Positioning children with special educational needs in early childhood education and care documents

This is a sel -a chi ed e sion o an o iginal a icle. This e sion may di e om he o iginal in pagina ion and ypog aphic de ails. Au ho (s): Ti le: Yea : Ve sion: Copy igh : Righ s: Righ s u l: Please ci e he o iginal e sion: CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 h ps://c ea i ecommons.o g/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ Posi ioning child en wi h special educa ional needs in ea ly childhood educa ion and ca e documen s © 2018 The Au ho s. Published by In o ma UK Limi ed, ading as Taylo & F ancis G oup Published e sion Heiskanen, Noo a; Alasuu a i, Maa i ; Vehkakoski, Tanja Heiskanen, N., Alasuu a i, M., & Vehkakoski, T. (2018). Posi ioning child en wi h special educa ional needs in ea ly childhood educa ion and ca e documen s. B i ish Jou nal o Sociology o Educa ion, 39(6), 827-843. h ps://doi.o g/10.1080/01425692.2018.1426443 2018 Full Te ms & Condi ions o access and use can be ound a h p://www. and online.com/ac ion/jou nalIn o ma ion?jou nalCode=cbse20 B i ish Jou nal o Sociology o Educa ion ISSN: 0142-5692 (P in ) 1465-3346 (Online) Jou nal homepage: h p://www. and online.com/loi/cbse20 Posi ioning child en wi h special educa ional needs in ea ly childhood educa ion and ca e documen s Noo a Heiskanen, Maa i Alasuu a i & Tanja Vehkakoski To ci e his a icle: Noo a Heiskanen, Maa i Alasuu a i & Tanja Vehkakoski (2018) Posi ioning child en wi h special educa ional needs in ea ly childhood educa ion and ca e documen s, B i ish Jou nal o Sociology o Educa ion, 39:6, 827-843, DOI: 10.1080/01425692.2018.1426443 To link o his a icle: h ps://doi.o g/10.1080/01425692.2018.1426443 © 2018 The Au ho (s). Published by In o ma UK Limi ed, ading as Taylo & F ancis G oup Published online: 18 Jan 2018. Submi you a icle o his jou nal A icle iews: 2168 View C ossma k da a h ps://doi.o g/10.1080/01425692.2018.1426443 Posi ioning child en wi h special educa ional needs in ea ly childhood educa ion and ca e documen s Noo aHeiskanen, Maa i Alasuu a i and TanjaVehkakoski depa men o Educa ion, uni e si y o Jy äskylä, Jy äskylä, inland ABSTRACT The a icle c i ically discusses he p ac ice o desc ibing child en’s special educa ional needs (SEN) in ea ly childhood educa ion and ca e (ECEC) pedagogical documen s. Documen a ion is unde s ood as a o m o go e nance. In cu en p ac ice, documen a ion is ex ensi ely used in educa ional ins i u ions. E en when he ocus o documen a ion should be pedagogical, he desc ip ions o child en’s SEN commonly desc ibe a child’s indi idual de ici s as a sou ce o educa ional p oblems. In his s udy, we used discou se analysis o in es iga e how p o essionals posi ion child en and cons uc hei SEN in pedagogical documen s. The esea ch da a consis ed o 143 documen s on 29 Finnish child en. Th ee ways o posi ioning child en wi h SEN we e iden i ied in he documen s: as a p oblema ic child h ough de ini i e desc ip ions, as a mul i ace ed child h ough con ex ual desc ip ions, and as a lea ning child h ough dynamic desc ip ions. The esul s highligh he impo ance o a pedagogical ocus and dynamic concep ualisa ion o SEN in ECEC documen a ion. In oduc ion Ea ly childhood educa ion and ca e (ECEC) plays a cen al ole in obse ing and de ec ing child en’s po en ial p oblems due o he dominan ideologies o he ea lies possible iden i- ica ion o special educa ional needs (SEN) and ea ly in e en ion. In he p ocess o peda- gogical documen a ion, obse a ions abou a child’s si ua ion a e collec ed in o documen s, such as indi idual educa ion plans o suppo plans ha a e ypically d a ed o child en wi h educa ional challenges. Pedagogical documen s a e in ended as pedagogical ools o planning and coope a ion wi h pa en s and o he p o essionals ( o example, Alasuu a i, Ma ks öm, and Vallbe g-Ro h 2014; Emilsson and P amling Samuelsson 2014). The impo - ance o in-dep h iden i ica ion o SEN as a basis o planning e ec i e educa ional suppo and mee ing he indi idual educa ional needs o child en is o en seen as a key jus i ica ion o p edominan ex ensi e and de ailed documen a ion ( o example, And easson and Wol 2015; FNBE 2010; F anck 2015; NRDCWH 2003). The e o e, he desc ip ions o a child o en comp ise he co e o hese documen s. KEYWORDS special educa ional needs; ea ly childhood educa ion and ca e; documen a ion; go e nance; discou se analysis ARTICLE HISTORY ecei ed 7 June 2017 accep ed8 Janua y 2018 © 2018 he au ho (s). Published by in o ma uK limi ed, ading as aylo & ancis g oup. his is an open access a icle dis ibu ed unde he e ms o he c ea i e commons a ibu ion-noncomme cial-node i a i es license (h p://c ea i ecommons.o g/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which pe mi s non-comme cial e-use, dis ibu ion, and ep oduc ion in any medium, p o ided he o iginal wo k is p ope ly ci ed, and is no al e ed, ans o med, o buil upon in any way. CONTACT noo a heiskanen [email p o ec ed] OPEN ACCESS BRITISH JOURNAL OF SOCIOLOGY OF EDUCATION, 2018 VOL. 39, NO. 6, 827–843 Documen a ion p ac ices o en go unques ioned e en hough, h ough documen a ion, child en’s educa ional challenges a e pe manen ly egis e ed in w i en o mal documen s. Documen a ion is o en jus i ied by he need o au ho ise he iden i ica ion o SEN and o o malise hese needs wi hin an ins i u ion (Coo en 2004; P io 2008). Al hough he p o- cess o iden i ying and eco ding child en’s SEN migh appea o be a neu al p ac ice, i is ne e heless a p ocess ha is ounded on he ideas o good and desi able conduc and he u u e p ospec s o he child (Mille and Rose 2008; Pa ding and Liljeg en 2016; Pihlaja, Sa lin, and Ris ka i 2015; Sandbe g e al. 2010; Vehmas 2010). In ECEC, especially, he iden- i ica ion o SEN e lec s wha is conside ed o cons i u e a good childhood a a pa icula ime and in a pa icula cul u al con ex (see Foucaul 1977). Documen s con inue o di ec educa ional p ac ices a e hei d a ing (Fe a is 2013). They e ame he hinking and he ac ions o pa ies using he documen s (Hjö ne and Säljö 2008), in luencing p o essional decisions and e en child en’s educa ional ca ee s (Boyd, Ng, and Sch ye 2015; Vehmas 2010). P o essionals’ subjec i e in e p e a ion o wha has been w i en plays a key ole in he p ocess; his is p oblema ic, especially since he li e ime o pedagogical documen s is ypically long: hey ollow child en du ing hei yea s in ECEC, a e ans e ed o he child’s school and a e e en ually a chi ed. A he same ime, documen s can o en be e isi ed and duplica ed in an unp edic able manne a e d a ing (Coo en 2004; P io 2008). The e o e, hese desc ip ions o child en ollow hem as hey g ow, lea n and change as indi iduals (see also Coo en 2004). Despi e hese conce ns abou documen a ion p ac ices, he ole o educa ional docu- men a ion is unswe ing. Nume ous s udies ha e esea ched documen a ion in ECEC ( o e.g. Alasuu a i and Ka ila 2010; Emilsson and P amling Samuelsson 2014) and in p ima y school special educa ion ( o example, And easson and Asplund Ca lsson 2013; Isaksson, Lindq is , and Be gs öm 2007), and some ha e in es iga ed child en wi h SEN in he con ex o ECEC ( o example, Sandbe g e al. 2010). Howe e , an in-dep h analysis o how desc ip ions o SEN a e cons uc ed and how, as a consequence, he child is ep esen ed in pedagogical documen s con inues o be needed. In his a icle, we apply a discou se analy ic app oach based on he idea o discu si e psychology1 (Edwa ds 2005) o in es iga e how a child and SEN a e ep esen ed h ough documen a ion. Wi h espec o discu si e psychology, we unde s and ha , in addi ion o pu ely desc ibing a subjec , w i ing also ec ea es social eali y and ce ain subjec posi ions (Ha é and Moghaddam 2003). The e o e, all de ini ions, including desc ip ions o SEN, a e always simul aneously desc ip i e and no malising, as hey include alue judgemen s ega ding he desi abili y o , o example, he pe son in ques ion (Foucaul 1977). The s udy sough o answe he ollowing ques ions: (1) How do ECEC p o essionals cons uc child en’s SEN in documen s? (2) How a e child en wi h SEN posi ioned by hese cons uc ions? Pedagogical documen s in Finnish ECEC In Finland, ECEC is p o ided be o e compulso y p ima y educa ion s a s in he yea a child u ns se en yea s old. As a pa o ECEC, child en pa icipa e in compulso y p e-p i- ma y educa ion in he yea p eceding he s a o p ima y educa ion. Rega ding SEN, all child en basically ha e igh o access o inclusi e ECEC g oups, which o m he mos 828 N. HEISKANEN ET AL. p e alen a angemen o educa ion in Finnish ECEC, al hough a ew seg ega ed special g oups exis , especially in he bigges ci ies. This esea ch ocuses on he documen a ion ca ied ou in inclusi e g oups. In Finland, as in many o he coun ies, pedagogical documen s a e an essen ial pa o suppo planning p ac ices in ECEC, and an indi idualised plan is d a ed o each child.2 These plans aim o indi idualise child en’s educa ion as well as o ensu e sys ema ic and a ge -o ien ed educa ion o all. The pedagogical assessmen o p ac ices as well as documen ing he coope a ion wi h a child’s gua dians a e also impo an aims o d a ing pedagogical documen s in Finnish ECEC and p e-p ima y educa ion. Typically, ECEC eache s a e esponsible o d a ing child en’s pedagogical documen s, especially when a child has been assessed as ha ing SEN. Howe e , especially in he case o oddle s and he younges child en in ECEC, hese plans a e d a ed by dayca e and home dayca e nu ses. In inclusi e ECEC g oups, ea ly childhood special educa ion eache s can ei he d a he documen s hemsel es o , as is ypical, mainly consul and suppo o he s a in d a ing hem ins ead o w i ing he documen s hemsel es. The composi ion o child en’s pedagogical documen s a ies conside ably a di e en ages owing o he di e en documen s used in p e-p ima y educa ion and in ECEC. This is a esul o di e ing legisla ion and cu icula be ween p e-p ima y educa ion and o he ECEC se ices. The legisla ion lays down wo di e en sys ems o SEN iden i ica ion and suppo planning: a mo e speci ic h ee- ie ed model in p e-p ima y educa ion, and a mo e gene al non- ie ed model in ECEC. The h ee- ie ed suppo sys em – which is some imes desc ibed as he Finnish Response o In e en ion model (Bjö n e al. 2016) – is employed wi h speci ic ins uc ions abou he p ocess o iden i ying SEN. In his sys em, child en can be p o ided wi h gene al, in ensi ied o special suppo . The h ee ie s a e conside ed o c ea e a con inuum wi h in ensi ying and mo e di e se suppo . Child en’s educa ional needs and he suppo ha has al eady been p o ided a e assessed be o e hei suppo is in ensi ied o educed. In he h ee- ie ed suppo sys em, a p e-p ima y plan is comple ed alongside o he documen s depending on he ie o suppo . In in ensi ied suppo ( ie 2), addi ional sup- po planning mus be included in he child’s p e-p ima y plan. In special suppo ( ie 3), he p e-p ima y plan is eplaced wi h an indi idual educa ion plan. In addi ion, be o e suppo is in ensi ied, a pedagogical e alua ion is conduc ed and a pedagogical assessmen o pedagogical s a emen documen d a ed (FNBE 2010; NRDCWH 2003; alid a he ime o da a collec ion). In ECEC, no ms guiding SEN documen a ion a e inde inable and educa ional suppo is usually discussed and documen ed as a pa o he child’s indi idual ECEC plan. Howe e , nume ous Finnish municipali ies ha e addi ionally employed he h ee- ie ed suppo sys- em in ECEC because i guides suppo p ac ices in a mo e de ailed manne . As an ou g ow h o his, ma ked di e ences be ween municipal ECEC suppo policies ha e eme ged in Finland. The e o e, while addi ional pedagogical documen s a e no equi ed by law in ECEC, hey a e o en d a ed in p ac ice. Documen a ion and p oblema ising ac i i y In his a icle, he p ocess o documen ing child en’s SEN is examined om he pe spec- i e o ins i u ional go e nance. Ins i u ional go e nance can be desc ibed, e e ing o BRITISH JOURNAL OF SOCIOLOGY OF EDUCATION 829 Nicholas Rose (1999), as ins i u ional and socie al ac s and p ac ices ha undamen ally aim a secu ing ins i u ional and socie al o de , secu i y, heal h and happiness. In his a icle, he concep o go e nmen ali y is u ilised, especially in ela ion o he no ion o p oblema ising ac i i y (see Mille and Rose 2008). Go e nmen ali y is a mode o go e nance conduc ed by iden i ying de ian o pa hological indi iduals and ways o being, and modi ying hem o ac in acco dance wi h socie al no ms and alues (Rose 1999). To do his, ins i u ions and socie ies need i s o collec in o ma ion abou such indi iduals (Rose 1999) and o s o e his in o ma ion in a measu able o m (Foucaul 1977; Mille and Rose 2008). To his end, speci ic echniques o go e nance (e.g. documen a ion) a e dedica ed o acqui ing knowledge o unwan ed cha ac e is ics and indi iduals (e.g. SEN and child en wi h SEN in educa ional ins i u ions). In educa ional p ac ices, p oblema ising ac i i y can be unde s ood as he assessmen and p esen a ion o child en’s conduc , lea ning and de elopmen . Child en who a e conside ed o be a isk o an undesi able de elopmen pa h o u u e a e documen ed as ha ing SEN, so ha he ea e ce ain p ac ices such as in e en ion, suppo measu es o secondmen s o o he loca ions (e.g. special educa ion classes) can be implemen ed. The documen ed in o ma ion abou child en wi h SEN allows he ele an p o essionals o in e ene in hese child en’s conduc : ha is, o wo k owa ds maximising hei capaci ies, o p e en u u e p oblems and, ul ima ely, o adap child en o socie al alues and no ms (Rose 1999). Documen a ion as a p ac ice can consequen ly be unde s ood as a o m o poli ical powe : documen a ion is ounded on a ionalisa ions abou he desi ed na u e o indi iduals and indi idual cha ac e is ics, ye i also econs uc s hese a ionalisa ions. The assessmen o who is ep esen ed as p oblema ic o special and wi h wha quali ies is ounded on social no ms and alues abou wha is ‘good’ and ‘desi able’ (Vehmas 2010). The idea o he sha ed u h o hings (Rose 1999), ha is sha ed alues and no ms, is also undamen al o he idea o p oblema ising ac i i ies: he cu en alues and no ms o ou socie y dic a e he iden i ica ion o a way o being, beha ing o de eloping ha needs in e en ion. Acco ding o Rose (1999), cu en echniques (e.g. documen a ion) o p oblema ising ce ain ac i i ies a e undamen ally ounded on, and aim a ealising, he ideal o indi iduals as ee and independen ci izens. Child en wi h SEN can be iewed as doubly unsuccess ul in mee ing hese c i e ia. Fi s , as child en a e ypically conside ed o be imma u e and dependen , childhood is seen as he mos go e ned phase o li e (see Foucaul 1977; Rose 1999). Second, when a child has SEN, which is basically an ins i u ionally p oblema ised s a e o si ua ion ha an indi idual is deemed o be in (see Rose 1999), go e nance becomes e en mo e p edominan . Posi ioning child en wi h SEN in documen a ion In he wo k conce ning he go e nance o childhood and he di e en o ien a ions o no mal and desi ed child en ac oss ime, Ka en Smi h (2012) p esen s a child’s indi idual esponsibili y o lea ning and de eloping as he mos cu en alue ela ed o a good child- hood. Based on he wo k o Jenks (2005), Smi h (2012, 28) sugges s ha in he cu en neo- libe al ‘idea o [ he] sel -maximising, en ep eneu ial subjec ’, child en a e p e e ably seen as compe en , ac i e and independen indi iduals. She goes on o iden i y he dis inc i e ea u e o his o ien a ion o childhood as shi ing he esponsibili y o success o ailu e 830 N. HEISKANEN ET AL. om ins i u ions o he child en as indi iduals and demanding ha a child independen ly de elops, lea ns and adap s o socie al no ms (Smi h 2012). As Smi h (2012) also poin s ou , e e ing o Kampmann (2004), he emphasis on he indi idual esponsibili y o he child and he exemp ion om liabili y o adul s can lead o inc eased ma ginalisa ion o disad an aged child en, such as child en wi h SEN. The desc ip ions o SEN ha p esen a child as he sou ce o he p oblem and as esponsible a e p oblema ic because hey o ien a e pedagogical p ac ice no owa ds pedagogical change bu owa ds indi idual change. Adul s a e absol ed o esponsibili y, and hei ole in p o- mo ing he desi ed change in a child’s si ua ion emains ague. F om he pe spec i e o p e ious esea ch on documen s ela ed o SEN, Smi h’s idea o a shi om adul liabili y o child esponsibili y seems ele an . Documen a ion should aim a desc ibing he pedagogical liabili ies o adul s, especially in he case o child en wi h SEN. Al hough he need o change in a child’s si ua ion is a key eason o iden i ying SEN, desc ip ions o child en wi h SEN a e ypically ound o cons uc he child’s si ua ion as unchanging and SEN as pe manen and, he e o e, he needed change as pedagogically una ainable (see Pihlaja, Sa lin, and Ris ka i 2015). P e ious esea ch has sugges ed ha he o igin o SEN, he esponsibili y o he de elopmen as well as blame o he si ua ion a e o en p edominan ly a ibu ed o he child ( o example, And easson and Asplund Ca lsson 2013; Hjö ne and Säljö 2004; Isaksson, Lindq is , and Be gs öm 2007, 2010; Pihlaja, Sa lin, and Ris ka i 2015). This appea s in he ac ha a child’s indi idual sho comings and de ici s a e usually desc ibed in de ail (And easson and Asplund Ca lsson 2013; Isaksson, Lindquis , and Be gs öm 2007), whe eas desc ip ions o he educa ional con ex as a o ce behind SEN a e o en missing (Hjö ne and Säljö 2008). As Røn La sen (2012) has p oposed, when a child in an educa ional ins i u ion is de ined in documen a ion as ‘special’, he child is o en p esen ed wi hou e e ence o he con ex and i s in luence behind he mani es a ion o SEN o as an au onomous ac o (see also Pa ding and Liljeg en 2016). As a esul o he p oblema ising o hei being and conduc , child en wi h SEN can be seen as posi ioned in a oubled posi ion, as someone who c ea es a social challenge in a ce ain con ex (We he ell 1998). S aunæs (2003, 104) desc ibes hese oubled subjec posi ions as ‘posi ions ha challenge he no ma i i ies a s ake in ce ain e e yday con ex s o li ed expe ience’. In o he wo ds, child en wi h SEN become p esen ed as p oblema ic indi iduals ia he use o language. In documen s, he oubled posi ion o a child wi h SEN is cons uc ed wi h he aim o poin ing ou he undesi abili y o he child’s si ua ion and o jus i y he need o no malise he child (see Mi chell, Mo on, and Ho nby 2010). The p edominan con en ion o desc ibing child en’s SEN as pe manen , s able and inde- penden o con ex ual ac o s also leads o he pe manen , s able posi ioning o a child. This is a somewha deba able line o hinking, as luc ua ing be ween being posi ioned as, o example, able o unable and compe en o incompe en is an essen ial ea u e o humans, and especially o being a child (Dan o h and Na aian 2015). Me hod The esea ch da a The esea ch da a comp ise pa o a b oade da a collec ion o p e-p ima y-aged child en’s pedagogical documen s. The documen s we e collec ed a he end o he p e-p ima y yea in BRITISH JOURNAL OF SOCIOLOGY OF EDUCATION 831 May 2016 om 19 classes in ou Finnish municipali ies. The municipali ies and p e-p ima y educa ion classes we e selec ed by applying he p inciple o maximum a ia ion in he sampling o ob ain as di e se a da a-se as possible (Pa on 2015). The e o e, he selec ed municipali ies di e in size and geog aphical loca ion. Mo eo e , he p e-p ima y classes di e ed in hei loca ions wi hin he municipali ies. In his s udy, he da a a e d awn om he pedagogical documen s o 29 child en assessed as ha ing SEN and who ecei ed ei he in ensi ied o special suppo du ing hei p e-p ima y yea . No p e-exis ing diagnos ic ca ego ies we e used o selec he child en. The documen s comp ise all o he pedagogical documen s on he a o emen ioned child en, hus co e ing hei educa ional his o y om he ime hey en e ed ECEC o he end o hei p e-p ima y yea (see Table 1). As desc ibed ea lie , due o a ia ion in municipal docu- men a ion p ac ices, he composi ion o he documen s di e s ma kedly. The o al numbe o documen s was 143, al hough he numbe o documen s pe child a ied om one o 11. On a e age, he documen s co e a pe iod o h ee yea s, al hough his a ied be ween one and six yea s as some child en had only pa icipa ed in he compulso y p e-p ima y yea and o he s had up o six yea s o his o y in ECEC. On a e age, he child en had been de ined as ha ing SEN a he age o i e, wi h a ange om h ee o six yea s old. The da a ga he ing ollowed he e hical ules and p inciples o social scien i ic in es i- ga ion (see, o example Ch is ians 2011). The esea ch collabo a ion was i s nego ia ed and eache s o p e-p ima y classes we e con ac ed h ough he heads o he egional ECEC se ice p o ision. Resea ch app o al was sough om he app op ia e au ho i y in each municipali y and eache s a he p e-p ima y classes we e pe sonally in o med abou he p ojec . Gua dians we e gi en a le e abou he esea ch wi h a eques o in o med con- sen . Bo h he eache s o p e-p ima y classes and he child en’s gua dians we e in o med o hei igh o wi hd aw om he s udy a any poin . Analysis In he s udy, he discou se analy ic app oach applied was based on he ideas o discu si e psychology (see Edwa ds 2005). This app oach o e s a use ul s a ing poin o esea ching he social p ocess o cons uc ing SEN in pedagogical documen a ion. By in es iga ing lan- guage in a de ailed manne wi h discou se analysis, i is possible o e eal he consequences o p oblema ic social p ac ices (e.g. he p ac ice o documen ing child en’s educa ional needs) on he ex ual le el. Mo eo e , he e ela ion o p oblema ic p ac ices, such as he Table 1. esea ch da a. no e: names o he documen s p esen ed in nBE (2010) and n dcWh (2003). Documen ype n (N = 143) Pu pose EcEc plan 64 Planning o ea ly childhood educa ion obliga o y o all child en a ending EcEc be o e p e-p ima y P e-p ima y plan 24 Planning o p e-p ima y educa ion can be d a ed o all child en obliga o y when child ecei es in ensi ied suppo Plan o in ensi ied suppo 22 Planning in ensi ied suppo indi idual educa ion plan 8 Planning special suppo obliga o y when child ecei es special suppo eplaces he p e-p ima y plan Pedagogical assessmen 23 E alua ing and jus i ying he need o mo e in ense suppo Pedagogical s a emen 2 E alua ing and jus i ying he need o special suppo 832 N. HEISKANEN ET AL. p esen pedagogical documen s, h ough decons uc ion o he language used in hem, enhances he possibili y o changing hem. Ou ocus was on ECEC p o essionals’ cons uc ions o SEN and he posi ioning o a child in hese di e en cons uc ions. The e o e, we i s examined all hose sec ions o he documen s wi h sub i les ha ei he di ec ly o indi ec ly indica ed ha he sec ion would p esen a desc ip ion o he child. Second, we limi ed he da a o desc ip ions whe e he child was p esen ed as no being able o skil ul in some hing o whe e some hing ela ed o he child was p esen ed as a conce n o as an issue ha needed o be o e come. The child en’s documen s we e w i en using eady-made o ms in ei he pape o digi al o m; hese, again, a ied no ably be ween he municipali ies. Rega dless o he o m, he ocus in he examined pedagogical documen s was clea ly on desc ibing a child: such desc ip ions ypically accoun ed o he majo i y o he ex in a documen . Du ing ca e ul, mul iple eadings o he documen s, h ee ea u es eme ged ha we e o especial signi icance conce ning he cons uc ion o he challenges he child en p esen ed: he na u e o SEN as ei he an indi idual o en i onmen al ma e , he pe manence o SEN, and he alloca ion o esponsibili y o o e coming SEN. I was ob ious ha hese di e ing pe spec i es on w i ing also p oduced di e en images o he child, and hence posi ioned child en di e en ly. When he di e ences o hese h ee pe spec i es we e s udied u he , he concep o posi ioning was applied in he analysis, ollowing he idea o discu si e psychology (Edwa ds 2005). The concep o posi ioning is p oduced o desc ibe he ela ional esponsibili ies, igh s and du ies ha a child is desc ibed as ha ing a a ce ain ime and in a ce ain si ua ion (e.g. in a speci ic w i en desc ip ion) This is impo an as posi ions a e no pe manen bu changing and cons uc ed in social ela ions wi h o he people (Ha é and Moghaddam 2003). Acco ding o Foucaul (1977), he posi ioning o a pe son is based on nego ia ion abou wha is conside ed ins i u ionally and cul u ally no mal and abno mal. Posi ioning is always a social p ocess, and he concep o posi ioning is ela ional o he con ex in which he posi ioning akes place ( o example, Ha é and Moghaddam 2003). In ou case, he con ex is ECEC p ac ices. In he analysis, we iden i ied h ee child posi ions in he da a. These posi ions we e he ou g ow hs o di e en kinds o SEN cons uc ions. On he one hand, child en we e s ongly cons uc ed as p oblema ic indi iduals h ough di ec desc ip ions o hem and hei de ici s o needs. Ye he desc ip ions occasionally ocused on p esen ing he child in his o he con ex , and hus o e ed a mo e con ex -dependen p esen a ion o he ounda ions o SEN. The hi d pe spec i e ocused on desc ip ions o de elopmen and change in he child’s si ua ion. In addi ion o o e all cons uc ions o SEN, we pe o med a de ailed analysis o linguis ic ea u es. Ou aim was o iden i y he linguis ic ea u es ha posi ioned he child in a speci ic way and illus a ed di e en SEN cons uc ions. This linguis ic analysis included, o example, examina ion o wo d choices, sen ence s uc u es, enses, causal ela ions and he seman ic oles o he ac o s. The analysis was conduc ed based on he ideas o discu si e psychology (Edwa ds 2005). Posi ions o a child in he documen s Th ee child posi ions we e iden i ied in he pedagogical documen s: p oblema ic child, mul- i ace ed child, and lea ning child. These posi ions ely on di e ing ways o desc ibing and BRITISH JOURNAL OF SOCIOLOGY OF EDUCATION 833 de ici -cen ed and de-subjec i ying desc ip ions o child en’s SEN ( o example, And easson and Asplund Ca lsson 2013; Hjö ne and Säljö 2004; Isaksson, Lindq is , and Be gs öm 2007; Pihlaja, Sa lin, and Ris ka i 2015; Røn La sen 2012). All in all, con ex ual desc ip ions con ain less ca ego isa ion o a child as a p oblem and poin o he in luence o he en i- onmen as well. The e o e, hey app oach he iden i ica ion and mani es a ion o SEN as a social p ocess. In line wi h he ideas o he social model o disabili y ( o example, Oli e 2013) and inclusi e educa ion (UNESCO 2009), he in luence o he en i onmen in c ea - ing and main aining child en’s challenges needs o be included in he examina ion o SEN wi hou equi ing ca ego isa ion (see also Dan o h and Na aian 2015; Røn La sen 2012). The esul s addi ionally highligh one o he mos explici ideologies in he documen s: he expec a ion o an independen child who o e comes di icul ies wi hou adul help. The child, in o he wo ds, de elops, lea ns and g ows. This inding is in line wi h wha Smi h (2012) iden i ied as he cu en emphasis on independen , esponsible child subjec s. The ideal o independen change was pe haps mos no iceably p esen in de ini i e desc ip- ions ha posi ioned a child as a p oblem. These desc ip ions indica ed no p o essional esponsibili y o he desi ed change. Howe e , he ideal was also appa en in o he ypes o desc ip ions. The de elopmen o a child’s si ua ion was ypically desc ibed as a change in he child’s cul u ally desi able beha iou and ways o being in he ins i u ion, such as lea ning no o dis u b o he s, ins ead o as a change in, o example, a child’s pe sonal well-being o sa is ac ion. In o he wo ds, he desi ed change was desc ibed as indi idual adjus men . I is indeed s a ed ha he iden i ica ion o SEN o en aspi es o o e come p o essional p oblems, no he child’s (Hjö ne and Säljö 2004). The cu en p ac ice o documen ing SEN in pedagogical documen s can be e balised, in line wi h Ka ila and Alasuu a i (2012, 21), as one ha mainly desc ibes how a child should change o wha he o she should lea n in o de o mee ins i u ional c i e ia; i is no a p ac ice ha documen s how a child should be suppo ed. Desc ip ions o ien a e pedagogical p ac ice The key unc ion o he child desc ip ions in pedagogical documen s is o o e a pedagog- ical s a ing poin o planning. The e o e, as de ini i e w i ing p edomina es and SEN is cons uc ed as a child’s indi idual issue, i is ai o ques ion whe he he cu en p ac ice o desc ibing child en wi h SEN is a sui able way o cons uc a base o planning suppo . Di e en kinds o desc ip ions ega ding child en wi h SEN also in luence he o ien a ions o pedagogical p ac ice. I SEN a e c ea ed as s able and unchanging, he e is a isk ha hey a e simul aneously unde s ood as unsuppo able, especially i hey a e cons uc ed as disabili ies consequen on a child’s pe sonal cha ac e is ics o pe manen s a e (see Pihlaja, Sa lin, and Ris ka i 2015). Because he signi icance o en i onmen al a angemen s and pedagogical p ac ices a e ypically dismissed, he child easily ecei es he blame o he si ua ion and is posi ioned as esponsible o sel -change (see Smi h 2012), e en in cases whe e i is pedagogical p ac ices ha should be e-e alua ed and de eloped. The e o e, he ocus in w i ing pedagogical documen s needs o shi om he exami- na ion o child en’s indi iduali y o he iden i ica ion o child en’s esponses o pedagog- ical in e en ions and sui able suppo . In his way, he child is no posi ioned as he one esponsible o adap ing. Despi e child en’s impai men s o synd omes o whe he hey ha e been included in o he diagnos ically cons uc ed ca ego ies, SEN a e a sepa a e case: he 840 N. HEISKANEN ET AL. ela ionship be ween an indi idual and he en i onmen i is always cul u al, con ex ual and luc ua ing (see also F anck 2014). F om his pedagogical pe spec i e, i is impo an ha he luc ua ion o SEN in di e en con ex s, social si ua ions and imes, and in esponse o he di e en inne s a es o a child, is iden i ied be o e a documen is w i en. When his pedagogical emphasis is adop ed in w i ing, he esul ing desc ip ions will c ea e a mo e comple e and mul idimensional image o he child and usually o e mo e de ailed in o - ma ion abou child en and hei needs. No es 1. Discu si e psychology, acco ding o Edwa ds (2005), ypically app oaches he esea ch subjec s as psychological en i ies om he poin o iew o language. Discu si e psychology has i s o igin in e hnome hodology and con e sa ion analysis. 2. The d a ing o an indi idual ECEC plan became manda o y in Finland in Augus 2015, al hough he indi idual ECEC plan was al eady an es ablished p ac ice. Also in compulso y p e-p ima y educa ion, he indi idual p e-p ima y plan is an es ablished p ac ice and manda o y i a child has been e e ed o SEN. 3. Du ing he school holidays in Finland, dayca e g oup a angemen s conce ning he composi ion o s a and child en, physical en i onmen and ou ine a e usually subjec o empo a y changes. Disclosu e s a emen No po en ial con lic o in e es was epo ed by he au ho s. Funding This wo k was suppo ed by Jy äskylän Yliopis o. ORCID Noo a Heiskanen h p://o cid.o g/0000-0002-2785-5346 Maa i Alasuu a i h p://o cid.o g/0000-0002-4881-632X Tanja Vehkakoski h p://o cid.o g/0000-0001-5143-2776 Re e ences Alasuu a i, M., and K. Ka ila. 2010. “F aming he Pic u e o he Child.” Child en & Socie y 24 (2): 100–111. Alasuu a i, M., A.-M. Ma ks öm, and A.-C. Vallbe g-Ro h. 2014. Assessmen and Documen a ion in Ea ly Childhood Educa ion. Abingdon: Rou ledge. And easson, I., and M. Asplund Ca lsson. 2013. “Indi idual Educa ional Plans in Swedish Schools - Fo ming Iden i y and Go e ning Func ions in Pupils’ Documen a ion.” In e na ional Jou nal o Special Educa ion 28 (3): 58–67. And easson, I., and U. Wol . 2015. “Assessmen s and In e en ion o Pupils wi h Reading Di icul ies in Sweden – A Tex Analysis o Indi idual Educa ion Plans.” In e na ional Jou nal o Special Educa ion 30 (1): 15–24. Bjö n, P. M., M. A o, T. Koponen, L. S. Fuchs, and D. H. Fuchs. 2016. “The Many Faces o Special Educa ion wi hin RTI F amewo ks in he Uni ed S a es and Finland.” Lea ning Disabili y Qua e ly 39 (1): 58–66. BRITISH JOURNAL OF SOCIOLOGY OF EDUCATION 841 Boyd, V. A., S. L. Ng, and C. F. Sch ye . 2015. “Decons uc ing Language P ac ices: Discu si e Cons uc ions o Child en in Indi idual Educa ion Plan Resou ce Documen s.” Disabili y & Socie y 30 (10): 1537–1553. Ch is ians, C. G. 2011. “E hics and Poli ics in Quali a i e Resea ch.” In The Sage Handbook o Quali a i e Resea ch. 4 h ed, edi ed by N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln, 61–80. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Coo en, F. 2004. “Tex ual Agency: How Tex s Do Things in O ganiza ional Se ings.” O ganiza ion 11 (3): 373–393. Dan o h, S., and S. Na aian. 2015. “This New Field o Inclusi e Educa ion: Beginning a Dialogue on Concep ual Founda ions.” In ellec ual and De elopmen al Disabili ies 53 (1): 70–85. Edwa ds, D. 2005. “Discu si e Psychology.” In Handbook o Language and Social In e ac ion, edi ed by K. L. Fi ch and R. E. Sande s, 257–274. Hillsdale, NJ: E lbaum. Emilsson, A., and I. P amling Samuelsson. 2014. “Documen a ion and Communica ion in Swedish P eschools.” Ea ly Yea s 34 (2): 175–187. Fe a is, M. 2013. Documen ali y: Why I is Necessa y o Lea e T aces. New Yo k: Fo dham Uni e si y P ess. FNBE (Finnish Na ional Boa d o Educa ion). 2010. Na ional Co e Cu iculum o P e-P ima y Educa ion. Accessed Oc obe 14, 2016. h p://www.oph. i/download/153504_na ional_co e_ cu iculum_ o _p e-p ima y_educa ion_2010.pd Foucaul , M. 1977. Discipline and Punishmen : The Bi h o he P ison. London: Allen Lane. F anck, K. 2014. “Con ibu ions o Disabili y S udies and Childhood S udies o Unde s anding he Cons uc ion o ‘No mali y’ and ‘Disabili y’ in Day-Ca e Se ings.” Ba n 32 (1): 57–69. F anck, K. 2015. “The (in)Compe en Child: Subjec Posi ions o De iance in No wegian Day-Ca e Cen es.” Con empo a y Issues in Ea ly Childhood 16 (3): 230–240. Ha é, R., and F. M. Moghaddam. 2003. The Sel and O he s. Posi ioning Indi iduals and G oups in Pe sonal, Poli ical, and Cul u al Con ex s. Wes po , CT: P aege . Hjö ne, E., and R. Säljö. 2004. “‘The e is Some hing abou Julia’. Symp oms, Ca ego ies, and he P ocess o In oking A en ion De ici Hype ac i i y Diso de in he Swedish School: A Case S udy.” Jou nal o Language, Iden i y & Educa ion 3 (1): 1–24. Hjö ne, E., and R. Säljö. 2008. “Ca ego izing Lea ne s beyond he Class oom”. In Encyclopedia o Language and Educa ion, 2nd Ed., Volume 3: Discou se and Educa ion, edi ed by M. Ma in-Jones, A. M. de Mejia, and N. H. Ho nbe ge , 135–146. Ne he lands: Sp inge . Isaksson, J., R. Lindq is , and E. Be gs öm. 2007. “School P oblems o Indi idual Sho comings? A S udy o Indi idual Educa ional Plans in Sweden.” Eu opean Jou nal o Special Needs Educa ion 22 (1): 75–91. Isaksson, J., R. Lindq is , and E. Be gs öm. 2010. “‘Pupils wi h Special Educa ional Needs’: As S udy o he Assessmen s and Ca ego ising P ocess ega ding Pupils’ School Di icul ies in Sweden.” In e na ional Jou nal o Inclusi e Educa ion 14 (2): 133–151. Jenks, C. 2005. Childhood. 2nd ed. London: Rou ledge. Kampmann, J. 2004. “Socializa ion o Childhood: New Oppo uni ies? New Demands?” In Beyond he Compe en Child: Explo ing Con empo a y Childhoods in he No dic Wel a e Socie ies, edi ed by H. B embeck, B. Johansson, and J. Kampmann, 127–152. F ed iksbe g: Roskilde Uni e si y P ess. Ka ila, K.,and Alasuu a i, M. 2012.“D awing Pa ne ship on Pape : How do he Fo ms o Indi idual Educa ion Plans F ame Pa en - Teache Rela ionship?” 6 (1): 15–27. Mille , P., and N. Rose. 2008. Go e ning he P esen : Adminis e ing Economic, Social and Pe sonal Li e. Camb idge: Poli y. Mi chell, D., M. Mo on, and G. Ho nby. 2010. Re iew o he Li e a u e on Indi idual Educa ion Plans: Repo o he New Zealand Minis y o Educa ion. Welling on: Minis y o Educa ion. Accessed May 15, 2017. h ps://www.educa ioncoun s.go .nz/__da a/asse s/pd _ ile/0012/102216/Li e a u e- Re iew-Use-o - he-IEP.pd . NRDCWH (Na ional Resea ch and De elopmen Cen e o Wel a e and Heal h). 2003. Na ional Cu iculum Guidelines on Ea ly Childhood Educa ion and Ca e in Finland. Accessed May 15, 2017. h p://www.julka i. i/bi s eam/handle/10024/75535/267671cb-0ec0-4039-b97b-7ac6ce6b9c10. pd ?sequence=1. 842 N. HEISKANEN ET AL. Oli e , M. 2013. “The Social Model o Disabili y: Thi y Yea s on.” Disabili y & Socie y 28 (7): 1024– 1026. Pa ding, K., and A. Liljeg en. 2016. “Indi idual De elopmen Plans as Go e nance Tools –Changed Go e nance o Teache s’ Wo k.” Scandina ian Jou nal o Educa ional Resea ch 1–12. Pa on, M. Q. 2015. Quali a i e Resea ch & E alua ion Me hods. 4 h ed. Los Angeles, CA: Sage. Pihlaja, P., T. Sa lin, and T. Ris ka i. 2015. “How Do Day-Ca e Pe sonnel Desc ibe Child en wi h Challenging Beha iou ?” Educa ional Inqui y 6 (4): 417–435. P io , L. 2008. “Reposi ioning Documen s in Social Resea ch.” Sociology 42 (5): 821–836. Røn La sen, M. 2012. “A Pa adox o Inclusion. Adminis a i e P ocedu es and Child en’s Pe spec i e on Di icul ies in School.” In Child en, Childhood and E e yday Li e. Child en Pe spec i es, edi ed by M. Hedegaa d, K. A onsson, C. Højhol , and O. S. Ul ik, 143–160. Cha lo e N.C.: In o ma ion Age Publishing. Rose, N. 1999. Powe s o F eedom: Re aming Poli ical Though . Camb idge: Camb idge Uni e si y P ess. Sandbe g, A., A. Lill is , L. E iksson, E. Bjö ck-Åke sson, and M. G anlund. 2010. “′Special Suppo ′ in P eschools in Sweden; P eschool S a ’s De ini ion o he Cons uc .” In e na ional Jou nal o Disabili y, De elopmen and Educa ion 57 (1): 43–57. Smi h, K. 2012. “P oducing Go e nable Subjec s: Images o Childhood Old and New.” Childhood 19 (1): 24–37. S aunæs, D. 2003. “Whe e Ha e All he Subjec s Gone? B inging Toge he he Concep s o In e sec ionali y and Subjec i ica ion.” No dic Jou nal o Feminis and Gende Resea ch 11 (2): 101–110. UNESCO (Uni ed na ions educa ional, scien i ic and cul u al o ganisa ion). 2009. Policy Guidelines on Inclusion in Educa ion. Accessed May 15, 2017. h p://unesdoc.unesco.o g/ images/0017/001778/177849e.pd Vehmas, S. 2010. “Special Needs: A Philosophical Analysis.” In e na ional Jou nal o Inclusi e Educa ion 14 (1): 87–96. We he ell, M. 1998. “Posi ioning and In e p e a i e Repe oi es: Con e sa ion Analysis and Pos - S uc u alism in Dialogue.” Discou se and Socie y 9 (3): 387–412. BRITISH JOURNAL OF SOCIOLOGY OF EDUCATION 843