← Back to the episode · Listen to this episode
In this episode, the focus is on inclusive practice across different European contexts, Scotland, England, Ireland, and Italy, with reflections on the influence of Scandinavian early childhood pedagogy. Scotland is often described as progressive in its approach to inclusion. Legislation such as the Additional Support for Learning Act, alongside national commitments to children’s rights, demonstrates a clear intention to support learners with additional needs within mainstream education. Bruce (2012) notes that Scottish policy reflects a strong rights-based foundation and an ambition to support the whole child.
England, Ireland, and Italy share similar commitments. However, each system is shaped by unique policy frameworks, cultural values, and educational traditions. Across these contexts, there are consistent practical challenges: limited funding, staffing pressures, and inconsistent access to specialist support often mean that inclusion relies heavily on the creativity, advocacy, and resilience of individual practitioners. Arshad (2019) highlights how personal values and professional experiences shape practice, particularly in contexts where structural support is uneven.
Despite differences in policy, children with additional support needs often experience quiet marginalisation across countries. Inclusion may exist in principle but not always in practice. Children may be physically present in mainstream settings but supported in ways that restrict participation, lower expectations, or rely on separate spaces. Even with policy in place, children with additional support needs can face subtle marginalisation. They may be physically present in mainstream classrooms but supported in ways that limit participation, lower expectations, or rely on separate spaces. As Konstantoni and Emejulu (2017) remind us, true inclusion isn’t just about being in the room, it’s about recognising and addressing the many ways children can be excluded, so everyone can really take part and feel valued. McLeod (2019) argues that inclusive practice cannot rest solely on practitioner goodwill, as structural constraints, staffing ratios, resourcing, and curriculum pressures that influence whether inclusion is experienced as meaningful participation.
Scandinavian early childhood pedagogy offers a powerful point of comparison. In Norway, Sweden, and Denmark, early childhood education is positioned as a public good, rather than merely preparation for formal schooling. Systems emphasize trust in practitioners, flexible learning environments, and recognition of diverse developmental pathways. McNair and Powell (2020) note that Nordic systems have sustained aspects of Froebelian philosophy in deeply embedded ways, demonstrating that inclusion can be structurally supported rather than reliant on individual effort.
Through a Froebelian lens, inclusive practice prioritizes play, wellbeing, and holistic development. Liebschner (2001) emphasizes that freedom and guidance exist in balance, allowing children to flourish when environments are thoughtfully structured yet respectful of individuality. Bruce (2012) similarly highlights that inclusion is relational and grounded in community and connection. When these principles are supported by coherent policy and adequate resources, inclusive practice is strengthened; without them, inclusion risks being fragile and dependent on individual practitioners.
These reflections suggest that inclusive practice is shaped not only by practitioner skill but also by political and economic decisions regarding the value and funding of early childhood education. Studying Scandinavian approaches invites consideration of how systems can prioritize play, wellbeing, and professional trust while adapting these ideas thoughtfully within local cultural and policy contexts.
References
Arshad, R. (2019). Shaping practice: The impact of personal values and experiences. In R. Arshad, T. Wrigley, & L. Pratt (Eds.), Social justice re-examined. Trentham Publications.
Bruce, T. (2012). Family, community and the wider world. In T. Bruce (Ed.), Early childhood practice: Froebel today (pp. 17–28). SAGE.
Konstantoni, K., & Emejulu, A. (2017). When intersectionality met childhood studies: The dilemmas of a travelling concept. Children’s Geographies, 15(1), 6–22.
Liebschner, J. (2001). A child’s work: Freedom and guidance in Froebel's educational theory and practice. Lutterworth Press.
McLeod, N. (2019). The reflexive educator. In N. McLeod & P. Giardiello (Eds.), Empowering early childhood educators: International pedagogies as provocation. Routledge.
McNair, L. J., & Powell, S. (2020). Friedrich Froebel: A path least trodden. Early Child Development and Care.
Wood, E. (2013). Play, learning and the early childhood curriculum (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.