sector reforms on inclusive education for children with disabilities in finland
DESCRIPTION
Sector Reforms on Inclusive Education for Children with Disabilities in Finland. Matti Kuorelahti, professor University of Oulu Finland Conference on Inclusive Education for Children with Disabilities Moscow 29 September 2011 . Themes. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
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
1020304050607080 Finland
OECD av-erage
Azerbaidjan
Croatia
MontenegroRussian 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 schoolsWithin 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
herla
nds
0,6
3
Slov
enia
0,7
1
Cze
ch R
epub
lic 0
,42
Ger
man
y 0
,75
Aust
ria 0
,64
Chi
nese
Tai
pei
0,60
Belg
ium
0,7
3
Italy
0,7
3
Hun
gary
0,8
1
Cro
atia
0,5
6
Kore
a 0
,58
Kyrg
yzst
an 0
,59
Serb
ia 0
,68
Uni
ted
King
dom
0,5
4
Switz
erla
nd 0
,58
Isra
el 0
,65
Luxe
mbo
urg
0,8
5
Bulg
aria
0,8
8
Gre
ece
0,6
9
Mon
tene
gro
0,6
0
Turk
ey 0
,78
Hon
g Ko
ng-C
hina
0,6
0
Rom
ania
0,6
0
Arge
ntin
a 1
,19
Aust
ralia
0,5
7
Slov
ak R
epub
lic 0
,59
New
Zea
land
0,5
4
Chi
le 1
,18
Uni
ted
Stat
es 0
,63
Irela
nd 0
,46
Braz
il 0
,98
Lith
uani
a 0
,65
Uru
guay
0,9
9
Can
ada
0,5
2
Indo
nesi
a 0
,89
Thai
land
0,9
6
Esto
nia
0,4
9
Den
mar
k 0
,44
Rus
sian
Fed
erat
ion
0,5
0
Mex
ico
1,2
5
Tuni
sia
1,2
2
Latv
ia 0
,58
Swed
en 0
,44
Portu
gal
1,03
Col
ombi
a 0
,90
Nor
way
0,3
3
Jord
an 0
,60
Spai
n 0
,73
Pola
nd 0
,59
Azer
baija
n 0
,86
Mac
ao-C
hina
0,4
8
Finl
and
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-sc
ores
(196
5 =
0-le
vel)
Low achievers
High achievers
Reforms in special education services: slowly steps toward inclusive education
0
5
10
15
20
25%
of a
ll pu
pils
Part time SEFull timeIntegr. SESegregated
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!