EXCELLENCE THROUGH SPECIAL EDUCATION? LESSONS FROM …sites.miis.edu/.../01/Excellence-through-Special-Education-Finland.pdf · EXCELLENCE THROUGH SPECIAL EDUCATION? LESSONS FROM

EXCELLENCE THROUGH SPECIAL EDUCATION? LESSONS

FROM THE FINNISH SCHOOL REFORM

JOEL KIVIRAUMA and KARI RUOHO

Abstract – The present article focuses on connections between part-time special edu-cation and the good results of Finnish students in PISA studies. After a brief summaryof the comprehensive school system and special education in Finland, PISA results areanalysed. The analysis shows that the relative amount of special education targeted atlanguage problems is highest in Finland among those countries from which comparativestatistics are available. The writers argue that this preventive language-oriented part-time special education is an important factor behind the good PISA results.

Resume – EXCELLENCE GRACE A UNE EDUCATION SPECIALE? LECONS ATIRER DE LA REFORME FINLANDAISE – Le present article se concentre sur lesrelations entre l�education speciale a temps partiel et les bons resultats obtenus par lesetudiants finlandais lors des etudes de PISA. Apres un bref resume du systeme del�enseignement secondaire et de l�education speciale en Finlande, on procede a uneanalyse des resultats de PISA. L�analyse montre que la part relative d�education specialeciblee sur les problemes de langue, parmi ces pays pour lesquels des statistiques com-paratives sont disponibles, est plus elevee en Finlande. Les auteurs estiment que cetteeducation speciale preventive a temps partiel orientee sur la langue est un facteurimportant derriere les bons resultats de PISA.

Zusammenfassung – HERVORRAGENDE LEISTUNGEN DURCH SONDERUN-TERRICHT? LEKTIONEN AUS DER FINNISCHEN SCHULREFORM – Dervorliegende Artikel befasst sich mit dem Zusammenhang zwischen in Teilzeit erteiltemSonderunterricht und dem guten Abschneiden finnischer Schuler bei PISA-Studien.Nach einer kurzen Zusammenfassung des Gesamtschulsystems und des Sonde-runterrichts in Finnland erfolgt eine Analyse der PISA-Ergebnisse. Die Analyse ergibt,dass der relative Anteil an Sonderunterricht zur Sprachforderung in Finnland unterallen Landern, aus denen Vergleichsstatistiken zur Verfugung stehen, am hochsten ist.Die Autoren vertreten die Meinung, dass dieser praventive, in Teilzeit erteilteSprachforderungsunterricht als bedeutender Faktor hinter den guten PISA-Ergebnissenzu betrachten ist.

Resumen – ¿ASEGURA LA EDUCACION ESPECIAL UNA CALIDAD EXCEL-ENTE? LECCIONES DE LA REFORMA ESCOLAR FINLANDESA - Este artıculoesta enfocado en las conexiones que existen entre una educacion especial a tiempoparcial y los buenos resultados de los estudiantes finlandeses en los estudios PISA.Luego de un breve resumen del sistema general de ensenanza escolar y de la educacionespecial en Finlandia, se analizan los resultados de PISA. El analisis muestra que laimportancia relativa de la educacion especial orientada hacia conocimientos de la len-gua es la mas alta en Finlandia, entre todas las naciones de las que se dispone de

Review of Education (2007) 53:283–302 � Springer 2007DOI 10.1007/s11159-007-9044-1

material estadıstico comparable. Los autores sostienen que esta educacion preventiva detiempo parcial, orientada hacia la profundizacion de los conocimientos de la lengua, esun factor importante de los buenos resultados obtenidos en los estudios PISA.

Finnish educational reforms since the 1960s

The Finnish basic education system has undergone very significant policyand structure reforms since the 1960s. From the very beginning of thereform process there has been an ongoing discussion about its aims, imple-mentation and success. The results of the PISA studies in 2000 and 2003showed that the Finnish school reform has been quite successful, at leastconcerning the academic performance of pupils. Looking at this in interna-tional perspective, it is relevant to ask what the reasons are behind the Finn-ish educational success story in recent PISA studies.

PISA results indicate that Finnish students obtained the highest score inreading literacy performance among the OECD countries. Indeed, Finland�sperformance was significantly higher than that of any other participatingcountry. In addition, high overall reading literacy performance in Finlandseems to be combined with a comparatively high level of equality (seeLinnakyla et al. 2002; Kupari and Tornroos 2002; Reinikainen 2002;Linnakyla and Valijarvi 2003). One of the most interesting features in theFinnish PISA results is the fact that the number of weak performers is alsovery low, and in many items they exceed the mean values of the whole sam-ple. This justifies raising a question related to special education, since specialeducation and special educators deal with poorly performing pupils. What isthe role of part-time special education in the Finnish PISA results (in part-time special education pupils receive teaching on average two hours a week)?

The origin of part-time special education has its roots in the 1960s, whenbasic education was reorganized under the Comprehensive School Act of1968. Based on this law, the old parallel school system – earlier divided intoelementary and middle school – was unified into one nine-year-long basic

– - ? -

-- ,

PISA . -

, PISA. ,, -

,, . -, -

- - PISA.

284 Joel Kivirauma and Kari Ruoho

education system which consisted of the lower (grades 1–6) and upper levels(grades 7–9). The reform meant that all students in an age group had to beincluded in the unified school. Already in the 1960s, it was foreseen that thisunification might create pedagogical problems due to the heterogeneity ofpupils. In order to avoid these impending pedagogical difficulties, a country-wide system of part-time special education was introduced. The system isconsidered quite unique internationally and is thus interesting from a widerperspective as well.

The effectiveness, efficiency and especially the economical input/outputrelation of teachers working in part-time special education has been dis-cussed by a number of authors (e.g. Huhtanen 2000; Savolainen 2001; Will-berg 2002). The direct outcomes of their work with students with specialeducational needs (SEN students) are more or less invisible and thus hypo-thetical, since organizing well controlled comparative studies on this issue isalmost impossible, Nevertheless, it is very difficult to argue that the existenceof the part-time special education system has not had any effects or left anymarks on students� lives. On the contrary, it is more reasonable to believethat the teachers of part-time special education – a vast resource in the basiceducation system – are one of the key factors explaining the equality ofFinnish outcomes in the PISA study.

In this paper, we assume that part-time special education has had and stillhas a key role in explaining the success of Finnish students in the PISAstudies, even though this assumption is not widely discussed in Finland. Thisassumption will be examined, based on the available statistics, in relation tosome aspects of the PISA-results, as will the strategy and role of Finnishpart-time special education as a factor explaining the equality of outcomes inbasic education. The role of part-time special education and educators inrelation to poor performers� achievement in basic education will also bediscussed.

The Finnish PISA results

Finland performed very well in the PISA 2000 reading assessment, and inPISA 2003 it again exhibited a high level in reading literacy. The PISA 2000and 2003 results indicated that Finnish students achieved the highest readingliteracy performance among all the OECD countries. Furthermore, the PISA2003 survey showed that Finnish students were on the top in mathematicsand in science as well. Items measuring problem solving knowledge andskills were also included in the survey as a new objective of the examination.In all the above-mentioned domains of performance, Finns obtained excel-lent results, and Finland�s performance in all areas was significantly higherthan in any other participating OECD country (Valijarvi and Linnakyla2002; Valijarvi et al.: 2002; OECD 2004a).

285Excellence through special education

In addition to good results, high overall performance in Finland seems tobe combined with comparatively high equality. This is seen from the factthat in Finland the standard deviation, which illustrates the variation in stu-dent performance, is among the lowest in all the OECD countries researched(Valijarvi et al. 2002: 5, 10, 14). Differences in results are very low withinschools, between schools, and between different parts of the country. Fin-land represented an example that displays a high level of student perfor-mance in school subjects and, at the same time, a below average impact ofdemographic, economic, social and cultural status on student performance(See OECD 2004a: 184). Among Finnish students, only gender is associatedwith statistically significant differences in some of the skills measured.

The standard deviation (SD) for student scores in reading literacy provedthe second lowest among the OECD countries (Linnakyla and Sulkunen2002: 22–23). The high scores and low SD are among the most significantdifferences when comparing the amount of variation in Finnish results withrelated results in other OECD countries where – especially within countries –the results vary greatly (see Linnakyla and Sulkunen 2002: 32).

The PISA results indicate a high degree of equality and equity in thelearning outcomes in Finland. This can be defined as a situation in whichstudents� performance is nearly independent of their sex, domicile, school orsocio-economic background. The overall relationship between research back-ground factors and students� performance provides an important indicator ofthe capacity of the education system to offer equitable learning opportunitiesreflecting systemic aspects of education. (OECD 2004a: 186).

One of the most interesting features in the Finnish PISA results is the factthat the results were, on average, high and the number of weak performersquite low. In many items, these poor performers exceed the mean values ofthe entire OECD sample. One of the key results – which seems to be a para-dox – is that the overall level of students� performance in Finland was high,and at the same time the number of poor achievers quite low (see e.g.Linnakyla and Sulkunen 2002: 39). In Table 1 below, we find an examplefrom the reading skills results illustrating the number of good and poorperformance in Finland and in other OECD countries.

The first table shows that there are a relatively small number of Finnish stu-dents with poor performance and simultaneously a large number of good per-formers. The results show that emphasis on equality in educational policyobviously leads to a �levelling out� of education standards (cf. OECD 2004b: 21).

Another important finding is that, although the gender differences inPISA achievement level are high in Finland, Finnish boys exceed the corre-sponding OECD average. Table 2 presents the reading skill results as anexample of this phenomenon.

The results indicate that boys� performance in reading in Finland is betterthan in the OECD countries in general. The Finnish boys� level of achieve-ment is the highest among the boys in all the OECD countries. Indeed, it is


better than the corresponding reading level of girls in many other OECDcountries (Linnakyla, Kupari and Reinikainen 2002: 77–78).

How do the Finnish poor performers compare with other students inOECD countries according to socio-economical status? Figure 1 belowexplains where the difference between the points of Finnish and other OECDstudents originates. The bars in Figure 1 show the positive differencebetween Finnish and other OECD students� average performance in reading,maths and science in relation to the social status of the students� parents. In

Table 1. Comparison of the number of students (%) on the levels below 1, 1 and 5in reading skills

Below level 1 (%) Level 1 (%) Level 5 (%)

Finland 2003 2 5 18OECD 2003 6 12 10

Source: Linnakyla and Sulkunen 2002: 33.

Table 2. Comparison of Finnish and OECD boys� (%) reading skills on the level 1and 5

Below or level 1 (%) Level 5 (%)

Finland 2000 11 11OECD 2000 13 7

Source: Linnakyla et al. 2002: 77–78.

61

4440

31

48

37

30

23

52

3634

22

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1 Bottom 2 3 4 Top

Reading Math Science

Average positivedeviance in points

OECD mean

Figure 1. Positive difference (points) between Finnish and OECD students� averagereading, math and science performance by socio-economic status of their parents(Source: Valijarvi and Linnakyla 2002: 276–278)


general, the positive deviation of Finnish pupils from the OECD average is38.2 points. The figure, however, reveals that the positive deviation from thecorresponding OECD mean of the lowest quartile is much higher than in thehigher socio-economical quartiles, as much as 61 points in the reading per-formance category.

Figure 1 indicates that the lower the parental social status of Finnish stu-dents, the greater the positive difference in points compared to the OECDmean. This suggests that Finnish students who are socio-economically disad-vantaged are doing relatively better than socio-economically more advan-taged students in other OECD countries on the measured items.

The relatively high success of Finnish weak performers seems to be astrong explanatory factor in the Finnish success in the PISA study. Thisobservation justifies a question related to special education, since specialeducation and special educators deal with pupils with poor performance.What is the role of Finnish part-time special education in the Finnish PISAresults?

An overview of Finnish special education

Some general features

In international comparisons, one basic problem is the mismatch of the clas-sification techniques used. Due to this problem, efforts were made to renewthe entire classification system (OECD 2000). Even though comparativestatistics on special education become more unreliable the more detailedfigures they present, one can utilize them to derive information on generalstatistical trends.

The high number of students in part-time special education has madeFinland an interesting exception in the international comparison of educa-tion statistics: in 2003, almost 18% of all Finnish children in basic educationwere classified as SEN (special educational needs) students. In Germany, forexample, the corresponding figure was 5.3% and in Greece 0.9% (Meijeret al. 2003: 9). The explanation for these huge differences between countriescan mainly be found in the Finnish part-time special education system. Thisdifference between Finland and other countries is still growing, since thenumber of SEN students is still increasing: in the school year 2002/2003,part-time special education already included one-fifth of all students attend-ing basic education (Statistics Finland 2005a).

Based on various international statistics, it can be concluded that Finlandhas the world record in terms of the quantity of special education given tobasic education students (OECD 2000; Armstrong 1999; Vislie 2003). Con-cretely, this means that more students studying in the basic education will beclassified as special needs students in Finland than in any other country inthe world (Vislie 2003: 24, 31). From the same statistical sources it can be


ascertained that the main explanatory factor in the high number of specialeducation students is not the students in special schools and special educa-tion classes, but rather the volume of part-time special education students(Vislie 2003: 28; OECD 2000: 194).

Finland and two other Nordic countries head the list as ‘‘leading specialeducators’’. These three also differ from other countries in another respect:the amount of segregated special education in their schools is quite low. Inmany other countries, the proportion of segregated special education consistsof one-half or more of the entire special education field.

Part-time special education as a part of basic education

The establishment of a new Finnish basic education system meant for allin the late 1960s was a major structural change from a parallel system toa comprehensive one. The structural change as such, however, was notenough to meet the goals set for the new system. The new system alsoprovided some fresh pedagogical and didactical approaches and solutionsin order to succeed in teaching the entire age group in the same settings.The most important pedagogical tool discussed in this connection wascalled pedagogical ‘‘inner differentiation’’, which meant a change from theselective division of students into two different schools towards an innerdifferentiation of teaching in a school meant for all. In this transitionphase, part-time special education was assigned the demanding pedagogicaltask of keeping all students in the basic education system (see Committeedeliberation 1970: 147).

The educational strategy planned and adopted at the end of the 1960schallenged the system to keep the entire heterogeneous age group in thesame classroom. This was indeed taken by key administrators and politicians

Table 3. Ten top countries measured by the number of students in special educationin the year 1990

Total proportion of students In segregated settings

Finland 17.1 2.8Iceland 15.7 1.3Denmark 13.0 1.6Canada 10.8* n.a.USA 7.00 2.9Germany 7.00 3.7Norway 6.00 0.7Australia 5.2 1.6Switzerland 4.9 4.9Netherlands 3.6 3.6

* The information bases on one state; New Brunswick and includes gifted students.Sources: Armstrong 1999; Vislie 2003; OECD 1995.


as a challenge, not as a threat, and some strategic solutions to the anticipatedproblems were developed. The main tool used to control the emerging prob-lems was a new curriculum for the whole age group. The new curriculumwas based, among other ideas, on the individualized inner differentiation ofteaching. In this work, the part-time special education system was meant tobe an important tool (Kivirauma 1989).

The second main vehicle in renewing the quality of education was theestablishment of a new, high-quality, uniform teacher training system, whichincluded the training of teachers of part-time special education. The teachertraining system was reorganized at the beginning of the 1970s by implement-ing the university-based academic education of teachers. At the same time,the training of part-time special teachers on the university level was alsolaunched, although it had already started on a small scale in the year 1966.Later on, since 1979, the training of teachers of part-time special educationhas been developed into an independent, full-scale (four years) academicprogramme. Professorships for these special education teachers� trainingprogrammes were also established in the responsible universities. All theseefforts made by the state show quite deep involvement in the development ofan effective functional and productive part-time special education system inbasic education (Kivirauma 1991).

The number of part-time special teachers hired in basic education in thewhole of Finland increased 20-fold during the years 1967 – 1977. Thegrowth in the number of teachers of part-time special education continuedwith the same intensity until the beginning of the 1990s, showing the generalcommitment of the state towards the strategy adopted earlier. Since the early1990s, the number of SEN teachers in basic education has been quite stableat around 1,500. In the academic year 2002–2003 every tenth teacher was aspecial education teacher, and 30% of these were teachers of part-timespecial education. At the end of the 80s, basically every comprehensiveschool had a resource teacher available, and the adequate student/teacherratio was considered to be around 450 students in the ‘‘territory’’ of onepart-time SEN teacher. In the year 1999, the precise ratio in Finland wasone available part-time SEN teacher for 382 students in basic education(Hautamaki et al. 2001: 234; Statistics Finland 2000: 13).

The number of pupils who have participated in part-time special educa-tion is a concrete indicator of the activities of teachers in this field. In princi-pal, it can be said that the more students there are in part-time specialeducation, the more students have received some individual pedagogicalsupport. Naturally there are limits, but under good conditions the teacher/student ratio includes the optimal number of students. On the other hand, itcan be said that more and more students have been labelled ‘‘special educa-tion student’’ in basic education.

The increased number of students in part-time special teaching from thebeginning of comprehensive basic education is a function of the increasednumber of SEN teachers. The statistics (see Ruoho 2004: 131) reveal that the


number of pupils in part-time special education has been growing from thevery beginning of the establishment of the comprehensive basic educationsystem, although there have been some plateaus in the history of part-timespecial education as well (see Kivirauma 2001: 32).

The average number of students per teacher in part-time special hadstabilised at 53–60 students in the 90s (see for instance Ruoho et al. 1996:26). Now, when the number of teachers seems to have reached a peak, thenumber of students is still growing (see Statistics Finland 2005a). The cur-rent number of students (124 100) is higher than ever, even though the num-ber of teachers has not increased since the year 2000. Based on this fact, itcan be estimated that every teacher of part-time special education is todayobliged to teach more students than in the 1990s.

In the context of the increased number of special education students inbasic education, the policy of hiring new teachers in municipalities, andassigning them a realistic work load with a reasonable number of students, isa strong manifestation of the deep commitment to the education strategyimplemented since the late 1960s. The increased number of teachers of part-time special education is related to the increased number of studentsinvolved in the part-time special education system. The development in theyears 1970–1990 reflected active efforts to find, diagnose and label learningdifficulties in schools. This approach created a subjective right for studentsto receive individual special support in their own school. This principle andits practical implementation have been realized by a new part-time specialteaching resource in the schools.

On the other hand, certain recent developments (since the 1990s) raise cer-tain doubts as to the extent to which they are in line with the former basicequalisation of education strategy. When one looks at the current statistics(for example, Statistics Finland 2005a), the most astonishing feature of therecent developments is the fact that the numbers in both special educationareas – segregated and integrated – have grown quite rapidly, even thoughone would have expected that, with more integrated special teaching, therewould be commensurately less separated education. The reason for theincreasing number of students in special education can be explained by themore exact diagnosing and assessment of students. In addition, some expla-nations related to the school system seem to be reasonable (see Kivirauma2001: 33).

This recently observed tendency in special teaching may indicate a newrole for special education. In general, its task may be to protect the entirecomprehensive system against deviancy. In the new political atmosphere insociety, more emphasis is put on promoting ‘‘normality’’ and rejecting belowaverage performance. In any case, if the official optimal number of studentsper teacher in part-time special education becomes unrealistically large, thesystem may collapse. Whether this will lead to an increase of inequality inteaching and outcomes or a return to the parallel system latent in basiceducation remains to be seen.


The strategy and content of Finnish part-time special education

Strategy

The SEN resources available in the Finnish comprehensive education systemcan be divided in many ways. Actually, no legal or official strategy existsabout how to distribute teachers� activities between school grades in the ba-sic education system. It seems evident that this distribution has occurredsomewhat ‘‘naturally’’, although there must be some factors under the sur-face explaining the facts of the reality. The current division of part-time spe-cial education resources between grades can be seen in Figure 2.

Figure 2 gives information about two main strategic aspects of Finnishpart-time special education: (1) The strategy is aimed at elementary educa-tion in the comprehensive school. Almost 50 percent of the resources areused by the first three grades. (2) The strategy tries to ensure that pupilsfinish school successfully as well as preparing them for a successful transitionfrom basic education to secondary school. This can be seen in the rising‘‘resource curve’’ in the upper level (grades 7–9) of basic education.

When comparing the current resource division with former studies(Happonen et al. 1986; Ruoho et al. 1996: 28–29; Kolehmainen 2005),weighting resource at the very start of schooling has been a stable phenome-non in Finnish basic education. The nature of the phenomenon can beunderstood as a preventive pedagogical approach applied in basic education:the earlier the learning problems can be identified, the better the possibilitiesfor successful intervention. The curve in Figure 4 also shows that, in spiteof part-time special teaching activities, there are some special students in

18,4

16,7

13,9

11,5

8,9

7,1 7,28,3 7,9

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

1 6 92 3 4 5 7 8

Figure 2. The division (%) of the whole part time special teaching resource (100 %)in the school year 2000–2003 in accordance with grades 1 to 9 (Source: Statistics...2005b)


part-time special education until the end of the lower level (grade 6) and inthe upper level (grades 7–9) of comprehensive school. In any case, it can besaid that the strategy adopted in the dissemination of part-time specialeducation resources in the comprehensive school stresses prevention as aprinciple in supporting pupils in school. This binds the strategy very closelyto the ideal of equal opportunities and outcomes for learning, as well asacademic and social communication skills.

The target of part-time special education

A typical Finnish definition of part-time special education policy is theprinciple of early intervention, meaning in this case the concentration ofspecial support resources in the first classes of comprehensive schooling.Connected with this preventive starting point, the treatment of language-related problems has typically also been stressed. In Finnish basic educa-tion, language-meaning different dimensions of the mother tongue – hasbeen in the centre of teaching. Historical and psychological factors explainthis language-orientated approach in basic education. The hierarchicalstructure of mental abilities has obviously been a basic assumption in thearrangement of part-time special education as well. Problems in readingand writing are a special target of remedial activities.

Obviously, based on this historically motivated and psychologically basedapproach, the number of children getting support for their language-relatedspecial needs is much higher in Finland than in the other 21 countries com-pared. An international study (Werner-Putnam 1979: 89) carried out in morethan 100 countries showed that problems in the mother tongue are the latestaspect to become a target of special education.

Figures for special education support in language are reported by onlyone-half of all the countries involved. Thus, the information does not claimthat in these countries there is no language-related special teaching, butinstead that there is no measurement tool for this purpose. Taking into

Table 4. The relative amount (%) of special education targeted on language prob-lems in some OECD countries in the year 1990.

Finland 4.51

USA 1.46Germany 0.30Belgium 0.13Switzerland 0.12Austria 0.08Japan 0.04Netherlands 0.01

Sources: Armstrong 1999; OECD 1995.


account all these reservations, it can be said that in Finland�s figures, lan-guage-related special education is in a class of its own on the worldwide scale.

The language phenomenon in special education seems to be a clear na-tional feature which draws a line between Finland and other Europeancountries. The USA came closest to Finland, but even there the quantity oflanguage-related support amounted to only one-third of that provided inFinland (Armstrong 1999: 77, 79). Language as an object of special educa-tion is all too often see as a luxury, which can only be afforded when allother needs have been taken care of.

How have the resources reserved for part-time special teaching been used?This question can be answered, for example, by describing the teachingactivities according to the target of part-time special education. The follow-ing figure shows the current situation in resource use by target.

According to Figure 3, the activities of teachers of part-time special edu-cation have mainly been targeted at various language problems. Mother ton-gue teaching, meaning support for spoken and written language skills, as atarget of special education, accounts for more than two-thirds of all theactivities of teachers of part-time special education. If we include support forforeign language learning problems, the figure is even higher.

In the Finnish context, this is not an accident. In Finnish formal educa-tion, mother tongue and mathematics have been a core target and held aninstrumental position during the entire history of public basic education (seee.g. Halila 1949; Kivinen 1988: 136). Based on this historically determinedemphasis on language and, later on (especially in the 1970s) the increasedpsychological understanding of the role of language in the development ofmental abilities, the spoken and written language has ‘‘inherited’’ its key rolein special education implemented within the basic education system as well.

45,7

17,4 16,3

8,7

5,26,7

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Wr ittenlanguage

Speech Math Foreignlanguage

EBD Else

2001 2003

Figure 3. The amount of used resources (%) in accordance with the target of parttime special teaching in the school year 2001–2002 and 2002–2003 (Sources: Statistics2002; Statistics 2005b)


Figure 4 clearly shows the huge role of supporting mother tongue andforeign language development in Finnish basic education. In the first grade,90 percent of resources available for part-time special education teaching areused for language problem treatment. This highlighting of the role oflanguage has been a stable trend throughout the entire history of Finnishpart-time special education (compare Happonen et al. 1986). This language-centred way of thinking in former as well as current part-time specialeducation can perhaps be formulated as follows: 1) a prerequisite for globallearning in school is good language abilities and skills; 2) there is a certaincritical phase for learning the written language, which is interrelated with thestatus of the spoken language; and finally 3) the earlier the problems inlanguage development are detected and corrected, the better the capacitiesfor learning in school.

The hierarchical development of mental abilities – starting from thesensory-motor system, continuing with spoken and written language andending up in language-related formal mental operations – has created strongconfidence in the usefulness of working with language problems: if teacherscan ease the language development and solve language-related problems,they can at the same time create the basic foundation for the future mentalfunctioning of a student.

Integration, segregation or something else?

The quantitative growth of part-time special education (see Figure 2) wasrelated to the establishment of a new comprehensive school in Finland.Nevertheless it has been said that it does not match the new ideas of inclusive

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Figure 4. The share (%) of special teaching targeted at all kind of language problemsin Finnish comprehensive basic education by the grades 1 to 9 in the school year2002–2003 (Source: Statistics... 2005b)


education. Before a final evaluation of the ‘‘ethos’’ of Finnish special educa-tion, it would be reasonable to examine some key concepts attached tointegration/inclusion and to take a closer look at Finnish special education.

In Vislie�s (2003: 19–20) opinion, integration and inclusion are subsequent,historically determined phases of development. The introduction of the con-cept of integration occurred in the 1960s and the 70s. At that time, it wastargeted mainly at the reform of the school system. Core demands at thattime were the right of all children to education, the neighbourhood schoolprinciple and the reform of the entire special education system. Since inte-gration was, indeed, a movement at the system level, it did not touch someschool classroom issues, such as teaching or learning, to any great degree.The integration ideas implied that when the system changes, the classroomswill be changed, as well. Vislie (ibid.) has called this as a double strategy ofintegration, which includes integration as a system-level change and as achange in normal teaching towards comprehensive education. Some featuresof Vislie�s thinking are close to this type of macro- and micro-division, butcannot be reduced completely to this classification.

The concept of inclusion often implies that it embraces more than integra-tion. Some of the most important �new� aspects of integration are the qual-ity, quantity and content of teaching. In the simplest form, inclusion hasbeen seen as a process whereby a school tries to respond to the needs of allstudents individually (Vislie 2003: 20–22). The same has been expressed byPeder Haug (2004: 1), who has stated: ‘‘Inclusive education is a much broaderissue than special education, and concerns the organisation, content and work-ing methods for the whole school’’. Haug argues that ‘‘fellowship, participa-tion, democratisation and benefit’’ are essential elements of inclusion.�Fellowship� means that all children must be members of their classroomcommunity and partake in its social, cultural and professional life. �Partici-pation� means that pupils are not just onlookers but active participants.�Democratisation� implies that all pupils must have a voice in issues concern-ing them, and �benefit� that all pupils receive teaching which is socially andsubstantially valuable for them (Haug 2004: 3).

Inclusion is seen mostly as a process, which is not only a matter of schoolreform, but more a series of actions on the societal level. Based on this idea,inclusion is not only a goal, but more a tool for working towards the inclu-sive society itself. In this light, we can perceive the main difference betweenintegration and inclusion: integration means assimilation and inclusionmeans transformation. In the context of inclusion, some concepts such assuccess, failure and ability must be reconsidered. The differences betweenhuman beings should be seen in a constructive and respectful way. Diversityought to be seen as an enrichment, providing extended possibilities for learn-ing. It is more than clear that the ideals presented above cannot be fittedvery easily into the current school culture, which almost entirely highlightsthe role of academic success (Barton 2003: 12). However, the interrelationbetween inclusive school policy and academic success is almost irrelevant


when one compares its role to the role of students� social background, whichhas multiple effects on pupils� school performance (Dyson 2004).

The core question in inclusion is the right to learn, which in turn is partof the philosophy of acceptance (Thomas et al. 2002: 15). If society�s valuesare aggressively meritocratic, individualistic, and purely competitive, theynaturally do not favour such educational inclusion. The situation is just theopposite if society is steered by collective responsibility and solidarity. In asociety like this, the role of the schools would be to reduce inequality, whichwould principally mean access to common activities, places and language.This does not primarily mean extra resources, but more a chance for allpupils to share in a common school culture and its richness (Thomas et al.2002: 5–14).

Some researchers have demanded that the classification of special educa-tion problems be stopped as soon as possible. In its summarizing conclusion,Ysseldyke�s comprehensive review article (1987: 267–268) leaves no room forinterpretation: There is no sense in classifying special problems in order toimprove special education. He continues that one should give up trying todiscover and create increasingly refined names for special problems. Accord-ing to him, the only benefit in classifying difficulties is bound up with legisla-tion, and in that respect, this practice may bring some economic advantages.In the USA, for example, there has been strong criticism of the ever-increasingnumber of categories of �learning disabilities� (LD) among other disabilities(Keogh 1988: 235–236). On the one hand, the critics have objected to thebroadness and vagueness of the concept. On the other hand, it has been seento serve the practices of the school more than the pupils. This can be gener-alised as follows: the better the services in a school, the less need there is forLD terminology. Thomas et al. (2002: 13–14) have also voiced strong criti-cism towards detailed classification of special needs. They argue that suchdelineation of pedagogical difficulties is based on the need to emphasize theskills of specialized professionals. This practice implies that regular teachersare not capable of teaching children with special needs, and therefore thesechildren must be given special treatment by special teachers, tidily hiddenaway from the normal school environment. This all means that classificationof special needs works as an automatic segregation mechanism.

What are the consequences of this for Finnish special education? Firstly,Finnish special education was born in the era dominated by the ideology ofintegration. Indeed, it represents the purest form of integration ideology.Students are not pointed out and segregated in special education. The aim ofpart-time special education was to make available an extra resource forpupils with learning difficulties. The term ‘‘part-time special education’’implies one important assumption about learning difficulties: they are tempo-rary and they can be overcome with relatively light pedagogical interven-tions. Secondly, the new special education approach has eliminated neithersegregated special teaching nor the classification of special needs students.On the contrary, the former classifications have been replaced by new and


often even more sophisticated categories. In conclusion, it can be said that inFinland there are at the moment two parallel special education systems; theold one, which is based on special schools and classes, and the new one,taking the form of part-time special education. That is why these two formsof special education should be examined as separate systems, which functionwith principles of their own.

How do we see the future of the Finnish education system per se in rela-tion to the PISA results? In general, the good performance of Finnish pupilsin this international comparison is a sign of the actively orientated, wellfunctioning, and successful organization of teaching and learning in Finland.On the other hand, the results mirror the success of the equality policyimplemented in Finnish schools. In this respect, one important conclusionderived from the PISA results is that equality does not preclude good perfor-mance by students, even though this has recently been claimed in the pressin Finland. In fact, as we see it, equity and equality aiming at increasing theeducational performance of all children is a precondition for good results ingeneral (see OECD 2004a: 191–198).

In spite of the PISA results, Finnish school policy aiming at equality has,for quite some time, been in a defensive position, trying to fight against newpolicy emphasising competition, choice and an individually orientated schoolideology. Indeed, this phenomenon exists, but it is more European thanFinnish (see Feuser 2001 regarding the situation in Germany). In this con-nection, Stephan Ball (2001: 21) speaks about a new paradigm in ‘‘theadministration of European education and schooling’’.

As a concrete sign of neo-liberal school policy in Finland we can mentionthe elimination of school districts and increasing the possibilities of parentsto choose a school for their children. The school district system meant thatall children went to the closest neighbourhood school in their district. Theassignment of schools to districts originated in the late 1900s, and its origi-nal purpose was to secure a sufficiently dense school network. Later on, itspurpose became to guard against social inequality by providing for all chil-dren, regardless their social background, access to common basic education.

Now the situation is changing. Parents can – with some limitations –choose the compulsory education school their children will attend. There isalready some research-based evidence that, in some bigger towns, differencesbetween schools have clearly increased regarding the social background ofparents (Seppanen 2004). Additionally, discussion has been initiated aboutensuring the schooling of talented students, increasing local autonomyagainst paternalism, the role of individual choice as a basis for school policy,and finally increasing the effectiveness of schooling. These new outlines ofschool policy are thought to be unavoidable in the environment of globalcompetition, and no alternatives are seen, even though the result of this newpolicy might lead to increasing inequality (Kivirauma 2001).

Only the future will tell whether a neo-liberal policy, highlighting rivalryin the EU and the role of the best students in education, can overshadow


the indisputable pieces of evidence concerning the Finnish �good practices ofschool policy� found in several international comparisons. From a demo-cratic civil society point of view, the situation does not look promising. Theethos of our time is exclusive, not inclusive. The problem we are facing atpresent is not only the power of the market, but more importantly the miss-ing counter-power, as the Nobel Prize-winning author Gunter Grass recentlywrote (Grass 2005).

References

Act. 1968. Laki koulujarjestelman perusteista. Helsinki: Act 467/1968.

Armstrong, Felicity. 1999. Comparative perspectives on difference and difficulty: across-cultural approach. In: Difference and Difficulty: Insights, issues and dilemmas, ed.by Len Barton and Felicity Armstrong, 62–95. Sheffield: University of Sheffield,Department of Educational Studies.

Ball, Stephen J. 2001. Globaalit toimintaperiaatteet ja kansalliset politiikat eurooppa-laisessa koulutuksessa. In:Koulutuspolitiikka Suomessa ja ylikansalliset mallit, ed. byArtoJauhiainen, Risto Rinne and Juhani Tahtinen, 21 - 24. Turku: Suomen kasvatustiete-ellisen seuran kasvatusalan tutkimuksia 1.

Barton, Len. 2003. Inclusive Education and Teacher Education. A Basic for Hope or aDiscourse of Delusion. Professorial lecture presented in the Institute of Education,University of London, UK.

Committee deliberation. 1970. Peruskoulun opetussuunnitelmakomitean mietinto I.Opetussuunnitelman perusteet. Helsinki: Komiteanmietinto A:4.

Dyson, Alan. 2004. Inclusion and the Achievements of All Students. Paper presented atthe Annual Kasvatustieteen paivat in Joensuu (FERA), Finland 26 November 2004.Joensuu: FERA.

Feuser, Georg. 2001. Yleinen integratiivinen pedagogiikka valttamattomyytena javelvollisuutena. In: Inkluusion haaste koululle, ed. by Pentti Murto, Aimo Naukkarinenand Timo Saloviita, 184–198. Jyvaskyla: PS-kustannus.

Grass, Gunter. 2005. Vapautta porssin mitalla. Daily newspaper Helsingin Sanomat, 5May 2005.

Halila, Aimo. 1949. Suomen kansakoululaitoksen historia. Kansanopetus ennenkansakoulua ja kansakoululaitoksen synty (Vol. I). Porvoo: WSOY.

Happonen, Heikki, Markku Ihatsu, Eija Karna, Ulla Peratalo, and Kari Tuunainen.1986. Luokattoman erityisopetuksen nykytila ja kehittamisen paasuunnat (Vol. II).Kouluhallituksen tutkimus 7.

Haug, Peder. 2004. Inclusion in Norwegian Compulsory School. Paper presented atNERA, Reykjavik, Iceland 11–13 March 2004. Reykjavik: NERA.

Hautamaki, Jarkko, Lahtinen Ulla, Moberg Sakari, and Tuunainen Kari 2001.Erityispedagogiikan perusteet. Helsinki: WSOY.

Huhtanen, Kristiina. 2000. �Maattomat kuninkaat�. Osa-aikainen erityisopetusoppivelvollisuuskoulun vuosiluokilla 1. –6. Tampere: Acta Universitatis Tamperensis 788.


Keogh, Barbara K. 1988. Learning Disability: Diversity in Search of Order. In:Handbook of Special Education: Research and Practice, ed. by Margaret C.Wang, Maynard C. Reynolds and Herbert J. Walberg 225–252. 2Oxford:Pergamon Press.

Kivinen, Osmo. 1988. Koulutuksen jarjestelmakehitys. Peruskoulutus ja valtiollinenkouludoktriini Suomessa 1800- ja 1900-luvuilla. Turku: Annales Universitatis Turku-ensis C:67.

Kivirauma, Joel. 1989. Erityisopetus ja suomalainen oppivelvollisuuskoulu vuosina 1921–1985. Turku: Annales Universitatis Turkuensis C:74.

Kivirauma, Joel. 1991. Erityisopettajaksi rekrytoituminen: uralla etenemista vai tyopai-kan vaihtamista? Turku: Turun yliopiston kasvatustieteen tiedekunnan julkaisusarjaA:145.

Kivirauma, Joel. 2001. Kansainvalistymisen pakot: kohti eriarvoistavaakoulutuspolitiikkaa. In: Koulutuspolitiikka Suomessa ja ylikansalliset mallit, ed. byArto Jauhiainen, Risto Rinne, and Juhani Tahtinen, 73–90. Turku: Suomen kasvatu-stieteellisen seuran kasvatusalan tutkimuksia 1.

Kolehmainen, Aimo. 2005. Osa-aikaisen erityisopetuksen tila lukuvuonna 2000/01.Osa-aikaisessa erityisopetuksessa olleiden oppilaiden maara ja erityisopetusperusteetlukuvuonna 2000/01 seka erityisopetusperusteissa tapahtuneet muutokset 1990-luvulla.Joensuu: Unpublished Master�s Thesis of the University of Joensuu, Department ofSpecial Education.

Kupari, Pekka, and Jukka Tornroos. 2002. Miten suomalaisnuoret osaavat mate-matiikkaa? In: Tulevaisuuden osaajat. Pisa 2000 Suomessa, ed. by Jouni Valijarvi andPirjo Linnakyla, 41–56. Jyvaskyla: Koulutuksen tutkimuslaitos, OECD, and Opetu-shallitus.

Kupari, Pekka., Jouni Valijarvi, Pirjo Linnakyla, Pasi Reinikainen, Viking Brunell,Kaisa Leino, Sari Sulkunen, Jukka Tornroos, Antero Malin, and Eija Puhakka. 2004.Nuoret osaajat. PISA 2003-tutkimuksen ensituloksia. Jyvaskyla: Koulutuksen tutkimus-laitos, OECD, and Opetushallitus.

Linnakyla, Pirjo, Pekka Kupari, and Pasi Reinikainen. 2002. Sukupuolierotlukutaidossa seka matematiikan ja luonnontieteiden osaamisessa. In: Tulevaisuudenosaajat. Pisa 2000 Suomessa, ed. by Jouni Valijarvi and Pirjo Linnakyla, 73–88.Jyvaskyla: Koulutuksen tutkimuslaitos, OECD, and Opetushallitus.

Linnakyla, Pirjo, and Sari Sulkunen. 2002. Millainen on suomalaisten nuortenlukutaito. In: Tulevaisuuden osaajat. Pisa 2000 Suomessa, ed. by Jouni Valijarvi andPirjo Linnakyla, 9–39. Jyvaskyla: Koulutuksen tutkimuslaitos, OECD and Opetushall-itus.

Linnakyla, Pirjo, and Jouni Valijarvi. 2003. Das erfolgreiche Abschneiden vonfinnischen Schulern bei der PISA-Studie. Welche Erklarungen gibt es dafur? In: ForumJugendarbeit International. ed. by Dirk Hanisch, and Reinhard Schwalbach. Bonn:Internationaler Jugendaustausch- und Besucherdienst der Bundesrepublik Deutschland,284–295. http://www.ijab.de/downloads/fji2003/Linnakyla2003.pdf, accessed 8 April2005.

Meijer, Cor, Victoria Soriano, and Amanda Watkins. (eds.). 2003. Special NeedsEducation in Europe. Middelfart: European Agency for Development in Special NeedsEducation.


Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD]. 1995. IntegratingStudents with Special Needs into Mainstream Schools. Paris: OECD.

——. 2000. Special Needs Education. Statistics and Indicators. Paris: OECD.

——. 2004a. Learning for Tomorrow�s World. First Results from PISA 2003. Paris:OECD.

——. 2004b. Messages from PISA 2000. Paris: OECD.

Reinikainen, Pasi. 2002. Millaista on luonnontieteellinen osaaminen Suomessa? In:Tulevaisuuden osaajat. Pisa 2000 Suomessa, ed. by Jouni Valijarvi and Pirjo Linnakyla,57–72. Jyvaskyla: Koulutuksen tutkimuslaitos, OECD, and Opetushallitus.

Ruoho, Kari, Heikki Happonen, and Markku Ihatsu. 1996. Osa-aikaisen erityisopet-uksen tila. Peruskoulun osa-aikaisessa erityisopetuksessa olleet oppilaat lukuvuonna1992/93. Joensuu: Unpublished manuscript of the University of Joensuu, Department ofSpecial Education.

Ruoho Kari (2004) Die Bedeutung der Erziehungsgleichheit und des ambulantenSonderunterrichts fur die Pisa-Ergebnisse in Finnland. In: Die Pisa-Studie. EineHerausforderung zur padagogischen Prophylaxe, ed. by Kari Ruoho, 125–143. Joensuu:Joensuun yliopiston kasvatustieteiden tiedekunnan selosteita 91.

Savolainen, Hannu. 2001. Explaining Mechanisms of Educational Career Choice: aFollow-up Study of the Educational Career Choices of a Group of Youths that FinishedCompulsory Education (Academic dissertation). Joensuu: Joensuun yliopiston kasva-tustieteellisia julkaisuja 69.

Seppanen, Piia. 2004. Suomalaiskaupunkien eletyt koulumarkkinat kansainvalisessavalossa. Kasvatus 35(3): 286–304.

Statistics Finland. 2000. Oppilaitostilastot 2000. Helsinki: Tilastokeskus.

——. 2002. Oppilaitostilastot 2002. Helsinki: Tilastokeskus.

——. 2005a. Erityisopetukseen siirrettyjen maara yli kaksinkertaistunut 1990-luvunpuolivalista. (Press release). http://www.stat.fi/til/erop/index.html, accessed 12 March2005.

——. 2005b. Oppilaitostilastot 2004. Helsinki: Tilastokeskus.

Thomas, Gary, Dawid Walker, and Julie Webb. 2002. The making of the inclusiveschool. London: Routledge.

Vislie, Lise. 2003. From Integration to Inclusion: Focusing Global Trends and Changesin the Western European Societies. European Journal of Special Needs Education 18(1):17–35.

Valijarvi, Jouni, and Pirjo Linnakyla (eds.). 2002. Tulevaisuuden osaajat. PISA 2000Suomessa. Jyvaskyla: Koulutuksen tutkimuslaitos, OECD, and Opetushallitus.

Valijarvi, Jouni, Pirjo Linnakyla, Pekka Kupari, Pasi Reinikainen, and Inga Arffman.2002. The Finnish Success in PISA and some Reasons behind it. Pisa 2000. Jyvaskyla:Institute for Educational Research, OECD, and Opetushallitus.

Werner-Putnam, Rosemary. 1979. Special Education – some Cross-National Compar-isons. Comparative Education 15(1): 83–98.

Willberg, Nils. 2002. Erityiset oppimisvaikeudet ja niista seuraava syrjaytyminenkustannus-hyotyanalyyttisessa tarkastelussa. Jyvaskyla: Unpublished Master�s Thesisof the University of Jyvaskyla, Faculty of Economics.


YsseldykeJames, E.. 1987. Classification of Handicapped Students. In: Handbook ofSpecial Education. Research and Practice, ed. by Margaret C. Wang, Maynard C.Reynolds and Herbert J. Walberg 225–252. 1Oxford: Pergamon Press.

The authors

Joel Kivirauma qualified as a primary school teacher in 1976 and as a special educa-tion Teacher in 1984. He obtained a PhD in Educational Sciences at the Univeristyof Turku in 1989. He was Professor of Special Education at the University of Jy-vaskyla (1995–2000) and since 2000 has held a similar chair at the University of Tur-ku. His main research interests are the sociology and history of special education. Hehas published articles on these subjects in numerous educational journals.

Contact address: Prof. Joel Kivirauma, University of Turku, Assistentinkatu520014 Turku, Finland. E-mail: [email protected]

Kari Ruoho obtained a PhD in Educational Sciences at the University of Joensuu in1990 with a dissertation on the topic Zum Stellenwert der Verbosensomotorik imKonzept prophylaktischer Diagnostik der Lernfahigkeit bei finnischen Vorschulkind-ern im Alter von sechs Jahren. Major professional posts: kindergarten teacher andhead of kindergarten in Espoo (by Helsinki) and Joensuu (North Carelia) for12 years. Senior researcher (10 years) and professor in special education (3 years) inthe University of Joensuu. Her research interests are: early prevention of learning dif-ficulties, emotional and behavioural difficulties, and the role of special education inmacro structures of education.

Contact address: Kari Ruoho, Hiiliruukinkatu 3B 10, 80260 Joensuu, Finland.E-mail: [email protected]


Documents

EXCELLENCE THROUGH SPECIAL EDUCATION? LESSONS FROM …sites.miis.edu/.../01/Excellence-through-Special-Education-Finland.pdf · EXCELLENCE THROUGH SPECIAL EDUCATION? LESSONS FROM