school community. . A few disabled students, particularly students from that school, talked about how great it felt to "do things like the others" Typical students commented to me that it was "good that handicapped students are in our school", that they have "a right to study like everybody else", but also that they are "a little childish", and that "we [typical students] do not really get to know them".

Eight students had been in special school or special class throughout (most of) their schooling. Sólrún is one of those. She was not admitted immediately to the special class in the local upper secondary school despite the fact that her parents applied as soon as she had graduated from the special school. Admission to the special class in her local area was limited to students thought to be the most able. Sólrún was not one of those. Her parents ended up lobbying school principals, staff at the Ministry of Education, and finally with other dissatisfied parents they turned to the Minister of Education and to the media. Sólrún was enrolled into the adult education program for adults labeled cognitively disabled, a program they had not intended for her. The students' ages covered much of the adult spectrum from teenagers to people in their fifties, and they had three hours of teaching, three days a week. Sólrún was bored and under-occupied according to her mother.

The parents applied again for schooling for their daughter, despite the fact that she was formally too old to gain admission under the current regulations. Again their application was turned down, but as luck would have it, a place became available in a special class in an upper secondary school. Sólrún was offered the place and returned to school.

At school she met students both with and without labels. She has made friends with her classmates, and been swimming with two young women from a general class. She said she has thought about what it might be like to be in a general education class.

Almost all the students in special class spoke highly of their special teachers as being "a good teacher", "OK teachers", "good because he cared and helped us" and "good because I learn more in the special class". Students who came from general education schools and had experienced bullying found the special class a safe place.

Young people in the sample who had been included in general education for most of their compulsory school years were varied in their contentment in the special class at the upper secondary level.

Ólafia, was angry at not being able to be with her former classmates. She said:

Her mother said that Ólafía was discontented to be in the special class, pretended to be ill at times and refused to go to school

Daði left special class after a year. Daði is labeled autistic, but despite that had been in a typical class with extra support throughout compulsory school, and had passed his exams there like other students. He explained his upper secondary school year thus:

Daði said that he did not get to know his fellow students, but that some students dared him to do silly things. His parents confirmed that the support was not adequately in place at the school. He dropped out of school, and found a place at a sheltered workshop.

Four of the young people attended an adult education program for persons labeled with cognitive disabilities, and a fifth person, Sólrún spent two year at the program before she found a place in a special class upper secondary school. The program was placed in one of the big urban schools, but was not in any way a part of that school. The students there had their own teachers, used a different entrance to get into the school building, and they were not expected to use the school coffee bar. The adult education program offers short courses in such things as cooking, self-help, and many other practical skills.

Other students were happy in their adult education program. All of them had a number of other activities to fill their time. Klara sums up their attitude. She said:

The adult program obviously has its place in the flora of the Icelandic special education system as it is now. It teaches skills that the disabled students and their parents are pleased with, but it does not replace going to school in the more traditional sense, and it fills too little time in the learners' everyday lives to be considered as a real alternative to school or work. Further, this is the most exclusionary program of all available educational options to youths and adults with disabilities.

Three of the young people in the sample were still in compulsory education, all in general classes. They were, however, not with their peers; they had been delayed in compulsory school by anything from one to three years. One young woman with cognitive disability visited an upper secondary school for a time. She attended the school two mornings a week for "individual tuition" for a couple of hours at a time. She was taught by herself in a vacant room at the school, and then returned home. Finally only one young woman quit school directly after compulsory education.

parents or friends, from segregated settings, special schools and special classes vary from a high degree of satisfaction with the secure placement, (filled with friends, but whom it was difficult to meet with after school due to their living far away, with memories of teachers who were described as kind, understanding and caring, but who frequently underestimated the students' willingness or ability to learn), to that of anger at being overprotected, underestimated and locked in with a small group of peers, without being able to make their own mistakes or select their own friends from a wider and more differentiated group. More people said that overall they had l good rather than bad memories from the special schools and special classes. Access was not a problem in these settings.

Similarly, memories from general settings were also diverse. Some of the young people remembered their compulsory schooling days fondly, as learning to become a part of the group, making friends and acquaintances, partaking in extra curricular activities, and being able to learn alongside peers, and in some instances keeping up with them in their learning. Too many reported loneliness, especially as they progressed onto older classes, feelings of isolation, being teased, not being heard or spoken to in a regular manner by teachers or peers, being overlooked by teachers in lessons, finding it hard to fit into the educational and social requirements of the class, and of access problems. Most spoke of their teachers as "being good" but not always as "being understanding" of their difference or their needs. Teachers were not remembered with the same fondness as the special class or special school teachers. Here teachers were valued for their ability to teach, be fair, for adapting learning material and examinations, for not showing pity, and treating the disabled student with the same respect as every other student. Paraprofessionals were also remembered with a variety of emotions, for being overprotective and bossy or supportive and helpful. Still, on balance, more people had overall good rather than bad memories from the general school.

Students who were moved between the two systems, sometimes more than once, were the least satisfied with their compulsory schooling. They were often moved because of their being teased or mistreated by peers, or because their parents, teachers or experts did not believe that they were getting appropriate individually tailored education, or (as in the case of two young women), to help them access sign-language and the deaf community .

The stories from compulsory school suggest that the special schools and classes focused primarily on the individual student's "Dannelse" , therapy, and self-help in everyday living, with class work adapted to what the special educators or therapists believed was appropriate for their disabled students. On the other hand general schools placed greater emphasis upon "Tilpasning" or attempts to adjust the disabled students to the social norms and work methods of the class work and the school. The segregated settings seem to lean towards providing safety, comfort, companionship, and at times professional paternalism, and the general school placements too often seem to lean towards a certain amount of insecurity and even neglect for disabled students special needs, but also opportunities for challenging educational and social situations and a broader base for building relationships.

The data from the young peoples´ upper secondary schooling paints a similar but sharper picture. At this school level almost all the students labeled cognitively disabled were placed in the special classes, mostly new additions to such schools. The young people who came to these classes from general compulsory schools and classes, missed their former classmates, and many found it hard to adjust to their new situation in the special class, but were at the same time pleased to be in the upper secondary school. Alternatively, students who came to such schools from more segregated compulsory schooling, were likely to embrace the opportunity to be in a general upper secondary school, while enjoying the personal support and guidance of special educators, and the (sometimes a bit suffocating) company of old schoolmates and friends and organized activities for disabled student groups. Both "Dannelse" and "Tilpasning" are at play in the educational processes of special classes, but with more emphasis upon the former.

The balance between indifference and paternalism appears from these students' stories in all cases tipped more or less towards paternalism. The students in the special classes can be ranked according to how the classes seem to be organized, from that of partial active or passive individual inclusion into general education classes, (the early stages of group inclusion) to that of almost full segregation and high level paternalism. Most of these students graduate with very few work skills, and are socially firmly embedded within the small, warm and secluded world of disabled people. Almost all hoped to get a job on the ordinary job market. Two of the schools were hoping to equip their special students with job skills and a "real paid job" upon graduation.

The picture is different for the disabled students who attended general education upper secondary schools alongside non-disabled peers. Most were, overall, glad they were in typical settings and more or less keeping up with general teaching. No one wanted to switch to special class or special school. They saw their education as instrumental to future jobs. The schools' abilities to receive students with special needs alongside typical students seem strikingly inadequate. Despite support from the guidance counselor services and from some of the general teachers, most of these students spoke of loneliness, few friends, isolation, access problems, and stigmatization such as not being seen or heard by fellow students or some teachers. The educational processes seem to further "Tilpasning" and inadequate supports to access the curriculum, personal care, technology and the student body, experienced by many of these students, suggest that the organizations of upper-secondary schools resulted in tipping the balance between paternalism and indifference uncomfortably towards indifference. Most struggled to improve their situations, and engaged in some self-advocacy. A few gave up, but those who persevered will have graduated with a certificate that could formally at least open up doors to further study, where they were likely to continue encountering access problems as did the two university students, or to the world of work.

Despite a variety of positive and negative experiences reported by the young people and a few parents, the overall picture, suggests that both compulsory, and upper secondary schools, are largely unprepared (professionally and with regard to access), to provide disabled students with a good education and full active participation in the schools' curriculum and the school communities. That is not surprising, and well documented in research elsewhere (See, for example: , , . Further, it must be borne in mind that most of the young people interviewed were involved in a new experiment, an experiment in inclusive schooling at both school levels, or an experiment in operating special classes for students labeled with cognitive or multiple disabilities in typical upper secondary schools. Interesting changes have been taking place in some of the upper secondary schools since I began this study, such as attempts to include special class students as groups, within the general student communities, and transition programs aiming at securing the special students with work at the end of their schooling.

One way of proceeding now is to look at what the students felt happened to them at school, and to pose questions. For example, how do students' different experiences of inclusion and segregation compare with regard to learning and social gains, or loss? What kinds of relationships were or were not available to students in different kinds of placements? Did more inclusive placements, for example, encourage or allow development of social relationships with a variety of disabled and non-disabled peers? If not, why not?

I will also discuss how I think students' educational settings helped in locating them according to my metaphor of the travelers on the different routes; the highway (group A), the special lane (group C) or as nomads in the wilderness (group B). Further I will explore in what way their schooling was likely to lead to wider social participation , work and their dreams of adulthood.

The storylines about inclusive settings in compulsory school suggest that at that school level, and particularly in the lower grades (1^st to 5^thgrade), the disabled students felt that they were seen and taken notice of by teachers and by fellow students. Some were bullied or teased, but sad as that may be, I believe teasing is better than being ignored and isolated. Many of the disabled students felt part of their classrooms for their first few years in typical schools. They (and their parents) felt that they were supported to access both the school curriculum and the classroom groups, even though the support was often insufficient, inappropriate or provided by the parents. This suggests, in Booth's terms , that at that stage the process of stigmatization and exclusion was, to some extent, held at bay by the competing processes of inclusion and participation. By the early teens things began to change for some, but not all, of the young disabled people attending typical schools.

One explanation for students' different experiences in general education classrooms can be found in the way teaching and learning tends to be organized. The national curriculum and school practice provides a lot of flexibility to teachers of younger students in general education schools to organize teaching and learning in a variety of ways. Academic book learning is not so much the focus in the first years of schooling. Instead, social and personal skills, reading, writing, arithmetic, sports and art are emphasized. Teachers put a lot of emphasis upon the "Dannelse" of individual students, as well as on teaching the group to cooperate and learn to respect each other and the school rules. For this many teachers use teaching methods like workshops, theme-work, games, art and craftwork and discovery learning. Young students frequently work in cooperative groups. Their teachers are encouraged to team-teach and cooperate in curricular development and planning. These methods give teachers greater possibilities to reflect on problems of classroom organization, and address some of the dilemmas and hindrances that may arise in inclusive practices. Teachers and schools vary in the extent to which these methods are used. Some are more traditional than others, but all work (at least part of the time), lies along these lines. Special teaching is provided inside the general education class, or in the resource room. As the academic learning takes over more time in the 6^thand 7^th grades, and preparations start for the national tests in the 10^th grade, learning becomes more competitive and teaching methods more traditional. Comparisons and competition between students increase. Homework also increases and good individual performance is highly rewarded. Students who are not able to keep up with their studies are made to feel their inadequacy. In that sense, students are made responsible for their own learning unless they are seen to have something wrong with them. At that point, the schools are expected to decide what is wrong with the student, and provide him with educational settings that are seen to match his or her special needs , . The process of "Tilpasning" gains more weight in the higher grades, even though "Dannelse" remains a focus throughout compulsory school.

Extra curricular activities gain momentum in the everyday lives of older students. Socialization is the process through which we develop our competences, and it is shaped and embedded within our culture and its institutions. Social decentration (that is, taking the other's perspective) as Frönes points out is, one of the major developmental tasks of adolescence. Likeness and social decentration are important for adolescent socialization and are at the core of peer group values. Frönes uses the term "Social puberty" (that is "playing with symbols for roles and style" in anticipation of young adulthood). This form of puberty extends from the age of twelve or thirteen to the mid or late teens, and according to Frönes, it forms a new socio-cultural construction of childhood and youth. "General cultural differentiations, individualization and children's' increasing autonomy, children's' information about the world as well as their own earlier social maturity - bring childhood and adolescence together in an amalgam that draws something from both."

As the years go by in the compulsory school, likeness, social decentration, and the playing with symbols for roles and styles take on a growing importance amongst peers. Thus it becomes harder for many disabled students to keep up with peer group activities or remain actively accepted by the group, if adequate support is not in place. As a consequence, both formal and informal organizations and processes of the school curriculum and the school culture may result in pushing students who are different further to the periphery of the class and school community. Active membership in a peer group and a supportive interactive classroom climate can counteract the exclusionary processes.

Generalizations are, of course, often misleading since each school has different combinations and varieties of how teachers and learners actually organize their work and social participation. The ability to accommodate heterogeneous groups of students seems to decline as the school curriculum calls for more academic learning. As the school takes on a more traditionally bureaucratic organization of teaching and learning, the pedagogical practices shift from emphasizing "Dannelse" towards "Tilpasning" . The dilemmas and the hindrances that Tetler identified as blocking cooperative forms of inclusive practices remain unnoticed by staff, and become reified in school and classroom habits. This strengthens further the exclusionary pressures upon students who have problems with learning, behavior, or who need substantial support.

Thus, as disabled students advance within the general education system, the greater the likelihood that the process of exclusionary pressures and stigmatization will hamper inclusive processes . This becomes more significant as the cohort moves on through schools and between school levels pushing students with differences and disability labels to the side. Further, the willingness to accommodate disabled students at all also depends on available alternatives. For example, it was more likely that a young person labeled cognitively disabled, was accepted in typical schools if he or she lived outside the greater-Reykjavík area.

Students' satisfaction with school, and particularly with the teaching, curriculum, access, and supports varied a great deal. However, these settings provided the disabled students in the sample with the opportunity to mirror themselves in activities and behaviors of non-disabled students and general education teachers, and brought some of them good friends. What they learned, and how they interpreted their lessons, seems to be linked with their past experiences in the family, and their families' expectations (see Bjarnason 2002a). Still, it is noteworthy that every disabled student felt good about having been included at compulsory school level. From the point of view of the disabled students it was very valuable to have experienced attending a typical school.

The transition into general upper secondary school was difficult for most of these students, increasing as it did their feelings of stigmatization, isolation and exclusion. Ties with old classmates often fell apart. Friendships changed or got dissolved and few new friendships were made. Different interests and activities took over the young people's time. This is common. For most (but not all) young people, a broader social network of friends and lovers and a kaleidoscope of different relationships and impressions await in upper secondary schools. In contrast, the social network was getting smaller for many of the disabled students . For some, it was increasingly more difficult to try to live with the demands of the curriculum, isolation, and the personal feelings of inadequacy that were reinforced each time they ran up against social or physical barriers. "Tilpasning" of students to the school organization, and bureaucratic indifference to students characterizes many of the upper secondary schools. Thus the transition from compulsory school is difficult for most non-disabled students. Disabled students who need support in their studies or for personal care found it even harder. Some, like María, brought with them learned helplessness. Others, like Örn, needed more supports than before due to their health condition, in an environment that was unprepared to deal with their needs, unaware of them, or lacking in understanding. Students' guidance counselors, who organize support services at the upper secondary school level, and fellow students who acted as assistants, seldom worked in unison with teachers. Consequently, little was done in these schools to adapt the organization of teaching to include disabled students in the lessons. The indifference experienced by the disabled students in upper secondary schools, and the barriers they ran up against, escalated the processes of exclusion and stigmatization that pushed many of them further towards the fringes of school life. Getting "accepted at a table" as a full active member of the peer group, getting included with peers and getting necessary support in place counteracted that. Endurance of relative isolation would, the disabled students believed, provide them with a ticket to work, to adulthood and mainstream society.

Their gains in upper secondary schools were: to study with others in a valued environment, get a certificate of equal value to that of their non-disabled colleagues and thus a ticket to further studies or the job market and the opportunity to compare notes and build relationships with age peers. But for some the personal costs were loneliness, isolation and a growing awareness of social barriers and of the social disablement of their bodies. Still, no disabled student I spoke to regretted having gone to the general upper secondary school. In contrast they were all pleased that they had made that choice. Further education is highly valued in Iceland, and these students, like most other students, are proud of their abilities. Those who dropped out mostly expressed a wish to resume their studies in typical upper secondary schools at some point, as do most other young people who drop out of upper secondary schools , .

According to my metaphor of the travelers on the different routes, I placed most of the students who came from general school at compulsory and upper secondary levels as travelers on the highway (Group A),because of their orientation to themselves and others as "belonging in and with society". They were prepared to struggle for their rights, for supports, and expected to access their dreams of adulthood or were already doing so.

Disabled students who were moved from typical classes in compulsory school to special classes at upper secondary level had problems fitting in, but a few felt relieved to get the individualized attention, and reduced academic pressures in the special class. Most felt smothered by professional paternalism and complained about not being able to choose for themselves as before. These were all students labeled cognitively disabled. The move out of general to the special system was a blow to most of these students. On the one hand they were glad to be in general upper secondary school, but many were dissatisfied or hurt and did not understand why they could not be with their friends from compulsory school. Most of these students did their best to fit into the school community if they had a chance to do so. When disabled students could not keep up with the lessons in typical classes they were, for the most part, pushed out, and the exclusionary processes surpassed the inclusive processes. Still, the students who managed to hang onto their social network, continued to struggle for their rights, and were supported in doing so by their families, maintaining their orientation to themselves and others as belonging in and with society. Such students were also placed on the highway (group A)

Students who started their schooling in special classes or special schools or who were moved into such settings while still at compulsory school, were used to their exclusion from general schooling. Their educational settings were either exclusive or grafted onto a general school. They were used to being with small groups of other disabled children and youth, used to adults focusing on their impairment, their shortcomings and their needs for support. They were also used to adults making decisions on their behalf, organizing their social lives. The paternalism that is reflected in some of the students' interviews was largely accepted as part and parcel of their "Dannelse" and in accordance with their pre-designed IEP´s. This, I suggest, hampered their opportunities for (in Frönes term ), social decentration, and narrowed their possibilities for age and culturally appropriate socialization processes, including their experimentation with symbols, roles and styles in anticipation of young adulthood. Exclusionary processes created by barriers at school and in society, surpassed attempts at including them in most general settings, and they had learnt to live with their stigma. The special world of disabled children and youths, endowed with symbols indicating disability and childishness, offered the disabled students membership and participation in the special community, acceptance and protection. Despite feelings of being under-challenged at times, most of these students lived more or less within a warm protective arena of extended childhood.

Students in special classes had greater opportunities to mirror themselves with the behavior and outlook of non-disabled peers than did students at special schools. However, attempts at breaking away from the cocoon of the segregated setting were difficult, and three of these students took refuge in joining a disability culture of their own choice.

Alternatively, transition from a special compulsory school to a special class in general upper secondary school was a big leap forward closer to ordinary community life. For some that leap held both dangers and the promise of moving individually, or with the group of disabled classmates, closer to a generic school community, and eventually into their local community. Where their special class organization erred towards paternalism, that promise did not hold, and despite situational integration the students were more firmly embedded within the special world. For these students, their teachers' ability to balance their work between paternalism and indifference, and between "Dannelse" and "Tilpasning" was the key to the special school students accessing inclusive processes and acceptance in anticipation of an adult life traveling along the highway or the special lane. When parents and teachers were in agreement on proceeding with the segregated special education, the disabled student's ability to step out of the special lane was minimal.

I placed most of the disabled young people in the sample that had mainly attended special school or class in group C. using the metaphor of the special lane because of their compliance with their situation and acceptance of their predicament. The gains of placement in the special lane were security, access to special supports and facilities, and companionship (at least while at school or in organized special events). The tradeoffs were a small, constant and uniform social network, a lack of opportunities to experiment and learn from their own mistakes in a variety of settings, narrower opportunities to engage in age and culturally appropriate socialization processes, and lost opportunities to build a broad base of age appropriate relationships. Finally, the norms and values of the special lane threatened to keep the young adults in a prolonged state of childhood or young adolescence which, in extreme cases, could turn them into eternal Peter Pans.

The nomads (the young people I placed in group B) in the "wasteland" have in common that at the time of the interview they were excluded from both the segregated and the general settings, sometimes both educationally and socially. They were neither included or segregated. School, both special and general, had failed them dismally, leaving them in a limbo of indifference and isolation for the time being. Alternatively, they were breaking away from one type of setting but not fully accepted as part of the alternative.

The conclusions point towards inclusive and exclusionary processes affecting students' learning and membership of inclusive educational settings, and pinpoint also strengths and weaknesses of educational experiences in segregated special education settings. The gains of attending and remaining in general schools appear to have the most impact, if the school in question is prepared to support a team of a variety of teachers, in adapting the organization of teaching and in a flexible and reflective program which aims at meeting both individual and group needs. I do not think that schools can be directly prepared in advance for admitting a particular disabled student, but must figure out a solution based on information about the disabled student, and support the teachers in a school climate aiming at active membership of all students , . With diminished flexibility, exclusionary processes stigmatize disabled learners, pushing them closer to the edge of the road of general community living. The inclusive processes at school get consequently weakened, but the impact of peers, families, and basic support and an individual student's ability to stay on track with his studies, counteract these pressures , , . Their gains from inclusive schooling are many: the opportunity to obtain an education that is expected to enable them to access ordinary life and work in the community, the potential for building varied relationships with peers, and the possibility of gathering broad experiences and processing along age and culturally appropriate socialization patterns . The trade-off for many disabled students in general schools, could be to live with bullying, and later with stigmatization, negative awareness of one's impaired body, loneliness, isolation and indifference. The gains from segregated schooling are a tailor-made education and training, security, understanding of students' impairment, and access to appropriate support and a group of companions, friends and potential sweethearts. The trade-off many disabled students in special schools and special classes may have to make varies in form and intensity depending upon where on the spectrum (from inclusion to exclusion), of their particular educational location, and how far its organization and professional involvement strikes a reasonable balance between paternalism and indifference, and Dannelse and Tilpassning. The trade-off for the students can vary from prospects of some kind of group inclusion into the community and the world of work, to that of remaining indefinitely as a protected childlike person in an adult form, living in the special world of services for disabled persons.

My main conclusion indicates that schooling is a powerful agent for placing these young people on vastly different tracks, independent of their disability labels; either on a track that leads them to an interdependent adulthood or to a track within a special world for "eternal children". No one is predetermined to spend his or her life on the same track, but experiences at school, with its processes of inclusion and exclusion, can stifle or further each and every disabled student's ability to remain on the current road, move across to the alternative, or wander on in the wilderness.

Andersson, Y. (1997). Implementing inclusive education. OECD proceedings. Paris, Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development : 45-47.

Barton, L. (1997). "Inclusive education: Romantic, subversive or realistic?" International journal of inclusive education 1 (3): 231-242.

Barton, L. (1999). "Struggle, support and the politics of possibility." Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research 1 (1): 13-22.

Barton, L.& Armstrong, F. (2001). Disability, education and inclusion: Cross-cultural issues and dilemmas. Handbook of disability studies. G. L. Albrecht, Seelman, K. D. and Bury, M. Thousand Oaks, Sage Publication.

Becker, H. S. (1963). Outsiders: Studies in the sociology of deviance. New York, Free Press.

Berger, P. L.& Luckman, T. (1967). The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. London, Penguin Pub.

Bjarnason, D. S. (1996a). Iceland: From institutions to normalization? Intellectual disabilities in the Nordic States: Policies and everyday life. J. A. Tössebro, Gustavsson, J. A. and Dyrendahl, G. Kristiansand, Höjskole Forlaget.

Bjarnason, D. S. (1996b). Undir hulidshjálmi: Sagan af Benedikt. Reykjavík, Mál og menning.

Bjarnason, D. S. (2002). "New voices in Iceland: Parents and adult children: Juggling supports and choices in time and space." Disability & society 17 (3): 307-326.

Bjarnason, D. S. 2002 . New Voices in Iceland. Young adults with Disabilities in Iceland: The importance of relationships and natural supports. The SJDR 4,2 p.156-189

Dóra S. Bjarnason 2002. Notes on schooling, school inclusion and exclusion in the 21^stCentury Europe. A paper submited and distributed to a workshop on "Education and Social Exclusion". The European Commission. Brussels, 26^th and 27^th September.

Dóra S. Bjarnason 2003. School inclusion in Iceland; Under the cloak. In the series, Education; Emerging Goals in a New Millenium. Edt. B. T. Peck. Nova Science Publishers, New York. P. 1-218

Dóra S. Bjarnason 2003. The social construction of adulthood with a difference in Iceland. In Inclusion, Participation and Democracy: What is the purpose? Edt. J. Allan. Kluwer academic publishers, London. P. 83 -104

Dóra S. Bjarnason 2003. Towards adulthood with a difference. In Encouraging Voices . Edt. M.Shelvin, M. Kenny et al. Dublin university press, Dublin. p. 86-116

Bjarnason, D. S. (in print 2003). Adulthood and disability. Inclusion, participation and democracy: What is the purpose? J. Allan. London, Kluwer.

Björnsdóttir, K. (2002). Throskaheftir framhaldsskólanemendur. Félagsvísindadeild. Reykjavík, Háskóli Íslands.

Bogdan, R.& Biklen, S. K. (1982). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods. Boston, Allyn and Bacon.

Bogdan, R.& Biklen, S. K. (1992). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods. Boston, Allyn and Bacon.

Bogdan, R.& Taylor, S. J. (1989). "Relations with severely disabled people: The social construction of humanness." Social Problems 36 : 135-148.

Booth, T. (1995). Mapping inclusion and exclusion: Concepts for all? Towards inclusive schools? C. Clark, Dyson, A. and Milward, A. London, Fulton.

Booth, T. (1998). From "special education" to "inclusion and exclusion in education": Can we redefine the field? Theoretical perspectives on special education. J. Tössebro and Haug, P. Kristiansand, Höyskoleforlaget : 43-60.

Booth, T.& Booth, W. (1996). "Parental competence and parents with learning difficulties." Child and family social work 1 : 81-86.

Devlieger, P. (1999). "Frames of reference in African proverbs." International Journal of Disability, Development and Education 25 : 439-451.

Dyson, A. (1997). Inclusive education: A theoretical and comparative framework. Frankfurt, European Conference on Educational Research.

Eggertsdóttir, R.& Marinósson, G. L. (2002). Bætt skilyrdi til náms: Starfsthróun í heiltæku skólastarfi. Reykjavík, Rannsóknarstofnun Kennaraháskóla Íslands.

Ferguson, D. L. (1995). "The real challenge of inclusion: Confessions of a 'rabid inclusionist'." Phi Delta Kappan 77 .

Ferguson, D. L.& Ferguson, P. M. (1995). The interpretivist view of special education and disability: The value of telling stories. Disability and democracy: Reconstructing special education for postmodernity. T. M. Skrtic. New York, Teachers College Press : 104-122.

Ferguson, P. (2001). Winks, blinks, squints and twitches: Looking for disability and culture through my son's left eye. [In print in Nordic journal of disability research]. NNDR conference, Copenhagen.

Ferguson, P. M. (1987). "The social construction of mental retardation." Social Policy 18 : 51-56.

Frönes, I. (1995). Among peers: On the meaning of peers in the process of socialization. Oslo, Scandinavian University Press.

Gabel, S. (2001). "Problems of methodology in cross-cultural disability studies: A South-Asian-Indian example." Exploring Theories and Expanding Methodologies 2 : 209-223.

Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity. Englewood Cliffs, N.J., Prentice Hall.

Grue, L. (1998). Pa terskelen: En undersökelse av funksjonshemmet ungdoms sosiale tilhorighet, selvbilde og livskvalitet. (On the threshold). Oslo, Universitet i Oslo.

Grue, L. (1999). Funksjonshemmet ungdom og livskvalitet. [Disabled youth and the quality of life]. Oslo, Noyam, Gyldendahl.

Gustavsson, A. (1999). Inifrån utanförskapet: Oma at vara annorlunda och delaktig. (Inside the outsiders' group: On being different and participating). Stockholm, Johansson and Skyttmo förlag.

Haraldsdóttir, I. (1994). Experiment in school inclusion. Beyond normalization, Reykjavík.

Högsbro, K., Kirkebæk, B., Blom, S. V.& Danö, E. (1999). Ungdom, utvikling og handicap. (Youth, development and disability). Copenhagen, Samfundsliteratur.

Jónasson, J. T. (1990). Menntun og skólastarf á Íslandi í 25 ár: 1985-2010. Reykjavík, [author].

Jónasson, J. T. (1992). "Thróun framhaldsskólans: Frá starfsmenntun til almenns bóknáms." Uppeldi og menntun 1 : 173-190.

Kirkebæk, B. (1999). "Dannelse eller tilpasning? Tilpasset oplæring i et historisk perspective." Nordisk tidskrift for spesial pedagogikk 3 (9): 179-186.

Margeirsdóttir, M. (2001). Fötlun og samfélag. Reykjavík, Háskólaútgáfan.

Marinósson, G. L. (2002). The response to pupil diversity by a compulsory mainstream school in Iceland. Institution of Education. London, University of London.

OECD (1999). Inclusive education at work: Students with disabilities in mainstream schools. Paris, OECD.

Sand, D. J., Kozleski, E. B.& French, N. K. (2000). Inclusive education for the 21st century. New introduction to special education. Belmont, CA, Wadsworth.

Shakespeare, T. (1993). "Disabled people's self-organization: A new social movement?" Disability, Handicap and Society 8 (3): 249-264.

Sigurgeirsson, I. (1992). The role, use, and impact of curriculum materials in intermediate level Icelandic classrooms. [Unpublished]. University of Sussex.

Söder, M. (1993). Normalisering og integrering: Omsorgsideologiew i et samfunn i endring. Mot normalt? Omsorgsideologier i forandring. J. T. Sandvin. Oslo, Kommuneforlaget.

Söder, M. (1997). Intergrering: Utopi, forskning, praktik. Den vanskelige intergreringen. J. Tössebro. Oslo, Universitetsforlaget.

Taylor, S. J.&Bogdan, R. (1984). Introduction to qualitative research and methods: The search for meaning. New York, Wiley.

Tetler, S. (2000). Den includerende skole - fra vision til virkelighed. Kobenhavn, Gyldendal.