Matti Kuorelahti, professor University of Oulu Finland Conference on Inclusive Education for Children with Disabilities Moscow 29 September 2011

 PISA 2009 international comparative study – some notices ◦ Finland’s education system successful due to the low achievers’ high performance  School reforms in : regulation & pedagogy  Inclusion in Finnish: supporting individually

Boys better

500

Low achievers’ high performance!

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

 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

Low achieversHigh achievers

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

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

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

 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

 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. Сбосибо!