Introduction
The concept of special needs is today central to providing support and assistance for children with functional variations. It encompasses definitions of disability shaped by political, economic, and social views and impacts how children with varying abilities can engage in society and the positions available to them. However, a central conclusion from a recently published review of international literature shows that there is no single, clear, and widely accepted definition of special needs (Tegtmejer et al. 2024). Both international research and comparative studies of legal frameworks reveal striking differences in how special needs are categorized and assessed across countries (Rix et al. 2013). Galletly et al. (2010) examine and compare practices in various countries regarding how students’ special educational needs are determined and conclude, ‘there is currently considerable disagreement internationally about what is best practice for identification of children with special needs’ (Galletly et al. 2010, 4). In a recently published article, Falster and Ringø (2022; 2025) explore how problem definitions, understandings of disability, and support needs in the disability field in Denmark are embedded in and infiltrated by political and economic rationales and discourses, which shape and often influence views of humanity, categorizations, and problem definitions. In Denmark, as in many other countries, the understanding of special needs is shaped by political and economic rationales. These rationales determine how knowledge about disability models is developed and applied in legislative frameworks, often prioritizing economic considerations over social or relational understandings of disability (Falster & Ringø 2022; Falster & Ringø 2025). While Denmark has ratified international agreements such as the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), there remains a tension between different models of disability, influencing how special needs are defined and managed.
By examining how the term is defined in legislation and guidelines, the article seeks to uncover the underlying models of disability that inform these definitions as well as how disabled children and young people are constructed as subjects within particular knowledge systems. The article is guided by the following research questions:
How are children and young people categorized with ‘special needs’ turned into objects of knowledge? What words and categories are used to define and describe the group and their ‘special needs,’ and what models of disability are these words and categories based on?
What forms/types of professional practice and subjectification of children and young people become possible due to different models of disability? Which subject positions are constructed as possible, and which are downplayed or excluded?
Methodologically, the study is based on qualitative textual analysis of Danish legislation and policy guidelines related to daycare and education. By analyzing key formulations and definitions, the study investigates how children and young people categorized as having special needs are objectified and subjectified through the term, and we assess how the term corresponds with the outlined models of disability. The analysis is empirically based on Danish legislation that regulates public support and assistance for children and young people (0–18 years) categorized as having special needs within daycare and educational settings in Denmark. Through a Foucauldian governmentality approach, we examine how specific modes of thinking and acting are attributed to children and young people through the interpretation of their needs as special and how this categorization serves as a key indicator in understanding the processes of inclusion and exclusion in modern societies.
Two models of special needs are especially prominent in international literature. These are often referred to as the medical model and the social model. The models differ in their approach to where special needs are conceptualized in relation to a child’s challenges within an institutional context. According to the logic of the medical model, special needs are primarily understood as a lack of individual capacities, such as deviations from an expected and desirable ‘normal’ development (Barnes & Mercer 2003). The problem is thus perceived as inherent to the child, focusing on the individual shortcomings or challenges of the child or young person. Interventions within this framework aim to correct, train, repair, or compensate for these deviations from the norm (Goodley 2017). The second model is referred to in literature as the social model of disability. In contrast to the medical model, it attributes difficulties to the child’s or young person’s environment rather than to their impairment. From this perspective, supportive measures focus on adapting the environment and removing barriers to participation (Barnes & Mercer 2003; Thomas 2007).
Both models, in their pure form, can be reductionistic. While the medical model categorizes individual deviations from the norm and establishes individual-focused organizations and interventions, the social model tends to miss the biological or neurological functional variations that always exist within a population (Thomas 1999; Thomas 2007). The absence of knowledge about functional variation and its impact on opportunities and living conditions can intensify inequality due to lack of support, treatment, and compensation (Minow et al. 2008). Thus, there exists a tension between some of the most widely used categorizations and disability models employed to define ‘special needs’.
A third way is defined by the World Health Organization (WHO) as a bio-psycho-social model or by the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) as a relational model of disability. Neither WHO nor the CRPD explicitly uses special needs as a separate definition of functional variation. In the CRPD, special needs are defined as disability. Disability is not perceived, in the UN’s meaning, as a trait or characteristic of the individual. According to the CRPD:
‘(…) children, young people, and adults with disabilities include persons who have a physical, mental, intellectual, or sensory impairment [whether diagnosed or not] which, in interaction with various barriers, may hinder their full and effective participation in society on an equal basis with others’ (UN 2006).
Following this, a person’s functional variation is best understood as an impairment that might become a disability in social contexts (Goodley 2017; Ringø & Høgsbro 2017). Consequently, the UN’s passage also entails an understanding of how social contexts and barriers create disability. The purpose is to promote, protect, and ensure access to society for disabled people and to expand explanatory models and the understanding of disability as a bio-psycho-social phenomenon. The model thereby seeks to bridge a historical conflict between the medical and the social models of understanding disability (Ringø and Høgsbro 2017; Thomas 2007; Goodley 2017).
In 2009, Denmark ratified the CRPD. In doing so, the state committed to implementing the provisions of the Convention in national law and ensuring that the entire state and all municipalities uphold the human rights of disabled people. On August 23, 2024, the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities reviewed Denmark’s compliance with the Convention over the past ten years. In its principal areas of concern and recommendations, the first point states that ‘the Committee is concerned that the Convention has not been explicitly incorporated into the laws of Denmark, the Faroe Islands, and Greenland’ (UN, 2024).
In the following, we explore how children and young people categorized as having ‘special needs’ are both objectified and subjectified through the term. We also assess how the term aligns with the outlined models of disability. The analysis is empirically based on Danish legislation regulating public support and assistance for children and young people (0–18 years) categorized as having ‘special needs’ within daycare and educational settings in Denmark. Through a Foucauldian governmentality approach, we unpack the term ‘special needs’ and examine how specific modes of thinking and acting are attributed to children and young people through the interpretation of their needs as ‘special.’ Furthermore, we analyze how ‘special needs’ function as a key indicator in understanding the processes of inclusion and exclusion in modern societies.
Governmentality
From a Foucauldian governmentality perspective, ‘governance’ encompasses both macro-political rationales and discourses as well as micro-level practices and self-technologies (Dean 1999). Central to this is a duality in governance rationalities between performance and action technologies. Performance technologies are the plural technologies of government designed to penetrate the enclosures of expertise under the welfare state and to subsume the substantive domains of expertise into new formal calculative regimes (Dean 1999). Governance thus maintains goal-oriented categories and evaluations, but, on the other hand, includes a decentralization of responsibility through mentalities of government. The idea of mentalities of government, then, emphasizes the way in which the thought involved in practices of government is collective and relatively taken for granted, i.e., not usually open to questioning by its practitioners (Dean 1999, 16). A key insight from governmentality studies is that these studies reveal how broad political rationalities and discourses influence techniques directed at individuals through a specific governance technology: a ‘governmentality’ that fosters self-governance and self-regulation (Dean 1999; Barry et al. 1996; Rose 1999). This approach frames individuals as primarily responsible for managing their own lives, which has inspired a wealth of research on governance within liberal societies (Dean 1999; Barry et al. 1996; Rose 1999; Rose 2007; Falster & Warming 2019). These studies also shed light on how contemporary governance leverages scientific knowledge, creating a reciprocal relationship where scientific categories both inform and are informed by governance practices. Following Foucault (1973a; 1973b), the concept of objectification is crucial for analyzing political rationales and discourses as it reveals how subjects are made objects of knowledge and governance. Power is manifested through the ways objects are described, categorized, and classified, often in scientific terms, which exclude alternative forms of knowledge. Individuals or groups become visible as subjects when they are assigned certain characteristics, qualities, and/or expectations to think and act in specific ways (subjectification) (Foucault 1982), for instance, through law. As Campbell (2015) elucidates:
‘Law plays an exacting and explicit role in this subjectifying activity of government. Legal intersections/interventions facilitate this subjectification by allocating and regulating populations into fixed and discrete ontological categories (such as disability, gender, sex, and race) so that the subject assigned to these categories can be rendered visible and calculable’ (2015, 113).
In the following, we will discuss the political and governance rationales of the special needs discourse before proceeding to an analysis of the key legislative formulations in the field, focusing on how children and young people categorized with ‘special needs’ are objectified and which positions are made available for them.
Governmentality and the special needs discourse in Denmark
Throughout history, defining the needs of disabled people has been subject to political shifts, conflicting interests, and debates over human nature in Denmark, as well as internationally (Barnes & Mercer 2003; Oliver & Barnes 2012). Following Goodley (2017), ‘special needs’ or ‘special educational needs’ has become a catch-all term for those requiring additional support and assistance to meet institutional expectations. Especially within disability studies, the term has been criticized because it comes with a risk of labeling and othering children and young people, viewing these individuals as deviant due to individual impairment or ‘defects’ (Runswick-Cole & Hodge 2009; Cole 2004; Hodge 2006; Runswick-Cole 2007). Armstrong (2003) further notes that the term legitimizes discrimination and exclusionary practices, limiting opportunities for these individuals later in life. In recent studies, Falster & Warming (2019) and Dahl & Falster (2024) illustrate how ideas of developmental appropriateness and ‘normality’ are used to explain exclusion from social settings, leading to individualized psychological approaches and a focus on individual training and learning opportunities. This trend has been described by Ringø & Howe (2022) as a parallel evolution of academic disciplines and societal knowledge, prioritizing surface categorizations over deep ontological understandings of the mechanisms producing marginalization and exclusion (Bhaskar & Danermark 2006; Brante 2001; Ringø & Howe 2022).
At the time of writing, disabled young people constitute 40% of Denmark’s 46,000 unemployed youths (aged 15–24). In terms of educational achievement, 41.4% of disabled young people do not meet 9th grade mathematics or Danish standards. In contrast, this applies to only 10.8% of young people without diagnoses/impairments, according to a recent analysis by The Economic Council of the Labour Movement (ECLM) on behalf of Disabled People’s Organization Denmark (DPOD) (Arbejderbevægelsens Erhvervsråd 2022). Like other Scandinavian countries, Denmark is often cited as a paradigmatic example of a universal welfare state characterized by high levels of redistribution, economic equality, and security in fields such as unemployment, illness, and disability (Esping-Andersen 1990). Nevertheless, despite explicit commitments to equality, equity, and anti-discrimination towards disabled individuals in Danish legislation (LBK no 1071 of 10/08/2023), the CRPD, and international developmental agendas like the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the Leave No One Behind agenda (UN 2015), there is a growing disparity between declarations of intent and actual policy and conditions in the disability sector (Amilon et al. 2021; Falster 2021; Falster & Ringø 2022; 2025). Similar trends have emerged across European and other Western societies due to neoliberalism and austerity measures following the financial crises, exacerbating the living conditions of disabled individuals, as seen in Sweden, Denmark, and England (Falster 2024; Falster & Ringø 2025; Altermark 2017; Cross 2013; Flynn 2019; Malli et al. 2018; Macdonald & Morgan 2021; Norberg 2021; Ryan 2019).
In the Danish political landscape, there has been a strong emphasis on inclusion in public sector reforms. From 1996 to 2016, the political goal was to include 96% of all children and young people in mainstream education (LOV no 379 of 28/04/2012). Over the past decade, changes in primary, secondary, and higher education have been shaped by global and local forces that emphasize explicit performance criteria and implicit action strategies, often justified by their potential economic benefits. These changes focus on economic growth and employability, as well as new expectations for self-directed social interactions and adaptability among students (Keeling 2006; Ringø et al. 2017). The political rationales and discourse around inclusion have aimed to develop more cost-effective institutions and reduce spending on specialized social services, daycare, and education (Falster & Ringø 2022). However, it has become evident that there is a growing discrepancy between political expectations of inclusion and the realities faced by children and young people with various cognitive, mental, communicative, or physical variations. In the wake of the inclusion reforms, there has been a significant increase in the segregation from mainstream schools to special education offerings, as well as self-reported stress, social isolation, mental distress, school absenteeism, and psychiatric diagnoses such as autism spectrum disorders (ASD), ADHD, anxiety, and depression (Socialstyrelsen 2020; Sundhedsstyrelsen 2022).
Current research and governmentality approaches indicate a shift in perspectives on disability towards a view of human nature that diminishes the understanding of how ‘special needs’ arise from interactions between individuals with diverse resources and attitudinal and environmental barriers (Falster & Ringø 2022; Dahl & Falster 2024). Within this shift, it becomes important to investigate in depth how ‘special needs’ are understood, defined, and categorized. Which disability models shape the understanding and definition of ‘special needs’? Why are some needs considered ‘special’? And what possibilities and limitations does the term create for professional practices, as well as for the subject positions and life opportunities of children and young people?
Data
In the following analysis, we employ the concepts of objectification and subjectification to analyze how children and young people are objectified and how certain modes of thinking and acting are ascribed to them through the special needs categorization. The analysis is empirically grounded in Danish legislation aimed at delivering various forms of public services, support, and assistance to children and young people categorized as having ‘special needs’ within daycare and educational settings. The article is also based on data from previous studies demonstrating how disabled children and young people encounter specific categorizations, interventions, and methods (Falster & Warming 2019; Falster 2021; Falster et al. 2022). In this article, we expand on the previous studies with a particular focus on the key concept of ‘special needs’ in both daycare and education through relevant legislation and guidelines, which highlights how the concept is used as a key term while also allowing for various interpretations. This refers to both regular and specialized daycare services, the public school, and specially designed youth education programs. The legislation and guidelines were selected for their attempts to define the concept of special needs, and the term is overall mentioned 86 times in the daycare field and 35 times in the educational field. The selected legislation includes:
The daycare field (approx. 0–6 years old):
The Consolidated Act on Daycare, Leisure, and Club Offers for children and young people (38 pages) (LBK no 55 of 17/01/2024).
The Guidance on Daycare, etc. (36 pages) (VEJ no 9109 of 27/02/2015).
The Consolidated Act on Social Service (2 pages) (LBK no 1089 of 16/08/2023).
The Guidance on Special Support for children and young people and their families according to the Social Service Act (3 pages) (VEJ no 9007 of 07/01/2014).
The educational field (approx. 6–18 years old):
The Consolidated Act on special education and other special educational assistance in public schools (6 pages) (BEK no 693 of 20/06/2014).
The Guidelines for special education/special educational assistance in public schools (23 pages) (VEJ no 11056 of 24/11/2015).
We analyze the legislation and its accompanying guidelines as exemplary empirical material to examine how legislative frameworks define and operationalize the concept of ‘special needs’ in Denmark.
Results
The daycare field
One of the main purposes of daycare in Denmark is to “prevent negative social inheritance and exclusion” (LBK no 55 of 17/01/2024: 1). This purpose is stated in the Consolidated Act on Daycare, Leisure, and Club Offers, etc., for children and young people, which also includes children categorized as having ‘special needs.’ In the Guidance on Daycare, etc., children with ‘special needs’ are defined as ‘(…) children in need of special attention and support during a period of a day, children in need of support under the Daycare Act and children in need of special support under the Social Services Act.’ (VEJ no 9109 of 27/02/2015, 4). Moreover, the group of children with ‘special needs’ is defined as ‘(…) children who need specially designed pedagogical initiatives to develop their competences. This includes children (…) with physical or mental impairments, children with social problems.’ (VEJ no 9109 of 27/02/2015, 185). According to the legislation (LBK no 55 of 17/01/2024, 4), daycares are required to develop a pedagogical curriculum that is approved by the municipality, evaluated by the manager of each daycare, and implemented by the pedagogues in their daily work. These curricula must outline the daycare’s educational and pedagogical learning objectives within the following six themes:
Versatile personal development
Social skills/competences
Linguistic development
Body and movement
Nature and natural phenomena
Cultural forms of expression and values
The curricula play a central role for all children, but especially for those categorized as having special needs, as each daycare must specify ‘(…) which relevant pedagogical methods, activities, and goals that are established and implemented for children with special needs’ (VEJ no 9109 of 27/02/2015, 180). It is also stated that:
‘Children with special needs should, generally, not be separated from the rest of the group. The intention is that the staff should focus on which methods and activities, etc., that are suitable for including children with special needs in the group. (…) Especially concerning children with special needs, it is particularly important that their potential is not overlooked. Pedagogical curricula are a tool to ensure the development of essential competencies in children who require special stimulation in daycare settings’. (VEJ no 9109 of 27/02/2015, 185).
The curricula are therefore crucial for children categorized as having ‘special needs,’ as they serve as the key tool in fostering the development of individual ‘essential competencies.’ Moreover, pedagogical curricula are expected to create so-called ‘inclusive learning environments’ that account for the diversity of children and the composition of the child group, considering factors such as age, gender, cultural background, and family circumstances. However, disability is not explicitly mentioned and is typically framed solely as an individual ‘special need’. Notably, disability—understood as a relational phenomenon or a minoritized position, alongside gender, race, and religion—is absent from both the legislation and the accompanying guidelines (VEJ no 9109 of 27/02/2015). While the legislation and guidelines emphasize that children with ‘special needs’ should develop key competencies and remain integrated within the broader child group, the concept itself remains fluid and is ultimately defined and operationalized in practice. This ambiguity makes it vulnerable to local political and economic priorities. The term ‘special needs’ appears 86 times across the legislation and guidelines, seemingly underscoring its importance (LBK no 55 of 17/01/2024; VEJ no 9109 of 27/02/2015. However, its definition remains vague, raising critical questions about its precise meaning and application. This observation aligns with previous studies, which similarly find that the concept of ‘special needs’ lacks a clear and consistent definition and is subject to variation across national contexts (Tegtmejer et al. 2024).
Shifting our focus to the more specialized area of daycare services under the Social Service Act (LBK nr 1089 of 16/08/2023), special support and assistance within this framework can encompass various forms of assistance, financial compensation, and assistive devices. All these measures are grounded in the so-called ‘compensation principle’, one of four overarching disability policy principles in Denmark. The principle of compensation aims to mitigate barriers that hinder children, young people, and adults from participating in society on equal terms with others. Compensation may take the form of permanent assistive devices, such as wheelchairs or prostheses, but it can also include various types of support services, such as social pedagogical assistance or home care. However, public service, support, and assistance under the Social Service Act can also be a position in a so-called ’special daycare.’ These daycares are described as ‘special’ because their main purpose is:
‘(…) to meet the needs of children and young people with significant and permanent physical or mental impairments for special support, treatment, and training, so that they have good opportunities in relation to their development and well-being’ (VEJ no 9007 of 07/01/2014, 71).
Special daycares represent one of the most specialized services for children, drawing on expertise from medical, developmental psychology, physiotherapy, and occupational therapy fields (Falster 2021; Falster et al. 2022). These services are often, though not always, provided in segregated settings.
Previously conducted studies in the specialized daycare field, based on semi-structured interviews and participatory observation studies (Falster & Warming 2019; Falster 2021; Falster et al. 2022; Dahl & Falster 2024), demonstrate how children, with or without impairments, in the pedagogical practice in Denmark, are objects of developmental-psychological instruments through which their development and competencies are measured and compared with children of the same age. The objective of this practice is to measure and support children’s competencies and development, identify deviances and ‘vulnerable children,’ and thereby carry out certain normalizing activities legitimately (Falster & Warming 2019). When it comes to children and young people with impairments, developmental psychology is not the only dominant discipline. Medical, physiotherapeutic, and occupational therapeutic knowledge also appears to influence the understandings of ‘special needs’ in practice (Falster 2021; VEJ no 9007 of 07/01/2014, 72) and is grounded in knowledge related to pediatric and psychiatric diagnoses, medical treatments, rehabilitation, and training programs, typically administered by specialized professionals such as physiotherapists and occupational therapists (VEJ no 9007 of 07/01/2014, 72). This perspective suggests that negative social inheritance and exclusion are primarily understood as issues linked to the individual child’s impairment and (lack of) development and competencies (Falster & Warming 2019; Falster 2021; Dahl & Falster 2024).
The term ‘special needs’ creates particular subject positions that become available to children, positions in which they are viewed as objects of individualized and specialized interventions designed to bring their bodies, minds, competencies, and development up to the ‘normal’ level for children of the same age. This process thus aims to normalize them and align their bodies as closely as possible with the able-bodied and neurotypical position (Falster & Warming 2019; Falster 2021; Falster 2024; Dahl & Falster 2024). In general, the term ‘special needs’ is used synonymously with children and young people who have diagnoses or impairments and who require special support, treatment, training, or other specially designed activities. However, this usage appears to ignore the extensive body of knowledge from disability studies, as well as the WHO’s and UN’s definitions of disability as a functional variation, one that may (or may not) become a disability depending on institutional and social settings, as well as the barriers present in children’s lives. These barriers do not necessarily arise from the child’s impairment or diagnosis itself but are instead shaped by contextual settings and prevailing pedagogical practices (Falster & Ringø 2022; Dahl & Falster 2024; UN 2024).
The educational field
In the Consolidated Act on Public Schools, which regulates public schools in Denmark, for example, regarding organization, structure, and how teachers can work with students, it is stated that ‘children whose development requires special consideration or support are provided with special education and other kinds of special pedagogical assistances in special classes and special schools’ (LBK no 90 of 29/01/2024, 2). These forms of special education and special pedagogical assistance are regulated in the Consolidated Act on special education and other special pedagogical assistance in public schools (BEK no 693 of 20/06/2014). Here, children and young people with ‘special needs’ are those in need of ‘personal assistance’, ‘assistive technology’, ‘specially designed activities’, and “education and training in modes of functioning and working methods aimed at remedying or limiting the effects of mental, physical, linguistic, or sensory impairments’. (BEK no 693 of 20/06/2014, 1).
In this sense, special needs are understood as needs for special pedagogical assistance and educational support, assistive technology, and specially designed activities, which are required to reduce the ‘effects of individual impairment’. Many of these initiatives and activities are carried out to ensure that the student can overcome barriers that prevent them from participating in the learning environment and complete their studies. To receive special pedagogical assistance, the student must have a need for support for over nine hours per week, and a so-called ‘pedagogical-psychological assessment’ of the student must be conducted. The assessment should describe:
‘(…) which measures have been taken to address the student’s special needs within the framework of regular teaching. This may include, among other things, the forms of teaching differentiation that have been applied and how group formation has been attempted. It is important that the description is based on the student’s resources and potentials. The description should also include which factors in the organization and implementation of the teaching either promote or hinder the student’s development’ (VEJ no 11056 of 24/11/2015, 4).
Although the legislation in the educational field generally conceptualizes ‘special needs’ as an individual phenomenon, this guidance opens the possibility that social conditions and methods of organizing the teaching can either promote or hinder students’ development. In this way, there is, albeit to a limited extent, an understanding of ‘special needs’ as a phenomenon consisting of a range of generative mechanisms, influenced by neurological, biological, psychological, social, relational, and structural conditions, including teaching methods and the organization of the teaching and environment. Although Denmark, among other Nordic countries, is highlighted as a country where the legislation does not stipulate that a diagnosis (impairment) should be the only basis for allocating support, but rather that the assessment of special needs should be conducted through evaluations including the social conditions, our study shows that other passages in the legislation are based on a medical understanding of disability reinforced and influenced by political and economic priorities and rationales (Falster & Ringø 2025). Largely, the current legislation indicates that it is the individual child who needs to adjust, whose needs can be assessed, and who can receive special education and special pedagogical assistance. In a larger Danish study (Tegtmejer et al. 2024), the interviewed PPR (Psychological-Pedagogical Counseling) staff also pointed out that this often results in the individual child becoming the primary focus, with their support needs being assessed. According to the report, this also means that the characteristics of the school environment, including whether it is poorly adapted to the child’s needs, may not necessarily be considered (Ibid. 2024, 16).
Although Denmark has adopted and ratified the CRPD and thereby the Convention’s definition and conceptualization of disability (UN, 2006), which establishes an understanding of disability as something created through the relationship between a person with an impairment and attitudinal and environmental barriers, this understanding is largely absent in the legislation governing public schools, youth education, and segregated youth education programs in Denmark. This poses a problem, as a recently completed study demonstrates how symptoms related to autism and ADHD intensify in stressful and challenging environments. Milder forms of autism, for instance, lead to greater functional loss in stressful school environments, as well as an increased risk of co-occurring conditions such as anxiety, depression, self-harm, and eating disorders (Ringø et al. 2024).
In the field of education, the construction of certain needs as ‘special’ also shapes the spectrum of available subject positions for young people, positions in which they are once again perceived as subjects of individualized and specialized interventions aimed at compensating them and/or normalizing their bodies, competencies, and development. This may be due to the relative and systematic absence of knowledge that conceptualizes disability as a relational phenomenon. Therefore, as in the daycare sector, we interpret the legislation as primarily employing a medical or functionalist model of disability, one in which impairment and disability are treated as the same phenomenon and as something that causes a ‘disruption’ in practice. This disruption is assumed to require normalization through interventions or compensation through various forms of (segregated) support and assistance. The legislative construction and application of the term ‘special needs’ thus appear to create a blurred distinction between impairment and disability, a conceptual ambiguity that we will examine and discuss through perspectives from Disability Studies in the next section.
A blurry distinction between impairment and disability
The use of the relational model of disability to which Denmark adheres has, for years, undergone criticism for being primarily medical, individualistic, and/or functionalistic. Following Goodley (2017, 18), the relational model of disability in Denmark and other Scandinavian countries can be criticized as the ‘lack of distinction between impairment and disability might reinsert a medicalised view of the disabled body and mind’, and the model also seems to create an ‘over-emphasis on professional practice and service delivery (…)’ while its ‘realist interpretation of impairment ignores cultural, social and political aetiologies’. Based on Goodley (2017), two things are at stake: 1) an individualized practice and ignorance of cultural, social, and political aetiologies; and 2) an over-emphasis on professional practice and service delivery. While the first is well-documented in contemporary research (Oliver & Barnes 2012; Thomas 1999; Thomas 2007) and in the two previous analyses, the second argument needs critical awareness. With inspiration from Barnes & Mercer (2003), as well as Finkelstein (1980), the over-emphasis on individualized professional practice presumably creates and reproduces a hierarchical and unequal power relation between able-bodied and disabled people, as professionals, such as pedagogues and teachers, are assigned the competence to identify and categorize individuals and groups with ‘special needs’ instead of identifying the cultural, social, and political aetiologies—in other words, the dialectic between institutional settings and variations of life.
Studies have shown how parents of disabled children often feel relieved, hoping that the ‘special needs’ label will acknowledge their children’s long-standing struggles. This recognition is expected to result in increased support, assistance, and greater societal understanding (Falster 2021). Educational institutions can similarly be relieved as the ‘special needs’ category tends to shift responsibility away from the institutional and social settings in society and towards the individual. The premises of society are not problematized, and professionals, children, young people, and their parents do not develop an alternative language to the dominating interpretation of disability as an individual deficit or disturbance of normality. Several studies from Denmark have already documented that disabled children and young people often have a medical, individualized, and/or functionalistic understanding of disability and therefore develop the perception that attitudinal and environmental barriers are individual problems they must learn to handle and cope with themselves (Falster & Ringø 2022; Dahl & Falster 2024; Falster 2024). This is incompatible with the social as well as the relational model of disability and highlights how individualized, functionalist, and medical understandings of disability still dominate in practice. From a Foucauldian governmentality perspective, governance incorporates both macro-level political rationalities and discourses as well as micro-level practices and self-technologies. Particularly important is the role played by specific forms of knowledge—most notably in our examples, those underpinning dominant disability models. These individualized medical understandings of disability, grounded in scientific paradigms, have profound implications: they both shape and are shaped by governance practices. Following Foucault (1973a; 1973b), the concept of objectification is key to revealing how subjects are transformed into objects of knowledge and governance. Power is exercised through the classification, categorization, and description of these objects, often in scientific terms, which in turn marginalizes alternative forms of knowledge. Ultimately, individuals or groups become visible as subjects when they are assigned specific characteristics, expectations, and prescribed ways of thinking and acting (subjectification) (Foucault 1982), underscoring the significant influence of certain knowledge forms and disability models within the governance framework.
At the time of writing, the relational model of disability has not been incorporated in the Danish legislation and practice, a point for which the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities criticized Denmark in its concluding observations as follows:
‘The Committee is concerned that legislation of the Kingdom of Denmark does not systematically include a disability perspective and the human rights model of disability (…) The Committee recommends that the Kingdom of Denmark conduct a comprehensive review of existing legislation to ensure compliance with the principles, definitions, rights and obligations under the Convention (…)’ (UN 2024, 2).
Despite the provisions of the CRPD (UN 2006) and the adoption of the relational model of disability as part of the ratification of the CRPD, this approach remains, at the time of writing, apparently sidelined in favor of maintaining the political rationales of the performance society (Falster 2021; Falster & Ringø 2022; Falster & Ringø 2025). In Denmark, these rationales are partly driven by budget constraints, significant cuts in specialized social services, a growing number of citizens requiring diverse forms of support and assistance, and a lack of knowledge base that includes a deep ontological understanding of the interacting mechanisms that create ‘special needs’ and disability (Ringø & Howe 2022; Falster 2021; Falster & Ringø 2022; Falster & Ringø 2025). Based on strong discourses of individualism and independency, welfare reforms in Denmark have transformed and bolstered the idea that disabled people as well as other people in vulnerable positions can and must increasingly develop, learn, master, train, and activate their resources (Ringø et al. 2018). The analysis demonstrates that the ‘special needs’ discourse as a medical, individualized, and functionalistic understanding of disability is the available language for children, young people, and their families. The consequence is that to access support and assistance, these children, young people, and families are encouraged to internalize the dominant discourse and articulations of how their individual impairment determines social exclusion, which tends to ignore the institutional and social settings, as well as attitudinal and environmental barriers that exclude and marginalize a growing number of disabled people in Denmark (Amilon et al. 2021; Falster 2024).
Conclusion
In this study, we have examined the term ‘special needs’ within Denmark’s legislative framework for daycare and education through a Foucauldian governmentality approach. The conclusion is that the analyses highlight a key tension in Denmark’s approach to daycare and education for children and young people categorized as having ‘special needs’. Despite Denmark’s ratification of the CRPD, which promotes a relational model of disability, current legislation still largely reflects an individualized, medical, and functionalist approach to disability. As a result, children and young people categorized as having ‘special needs’ are often seen through a deficit-focused lens and as objects for individual and specialized interventions to bring their bodies, competencies, and development up to the ‘normal’ level for children and young people in the same age, thus aiming to normalize and bring them and their bodies as close as possible to the able-bodied and ‘neurotypical’ position. Obviously, we do not argue that children and young people categorized as having ‘special needs’ do not require individual support and assistance, but we are puzzled by the systematic absence of a relational understanding of disability, the disability history in mind.
The article suggests that consideration could be given to whether the overarching provisions in the legislation could be formulated in a way that more explicitly aligns with a relational understanding of ‘special needs’. Additionally, it highlights the importance of incorporating content and process requirements that more effectively ensure the involvement of schools and daycare environments in fostering inclusive educational settings (cf. the CRPD). However, it is crucial that the individual dimensions associated with functional diversity are not overlooked in such formulations. Overemphasizing generalized considerations about the environment and learning culture, often rooted in the experiences of the majority, risks marginalizing significant individual challenges. If every challenge is framed solely as an issue of adjusting the learning environment, there is a danger that individual difficulties will be insufficiently explored and instead conceptualized in overly general terms. This, in turn, risks leaving frontline professionals without the necessary knowledge, skills, and resources to adequately understand and address the diverse support needs of disabled children and young people.
The pendulum of contemporary discourse appears to swing between individualistic, medical explanations and overly generalized common knowledge. Striking a balance between these perspectives is essential if disability studies are to meaningfully inform administrative and bureaucratic policy frameworks in modern societies. This article’s reflections on the current use and unintended consequences of the ‘special needs’ discourse serve as a modest contribution to counteracting the reductionist tendencies embedded in historically dominant models and constructions of disabled bodies and minds.
Competing Interests
The authors have no competing interests to declare.