Sector Reforms on Inclusive Education for Children with Disabilities in Finland

Matti Kuorelahti, professorUniversity of Oulu

Finland Conference on Inclusive Education

for Children with DisabilitiesMoscow 29 September 2011

PISA 2009 international comparative study – some notices◦ Finland’s education system successful due to the low

achievers’ high performance School reforms in1968-2010: regulation & pedagogy Inclusion in Finnish: supporting individually

Themes

Finland

OECD average

Azerbaidjan

Croatia

Montenegro

Russian Fed.

Serbia

350 400 450 500 550

ScienceMath.Read.

Students Mean Scores in Reading, Mathematics and Science (PISA 2009)

Finland

OECD average

Azerbaidjan

Croatia

Montenegro

Russian Fed.

Serbia

-60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20

Read.ScienceMath.

Girls better

Score Differences (Boys-Girls) in Reading, Mathematics and Science (PISA 2009)

Boys better

Level 1 or <

Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 Level 60

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80Finland

OECD av-erage

Azerbaidjan

Croatia

Montenegro

Russian Fed.

Serbia

Percentages of Pupils on Levels 1-6 in Reading

Bottom 2nd 3rd Top330

380

430

480

530

580

FinlandOECD avrgCroatiaRussian Fed.SerbiaMontenegroAzerbaidjan

Reading Means by National Quartiles PISA 2009

500

Bottom 2nd 3rd Top

-200

-150

-100

-50

0

50

100

Finland

OECD average

Croatia

Russian Fed.

Serbia

Montenegro

Azerbaijan

Reading Mean Differences Compared by OECD average (=0) by National Quartiles PISA 2009

Low achievers’ high performance!

Finland

OECD average

Azerbaidjan

Croatia

Montenegro

Russian Fed.

Serbia

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Between schools

Within schools

Variation in Student Performance in Reading (PISA 2009)

*

* Interquartile range of the school-level average PISA index of economic, social and cultural status.

Japa

n 0

,52

Net

herl

ands

0,6

3

Slo

veni

a 0

,71

Cze

ch R

epub

lic 0

,42

Ger

man

y 0

,75

Aus

tria

0,6

4

Chi

nese

Tai

pei

0,60

Bel

gium

0,7

3

Italy

0,7

3

Hun

gary

0,8

1

Cro

atia

0,5

6

Kor

ea 0

,58

Kyr

gyzs

tan

0,5

9

Ser

bia

0,6

8

Uni

ted

Kin

gdom

0,5

4

Sw

itzer

land

0,5

8

Isra

el 0

,65

Luxe

mbo

urg

0,8

5

Bul

gari

a 0

,88

Gre

ece

0,6

9

Mon

tene

gro

0,6

0

Tur

key

0,7

8

Hon

g K

ong-

Chi

na 0

,60

Rom

ania

0,6

0

Arg

entin

a 1

,19

Aus

tral

ia 0

,57

Slo

vak

Rep

ublic

0,5

9

New

Zea

land

0,5

4

Chi

le 1

,18

Uni

ted

Sta

tes

0,6

3

Irel

and

0,4

6

Bra

zil

0,98

Lith

uani

a 0

,65

Uru

guay

0,9

9

Can

ada

0,5

2

Indo

nesi

a 0

,89

Tha

iland

0,9

6

Est

onia

0,4

9

Den

mar

k 0

,44

Rus

sian

Fed

erat

ion

0,5

0

Mex

ico

1,2

5

Tun

isia

1,2

2

Latv

ia 0

,58

Sw

eden

0,4

4

Por

tuga

l 1,

03

Col

ombi

a 0

,90

Nor

way

0,3

3

Jord

an 0

,60

Spa

in 0

,73

Pol

and

0,5

9

Aze

rbai

jan

0,8

6

Mac

ao-C

hina

0,4

8

Fin

land

0,3

6

Icel

and

0,5

4

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

*

Score point difference

Effects of students' and schools' socio-economic background on student performance in science (OECD 2007)

All schools produce the same quality

Schools produce different outcomes

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

Conclusions

School reforms in 1968 -2010 in Finland

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

Structural reform in 1968

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

Structural reform in 1968

The effect of the school reform:remarkable change in learning outcomes –

especially among low achievers

Reading comprehension of the 9th graders in Finland in 1965 and 2005 (Moberg & Savolainen 2008)

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 900

0.20.40.60.8

11.21.41.61.8

19652005

percentiles

z-s

core

s (1

965

= 0

-le

vel)

Low achievers

High achievers

Reforms in special education services: slowly steps toward inclusive education

0

5

10

15

20

25

% o

f all

pupi

ls

Part time SE

Full time

Integr. SE

Segregated

Development of special education services by placement of teaching in Finland 1961-2010 (Moberg 2011)

1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010100

150

200

250

300

350

400 Number of special schools

Number of special schools 1985-2010

The proportion of pupils in special schools has decreased from 2 % to 1,2 %

Special education -> Support

Regular curriculum

Tier 2: 23,3 %

Tier 3: 8,5 %

Intensified support: part-time SE

General support: regular teacher & SE teachers (part-time)Tier 1: All,

when necessary

Special support: in regular or SE class/group

Individualized Education Plan (IEP)

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

Reforms in Education Act

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

Reforms in Education Act

Inclusion – as Understood in Finnish Education

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

Inclusion: Access, Participation and Quality Education for All Children

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)

Well, Is It a School for All? The Answer Can Be YES, because…

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

Is It a School for All? The Answer Can Be NO, because…

However…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

Some Remarks on the Challenges to Meet the Diversity in Schools

- especially in Finland

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

Values and attitudes

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

Values and attitudes continued

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

Modes of support

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

Collaboration and shared responsibility

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

Role of Parents

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.

Сбосибо!