Advertisement

Principals’ views on changes in the provision of support for learning and schooling in Finland after educational reform

  • Jonna Pulkkinen
  • Eija Räikkönen
  • Raija Pirttimaa
  • Markku Jahnukainen
Article

Abstract

Recently, the large-scale reforms of special education have been carried out in many countries. This study focuses on the latest Finnish reform of special education in compulsory education. As principals lead educational reforms in schools, their role in the implementation of reform is significant. The study explores principals’ views on the changes in support arrangements after the educational reform. We used latent class analysis to identify the subgroups of principals who share similar views. In addition, we examined the relationship between the subgroups and individual, school, and municipal level factors using multinomial logistic regression analysis. Four subgroups were identified: improved pedagogical support (19% of principals), stability of support (54%), increased administrative support (14%), and weakened support (13%). Work experience as a principal, school size, schools’ resources for special education, and region differentiated these subgroups from one another. Despite nationwide reform, the support arrangements and their changes differed among schools in the opinion of principals. We discuss the implications for the planning and implementation of the educational reforms.

Keywords

Academic support services Compulsory education Educational change Principals Reform Special education 

Notes

Funding

This work was supported by the Finnish Ministry of Education and Culture.

References

  1. Ahtiainen, R. (2017). Shades of change in Fullan’s and Hargreaves’s models: Theoretical change perspectives regarding Finnish special education reform. Doctoral dissertation, University of Helsinki.Google Scholar
  2. Ahtiainen, R., Beirad, M., Hautamäki, J., Hilasvuori, T., Lintuvuori, M., Thuneberg, H., et al. (2012). Tehostettua ja erityistä tukea tarvitsevien oppilaiden opetuksen kehittäminen 20072011. Kehittävän arvioinnin loppuraportti [Developing the instruction of students in need of intensified and special support in 2007–2011. The final report of developing evaluation] (Research reports of the Ministry of Education and Culture No. 5). Retrieved January 24, 2017 from http://www.minedu.fi/export/sites/default/OPM/Julkaisut/2012/liitteet/okm05.pdf.
  3. Asparouhov, T., & Muthén, B. (2014). Auxiliary variables in mixture modeling: Three-step approaches using Mplus. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 21(3), 329–341.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2014.915181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bays, D. A., & Crockett, J. B. (2007). Investigating instructional leadership for special education. Exceptionality, 15(3), 143–161.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09362830701503495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Björn, P. M., Aro, M. T., Koponen, T. K., Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. H. (2016). The many faces of special education within RTI Frameworks in the United States and Finland. Learning Disability Quarterly, 39(1), 58–66.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948715594787.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Castro-Villarreal, F., Rodriguez, B. J., & Moore, S. (2014). Teachers’ perceptions and attitudes about Response to Intervention (RTI) in their schools: A qualitative analysis. Teaching and Teacher Education, 40, 104–112.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2014.02.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Celeux, G., & Soromenho, G. (1996). An entropy criterion for assessing the number of clusters in a mixture model. Journal of Classification, 13, 195–212.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01246098.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Donnell, L. A., & Gettinger, M. (2015). Elementary school teachers’ acceptability of school reform: Contribution of belief congruence, self-efficacy, and professional development. Teaching and Teachers Education, 51, 47–57.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2015.06.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Education and Culture Committee of the Parliament of Finland. (2010). Sivistysvaliokunnan mietintö 4/2010 vp [Report of the Education and Culture Committee of Parliament]. Retrieved April 2, 2018 from http://www.eduskunta.fi/faktatmp/utatmp/akxtmp/sivm_4_2010_p.shtml.
  10. Ekstam, U., Linnanmäki, K., & Aunio, P. (2015). Educational support for low-performing students in mathematics: The three-tier support model in Finnish lower secondary schools. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 30(1), 75–92.  https://doi.org/10.1080/08856257.2014.964578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Finnish National Board of Education. (2010). Perusopetuksen opetussuunnitelman perusteiden muutokset ja täydennykset 2010 [Amendments and Additions to the National Core Curriculum for Basic Education 2010]. Retrieved January 24, 2017 from http://www.oph.fi/download/132882_Perusopetuksen_opetussuunnitelman_perusteiden_muutokset_ja_taydennykset2010.pdf.
  12. Finnish National Board of Education. (2014). Perusopetuksen opetussuunnitelman perusteet 2014 [The National Core Curriculum for Basic Education 2014]. Retrieved January 24, 2017 from http://www.oph.fi/download/163777_perusopetuksen_opetussuunnitelman_perusteet_2014.pdf.
  13. Friend, M., Cook, L., Hurley-Chamberlain, D., & Shamberger, C. (2010). Co-teaching: An illustration of the complexity of collaboration in special education. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 20(1), 9–27.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10474410903535380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fullan, M. (2016). The NEW meaning of educational change (5th ed.). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  15. Government of Finland. (2009a). Hallituksen esitys laiksi perusopetuslain muuttamisesta 109/2009. [Government proposal for the Act to amend the Basic Education Act]. Retrieved April 2, 2018 from http://www.finlex.fi/fi/esitykset/he/2009/20090109.
  16. Government of Finland. (2009b). Hallituksen esitys Eduskunnalle laiksi kunnan peruspalvelujen valtionosuudesta, laiksi opetus- ja kulttuuritoimen rahoituksesta ja laeiksi eräiden niihin liittyvien lakien muuttamisesta 174/2009. [Government proposal for the Act on Government Transfers for Local Basic Services, for the Act on the Financing of Education and Culture and for the Acts to amend some acts related to them]. Retrieved April 2, 2018 from http://www.finlex.fi/fi/esitykset/he/2009/20090174.
  17. Graham, L. J., & Jahnukainen, M. (2011). Wherefore art thou, inclusion? Analysing the development of inclusive education in New South Wales, Alberta and Finland. Journal of Education Policy, 26(2), 263–288.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2010.493230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Halinen, I., & Järvinen, R. (2008). Towards inclusive education: The case of Finland. Prospects, 38, 77–97.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11125-008-9061-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hargreaves, A., & Braun, H. (2012). Leading for all: Final report of the review of the development of essential for some, good for all: Ontario’s strategy for special education reform devised by the Council of Directors of Education. Toronto, Ontario: Council of Directors of Education.Google Scholar
  20. Hargreaves, A., & Shirley, D. (2009). The fourth way: The inspiring future for educational change. Thousand Oaks: Corwin.Google Scholar
  21. Jahnukainen, M. (2011). Different strategies, different outcomes? The history and trends of the inclusive and special education in Alberta (Canada) and in Finland. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 55(5), 489–502.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2010.537689.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jahnukainen, M. (2015). Inclusion, integration, or what? A comparative study of the school principals’ perceptions of inclusive and special education in Finland and in Alberta, Canada. Disability & Society, 30(1), 59–72.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2014.982788.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jahnukainen, M., & Itkonen, T. (2016). Tiered intervention: History and trends in Finland and United States. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 31(1), 140–150.  https://doi.org/10.1080/08856257.2015.1108042.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kalaoja, E., & Pietarinen, J. (2009). Small rural primary schools in Finland: A pedagogically valuable part of the school network. International Journal of Educational Research, 48, 109–116.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2009.02.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kirjavainen, T., Pulkkinen, J., & Jahnukainen, M. (2014a). Erityisoppilaiden osuuksien kuntakohtaiseen vaihteluun vaikuttaneet tekijät vuosina 2001–2010 [Factors affecting municipal variation in the share of students with special education needs in 2001–2010]. Yhteiskuntapolitiikka, 79(6), 619–630.Google Scholar
  26. Kirjavainen, T., Pulkkinen, J., & Jahnukainen, M. (2014b). Perusopetuksen erityisopetusjärjestelyt eri ikäryhmissä vuosina 2001–2010 [Special education arrangements in basic education for different age cohorts in years 2001–2010]. Kasvatus [The Finnish Journal of Education], 45(2), 152–166.Google Scholar
  27. Law (1704/2009). Laki kunnan peruspalvelujen valtionosuudesta [Act on Government Transfers for Local Basic Services]. Retrieved April 2, 2018 from http://www.finlex.fi/fi/laki/smur/2009/20091704.
  28. Law (642/2010). Laki perusopetuslain muuttamisesta [Act on the Amendment of the Basic Education Act]. Retrieved April 2, 2018 from http://www.finlex.fi/fi/laki/alkup/2010/20100642.
  29. Levin, B., & Fullan, M. (2008). Learning about system renewal. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 36(2), 289–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lo, Y., Mendell, N. R., & Rubin, D. B. (2001). Testing the number of components in a normal mixture. Biometrika, 88(3), 767–778.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. McCutcheon, A. L. (1987). Latent class analysis. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. MoE. (2007). Erityisopetuksen strategia [Special Education Strategy]. Reports of the Ministry of Education 47.Google Scholar
  33. Morgan, G. B. (2014). Mixed mode latent class analysis: An examination of fit index performance for classification. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 22(1), 76–86.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2014.935751.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Murawski, W. W., & Hughes, C. E. (2009). Response to intervention, collaboration, and co-teaching: A logical combination for successful systemic change. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 53(4), 267–277.  https://doi.org/10.3200/PSFL.53.4.267-277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998–2015). Mplus User’s Guide (7th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.Google Scholar
  36. Nagin, D. S. (2005). Group-based modeling of development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Nylund, K. L., Asparouhov, T., & Muthén, B. O. (2007). Deciding on the number of classes in latent class analysis and growth mixture modeling: A Monte Carlo simulation study. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 14(4), 535–569.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510701575396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. O’Connor, E. P., & Freeman, E. W. (2012). District-level considerations in supporting and sustaining RtI implementation. Psychology in the Schools, 49(3), 297–310.  https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.21598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Official Statistics of Finland. (2012a). Population structure [e-publication]. Helsinki: Statistics Finland. Retrieved January 24, 2017 from http://www.stat.fi/til/vaerak/2012/vaerak_2012_2013-03-22_tie_001_en.html.
  40. Official Statistics of Finland. (2012b). Providers of education and educational institutions [e-publication]. Helsinki: Statistics Finland. Retrieved January 24, 2017 from http://www.stat.fi/til/kjarj/2012/kjarj_2012_2013-02-19_tie_001_en.html.
  41. Official Statistics of Finland. (2013). Special education [e-publication]. Helsinki: Statistics Finland. Retrieved January 24, 2017 from http://www.stat.fi/til/erop/2012/erop_2012_2013-06-12_tie_001_en.html.
  42. Pesonen, H., Itkonen, T., Jahnukainen, M., Kontu, E., Kokko, T., Ojala, T., et al. (2015). The implementation of new special education legislation in Finland. Educational Policy, 29(1), 162–178.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904814556754.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Pijl, S. J., & Frissen, P. H. A. (2009). What policymakers can do to make education inclusive. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 37(3), 366–377.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143209102789.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Pulkkinen, J., & Jahnukainen, M. (2015). Erityisopetuksen järjestäminen ja resurssit kunnissa lakimuutosten jälkeen [The organization and resources of special education in municipalities after legislative reforms]. In M. Jahnukainen, E. Kontu, H. Thuneberg, & M.-P. Vainikainen (Eds.), Erityisopetuksesta oppimisen ja koulunkäynnin tukeen [From Special Education to Support for Learning and Schooling] (pp. 79–105). Turku: The Finnish Educational Research Association.Google Scholar
  45. Pulkkinen, J., & Jahnukainen, M. (2016). Finnish reform of the funding and provision of special education: The views of principals and municipal education administrators. Educational Review, 68(2), 171–188.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2015.1060586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Rytivaara, A. (2011). Flexible grouping as a means for classroom management in a heterogeneous classroom. European Educational Research Journal, 10(1), 118–128.  https://doi.org/10.2304/eerj.2011.10.1.118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Sahlberg, P. (2010). Rethinking accountability in a knowledge society. Journal of Educational Change, 11, 45–61.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-008-9098-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Saloviita, T. (2018). How common are inclusive educational practices among Finnish teachers? International Journal of Inclusive Education, 22(5), 560–575.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2017.1390001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Saloviita, T., & Takala, M. (2010). Frequency of co-teaching in different teacher categories. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 25(4), 389–396.  https://doi.org/10.1080/08856257.2010.513546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Schwartz, G. (1978). Estimating the dimension of a model. The Annals of Statistics, 6, 461–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Scruggs, T. E., Mastropieri, M. A., & McDuffie, K. A. (2007). Co-teaching in inclusive classrooms: A metasynthesis of qualitative research. Exceptional Children, 73(4), 392–416.  https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290707300401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Takala, M., Pirttimaa, R., & Törmänen, M. (2009). Inclusive special education: The role of special education teachers in Finland. British Journal of Special Education, 36(3), 162–173.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8578.2009.00432.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Takala, M., & Uusitalo-Malmivaara, L. (2012). A one-year study of the development of co-teaching in four Finnish schools. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 27(3), 373–390.  https://doi.org/10.1080/08856257.2012.691233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Thuneberg, H., Hautamäki, J., Ahtiainen, R., Lintuvuori, M., Vainikainen, M.-P., & Hilasvuori, T. (2014). Conceptual change in adopting the nationwide special education strategy in Finland. Journal of Educational Change, 15, 37–56.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-013-9213-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Thuneberg, H., Vainikainen, M.-P., Ahtiainen, R., Lintuvuori, M., Salo, K., & Hautamäki, J. (2013). Education is special for all: The Finnish support model. Gemeinsam Leben, 2, 67–78.Google Scholar
  56. Vainikainen, M.-P., Thuneberg, H., Greiff, S., & Hautamäki, J. (2015). Multiprofessional collaboration in Finnish schools. International Journal of Educational Research, 72, 137–148.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2015.06.007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Vermunt, J. K., & Magidson, J. (2002). Latent class cluster analysis. In J. A. Hagenaars & A. L. McCutcheon (Eds.), Applied latent class analysis (pp. 89–106). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Yang, C. (2006). Evaluating latent class analyses in qualitative phenotype identification. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, 50, 1090–1104.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csda.2004.11.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Finnish Institute for Educational ResearchUniversity of JyväskyläUniversity of JyväskyläFinland
  2. 2.Faculty of Education and PsychologyUniversity of JyväskyläUniversity of JyväskyläFinland
  3. 3.Department of EducationUniversity of JyväskyläUniversity of JyväskyläFinland
  4. 4.Faculty of Educational SciencesUniversity of HelsinkiUniversity of HelsinkiFinland

Personalised recommendations