Matti Kuorelahti, PhD University of Jyväskylä Finland 21 August 2012
School reforms in1968-2010: regulation & pedagogy Inclusion in Finnish: supporting individually
100 50 0-50 -100-150 Low achievers high performance! Finland OECD average Croatia Bottom 2nd 3rd Top Russian Fed. Serbia Montenegro Azerbaijan -200
Japan 0,52 Netherlands 0,63 Slovenia 0,71 Czech Republic 0,42 Germany 0,75 Austria 0,64 Chinese Taipei 0,60 Belgium 0,73 Italy 0,73 Hungary 0,81 Croatia 0,56 Korea 0,58 Kyrgyzstan 0,59 Serbia 0,68 United Kingdom 0,54 Switzerland 0,58 Israel 0,65 Luxembourg 0,85 Bulgaria 0,88 Greece 0,69 Montenegro 0,60 Turkey 0,78 Hong Kong-China 0,60 Romania 0,60 Argentina 1,19 Australia 0,57 Slovak Republic 0,59 New Zealand 0,54 Chile 1,18 United States 0,63 Ireland 0,46 Brazil 0,98 Lithuania 0,65 Uruguay 0,99 Canada 0,52 Indonesia 0,89 Thailand 0,96 Estonia 0,49 Denmark 0,44 Russian Federation 0,50 Mexico 1,25 Tunisia 1,22 Latvia 0,58 Sweden 0,44 Portugal 1,03 Colombia 0,90 Norway 0,33 Jordan 0,60 Spain 0,73 Poland 0,59 Azerbaijan 0,86 Macao-China 0,48 Finland 0,36 Iceland 0,54 80 70 60 Score point difference 50 40 30 Schools produce different outcomes All schools produce the same quality 20 10 * * Interquartile 0 range of the school-level average PISA index of economic, social and cultural status. *
Children with disabilities (learning, behavior, sensory etc.) are better guaranteed with quality education, if the variation between schools is small Individual needs should be responded in mainstream schools Quality education for all and all should really mean ALL Minimising the number of children being left behind
Principal voting and political debate in parliament in 1963 concerning the change from traditional, parallel system toward comprehensive school 123 vs 68 (out of 200 MEP s) -> comprehensive, 9 years basic schooling between ages 7 and 16
Significant pedagogical changes: Common academic 9 years education for all instead of sorting out the academically capable from practically oriented after four years (as in most Central European countries today) Ability based groupings in Math and English until 1985 Increase of the special education services Especially part-time special education (pupil participates 2-4 hrs per week in special ed.) Classroom teachers in grades 1-6, subject teachers in grades 7-9
z-scores (1965 = 0-level) 1,8 1,6 1,4 1,2 1 0,8 0,6 0,4 0,2 0 Low achievers High achievers 1965 2005 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 percentiles
400 350 Number of special schools 300 250 200 150 The proportion of pupils in special schools has decreased from 2 % to 1,2 % 100 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
Individualized Education Plan (IEP) Tier 3: 8,5 % Special support: in regular or SE class/group Tier 2: 23,3 % Intensified support: part-time SE Tier 1: All, when necessary Universal support: regular teacher & SE teachers (part-time) Regular curriculum
1978 teacher s qualification MA also for classroom teachers 1985 no more ability based groupings of pupils ( best average poor ) 1997 severally intellectually disabled persons become part of education system out of social welfare
2000 IEP only in one subject, and pupil can continue studying in regular classroom -> number of IEP pupils increased 3 % - 8 % schools earned more state subsidies based on number of IEP s 2010 from special education to support Moving from tier 1 to 2 ONLY if tier 1 actions were not sufficient, and the actions must be documented Response to Intervention (RTI)
Access Every child has the possibility to attend the school Transportation, equipments, accessible environment Participation Every child should have the experience of being a member of the society (class/school) Friends, interaction, equality despite of the disabilities Quality education Learning outcomes, positive expectations See also Unesco: Policy Guidelines on Inclusion in Education & Inclusion in Practise
School attendance rate is high, and the number of drop-outs during basic education is very small (0,04 %) The idea of school for all is implisit written in the Basic Education law Special education support should be offered in regular setting (if possible) Basic school is highly appreciated by the citizens (and teaching profession)
Children are placed in segregated settings in special schools and classes Inclusion in education is not explicitly written in the Basic Education Law Children with SEN are not always welcomed in regular classes
The results of the system are satisfying and struggles between home and school appear seldom -> strong trust on the school in the society And The individual needs are identified in the early stages of schooling career and supported
Issue not only to schools but whole society to accept persons with disabilities with the same rights and obligations as others Children with disabilities should receive their education among peers On the other hand: where the peer relations are best guaranteed? Deaf children - the use of sign language Blind child s best friend is often another blind child
Where the peer relations are best guaranteed if the child is aggressive, withdrawal or difficult to approach for his/her peers? Child with ADHD can be a complex peer Child with LD may not understand the social expectations by his/her peers -> over-/under reactions Children with SEN s often seem to be unhappier in school communities They hope to get more friends, they experience more bullying Teachers should remember to encourage children for tolerance and acceptance
Flexibility of the school system: not only one mode of support (like special school or class) BUT variety of services Multiprofessional teams in school Regular and SNE teachers, principal, psychologist, school nurse, social worker Analysing and intervening the challenges in school Searching for new and creative modes in school, classroom and individual levels
Teachers also need support to meet the huge challenges due to the diversity of children! No teacher can stand allone in the classroom where individual needs are high and acute Co-teaching models: regular and SNE teacher working together and merging their classes Educational leadership in encouraging collaboration and sharing the responsibility of children s well-being in school
Partnership, negotiating, listening Respecting the parents as the experts of their child Guiding them to encourage their child s emotional, behavioral and cognitive development Guiding them to search for other professional support when needed
The challenges for teachers are after all pretty much the same in all educational cultures! I hope that you found some ideas for your future efforts to promote the education of children with disabilities. Arigato!