bs_bs_banner
SPECIAL EDUCATION IN SWEDEN AND FINLAND
Special education in Swedish and Finnish schools: seeing the forest or the trees? Marjatta Takala and Astrid Ahl
The purpose of this research was to study the content of the work of two special education professions in Sweden, special teachers and special pedagogues. In addition, we compare their work to the work of Finnish special teachers. The Swedish participants were 74 special educators: 27 special teachers and 47 special pedagogues. The Finnish data were from an earlier study, involving 133 special teachers. Participants in both countries were approached via a questionnaire. The results show that Swedish special pedagogues do more consultative work and Swedish special teachers more direct work with pupils. However, there is plenty of overlap in the work profiles of Swedish special pedagogues and special teachers. Most of the work content is in line with the Finnish findings, except that Finnish special teachers had a minor consultative role. It seems that the work duties across the two professions, special pedagogues and special teachers, are somewhat similar. Their ways of working in practice are discussed. Key words: special education professionals, comparative study, Swedish, Finnish.
Introduction Special education seems to vary from country to country (Hausstätter & Takala, 2008). In this article we consider how special education works in practice in Sweden. We study and compare the work of two Swedish special education experts, namely the work of special teachers and special pedagogues. In addition, © 2014 NASEN DOI: 10.1111/1467-8578.12049
we compare special education in Sweden to special education in Finland. The comparison is based on a previous study (Takala, Pirttimaa & Törmänen, 2009) carried out in Finland. Finland was chosen for comparison as Finland and Sweden are neighbouring countries, with similar cultures and school systems, apart from the fact that Finland essentially lacks independent schools, whereas in Sweden their number is burgeoning (Erixon Arreman & Holm, 2011). The details of what special educators actually do have been less frequently studied than where, with whom and under what conditions they work (see, for example, Weiss & Lloyd, 2002). The actual teaching strategies may be the same for all, but it is the modifications that make the difference. It does not seem to be important where special educators do their work, but how they do it (Florian, 2010). Special education has attracted a lot of criticism. Florian (2008) has questioned whether special education is part of the problem or part of the solution in fulfilling children’s rights to education. We agree with Anastasiou and Kauffman (2012) that neoliberal and marketing policy makers would like to eliminate special education. However, special education exists in Swedish and Finnish schools, and schools that offer special education maintain that some children need additional and special support. The purpose of this research was to examine what special education consists of at the root level. We also wanted to examine whether it is necessary to have two professional roles in special education in Sweden.
Special education in Sweden and Finland In Finnish mainstream schools, special education is mostly provided to pupils who have difficulties in reading and writing (Statistics Finland, 2010, 2011, 2012). In Sweden, similar statistics do not exist because general and special education interact to a great extent (see Giota & Lundborg, 2007), and therefore it is difficult to identify which groups receive support. However, according to the Swedish National Agency for Education (2010–2011, in EADSNE, 2012), 1.4% of pupils in compulsory education during 2010–2011 received special education in some setting, either in a special school or in a special class in a mainstream school. In segregated special schools in Sweden, 0.06% of the entire student population received special education (EADSNE, 2012). By comparison, during the one-year period 2008–2009 in Finland, 8.5% of pupils were in full-time special education either in a special school or a special class, and 22.8% received part-time special education (Statistics Finland, 2010).While these statistics are difficult to compare, it is clear that in Finland, special support is more often conducted in segregated settings. In addition, in Finland the focus of special education is on reading- and writing-related support (Statistics Finland, 2010). This is not so clear in Sweden, 60
British Journal of Special Education · Volume 41 · Number 1 · 2014
© 2014 NASEN
yet the most common special education training programmes offered relate to language, reading and writing (Studentum, 2013). Special education is delivered by special teachers and special pedagogues in Sweden and by special teachers in Finland; they will both be referred to as ‘special educators’ in this article. The role of special teachers and special pedagogues in Sweden resembles the role of SENCos in the UK (see Mackenzie, 2007; Szwed, 2007; Abbott, 2007). A SENCo is responsible for issues related to pupils with special needs, and she or he works with several partners, such as teachers, parents, students, teaching assistants and outside agencies (Cowne, 2005). Teacher/leader and administrator roles were identified in Rosen-Webb’s (2011) study on SENCos. Sweden has divided special education tasks into two separate professions, but in Finland, special teachers do both kinds of work. To date, there has been little research on what this work entails and the tools that these educators use. Overview of special education in Sweden and Finland The Swedish Act on Education (2010) states that all children and students, regardless of whether they have special needs or not, should be given the guidance and encouragement they need in their learning and personal development so that they can develop as much as possible. This requirement is taken so seriously that it is compulsory to make a developmental plan for every pupil in co-operation with the student’s parents (SFS, 2005). The Swedish curriculum stipulates that schools have a special responsibility for students who have difficulties in reaching educational goals (Swedish National Agency for Education, 2011, 2012). These students may need special educational support. This support is offered primarily within the group to which the student belongs. If necessary, the support can be provided individually or in a special education group. Regardless, an individual educational plan (IEP, in Swedish åtgärdsprogram) has to be created for these students. Every professional who works at a school is required to give support to pupils who need it (SFS, 2005; Swedish National Agency for Education, 2008; Swedish Act on Education, 2010; Swedish School Statute, 2011). Although inclusion is preferred in Sweden, there are also a few special schools that focus more intensely on students with special needs (Swedish National Agency for Education, 2011; EADSNE, 2009). In Finland, the Basic Education Act (1998) and Amendments to the Basic Education Act (2010) specify that a pupil who has mild or moderate learning difficulties is entitled to support and/or to part-time special education. In Finnish
© 2014 NASEN
British Journal of Special Education · Volume 41 · Number 1 · 2014
61
part-time special education, the pupil has the status of a general education student who receives a few hours of special education a week (Takala et al., 2009; Halinen & Järvinen, 2008). The pupil may receive these services without any diagnoses or Statements. If the child needs more support, full-time special education may be offered, usually in a special class or special school. When a pupil receives special support, an IEP must be written (Finnish National Board of Education, 2011). However, in 2010, the support system was divided into three steps: general, intensified and special support. Amendments to the Finnish Act on Basic Education (2010) state that, first, general support is given in mainstream education, usually by the class teacher. If this support is not enough, intensified support is offered in co-operation with special educators. This is offered in a regular class and/or in a resource room. This form of support also demands a written learning plan. Special support is offered if the two previous types of support are insufficient even when offered across a reasonable time period. Special support can be given either in a mainstream class or in a special class, by special educators. All teachers are involved in supporting pupils in both countries, which underlines common responsibility in the need for an individual approach (Ministry of Education and Culture, 2007; Swedish Act on Education, 2010). However, the amount of special support provided is still much higher in Finland than in Sweden. Previous research and statistics indicate that Sweden is more inclusive than Finland, with fewer children in special education (EADSNE, 2010a, 2010b; Takala, Hausstätter, Ahl & Head, 2012). Swedish special educators Currently, Sweden has two different training programmes for special educational needs: the Special Education Programme and the Special Teacher Education Programme, both comprising 90 ECTS (European Credit Transfer System) credits. The programmes are intended for teachers with at least three years’ professional experience. The special pedagogue has a consulting role in relation to other teachers who work with students in need of special educational support in their groups. The special pedagogues are also trained to teach and to work in co-operation with the school boards to ensure a good and equal educational environment. Tasks related to language, writing and reading development are not mentioned in these requirements (SFS, 2007). Special teachers work mainly with pupils in need of special educational support in language, reading, writing and mathematical development in regular schools. The special teacher also has a consultative role in relation to other teachers with 62
British Journal of Special Education · Volume 41 · Number 1 · 2014
© 2014 NASEN
regard to pupils with learning difficulties (Swedish National Agency for Higher Education, 2012; Stockholm University, 2011). When comparing the demands on the two Swedish professionals and on British SENCos (for example, Tissot, 2013), it seems that there are indeed similarities in their responsibilities. Finnish special teachers In Finland, special class teachers teach in full-time special education, and special teachers in part-time special education. They have almost the same special teacher training, apart from the fact that special class teachers have achieved a class teacher degree (Master’s degree, 300 credits). This class teacher degree is not demanded for special teachers. They usually hold an educational degree (for example, a subject teacher degree) before completing special education studies. After these degrees, special teacher training lasts one year, requiring 60 credits. Without a preliminary degree, it takes five years. The core content of the curricula of the three major universities offering special teacher training in Finland comprises theory and practice mainly related to reading and writing, mathematics and communication, as well as behavioural and socio-emotional challenges (Hausstätter & Takala, 2008). Special teachers, who have no designated class, work mainly with small groups (of between two and 10 pupils) in their own room. They co-teach only occasionally, and typically with a class teacher (Saloviita & Takala, 2010).This study focuses mainly on special educators working in regular schools. The Finnish data included no special educators working in full-time special education. Special education and the aims of this study According to Sayeski (2009), the tools and required knowledge for special educators can be defined as follows: (1) knowledge about the characteristics of students with disabilities, (2) instructional design and modifications, (3) a variety of instructional strategies and (4) core legal processes. With regard to special education, Hallahan, Kauffmann and Pullen (2009) have emphasised the need for individualised as well as differentiated instruction and accommodation. It has also been argued that special education provides instruction in different ways so that pupils with special needs can benefit (Sayeski, 2009). We aimed to investigate what that means in reality. The first goal of this study was to examine what special teachers and special pedagogues do in Swedish schools. Our second aim was to compare their work with each other’s and analyse similarities and differences. In addition, we compare Swedish special educators’ work with that of their Finnish colleagues. This comparison is based on a previous study (Takala et al., 2009) which is why the results are not discussed in detail.
© 2014 NASEN
British Journal of Special Education · Volume 41 · Number 1 · 2014
63
Method Study instrument For the empirical part of the study, six large cities around Sweden were selected. The educational office in each of the six cities sent a link to an electronic questionnaire (e-questionnaire) to their special educators in spring 2011. To preserve anonymity, we were not given any names or exact numbers. The respondents represented the whole of Sweden, from Kristianstad to Skellefteå. However, the majority were from the Umeå area. We received 83 responses in total. Nine of them were not from special teachers or special pedagogues, or were from people who no longer worked in these roles, and so these were excluded, leaving 74 participants. The e-questionnaire had 29 questions: 11 background information questions (profession, work experience, age, type of school, and so on) and 18 study questions. Of these, 12 were open-ended and six were closed. In Finland, 133 special educators from the metropolitan area responded to a similar, but longer, questionnaire. Participants Forty-seven special pedagogues and 27 special teachers responded to the Swedish e-questionnaire. The majority were aged between 41 and 50 years (N = 26). The special pedagogues were older than the special teachers, but not significantly so. The participants typically did not have extensive work experience; 22 had worked for less than one year, 27 for one to three years, 12 for between four and 10 years, and 13 for over 10 years. The majority worked in a middle-sized school with 200 to 300 pupils; however, 20 worked in a school with more than 400 students. The special educators worked at all stages, from kindergarten to higher secondary education. However, none worked at a preschool, 25 worked at the primary stage and 16 at the secondary stage. Ten worked with both primary and secondary students, and seven were at the higher secondary level. Five special pedagogues worked in a special school but did not provide details of the stage. The mean age of the 133 Finnish respondents was 44 years (SD 9.5 years). They were quite experienced in their work, the mean being 7.9 years (SD 7.7 years) and the range was from less than one year to 32 years. Seventy-five of the respondents worked in the primary stage, 30 in the secondary and 22 in both stages. In addition, four worked at the higher secondary level. 64
British Journal of Special Education · Volume 41 · Number 1 · 2014
© 2014 NASEN
Data analysis Both qualitative and quantitative approaches were used. The open-ended questions were analysed using discourse as well as content analysis. The responses were first categorised into main themes and then compressed into dominant discourses. The quantitative analysis mainly used descriptives. Results The results presented here are based on the Swedish data, and the focus is on describing and comparing the work of special teachers and special pedagogues. At the end of every section a short comparison to the Finnish article (Takala et al., 2009) is made. Overview of the work of Swedish special educators Co-operation between different professionals at school was assessed. The most common partners for special pedagogues and special teachers were class/subject teachers, the head of the school, and other special pedagogues/teachers. There were no discernible differences between these professional partners. The majority of special pedagogues and special teachers worked alone and only 15% had a colleague. The number of pupils with special educational needs taught in a regular week varied. Special pedagogues taught one to 10 pupils a week, whereas special teachers worked with six to 20 pupils a week. The yearly numbers were in line with this finding but were not significant. There was also variation in the number of hours the special educators taught. Special pedagogues taught for fewer hours (five to 20 hours per week) than special teachers (11 to 30 hours per week), but no statistical significance was found. Content of special education in Swedish schools The three activities most commonly identified by special pedagogues as part of their role were providing pedagogical advice, observing/testing pupils with learning difficulties and providing a link to the head of the school. Special teachers chose observing/testing pupils with learning difficulties, provision of expertise in reading and writing challenges and giving pedagogical advice. Therefore, their tasks were similar. The main difference was that the special teachers had more expertise in reading and writing difficulties (F = 26.212, df = 72, p = 0.000), whereas special pedagogues more often assumed the role of a pedagogical advisor (F = 5.087, df = 72, p = 0.027). © 2014 NASEN
British Journal of Special Education · Volume 41 · Number 1 · 2014
65
The respondents were also asked to describe their main duties. They were similar for special pedagogues and special teachers. The top three areas were teaching pupils with difficulties, making educational evaluations and counselling colleagues. A minor emphasis was placed on conversations with parents, working with the welfare team and work related to school development. Below are excerpts from Swedish educators’ responses regarding their main duties: ‘Support and advice to colleagues, children and parents. Special educational instruction and a link between colleagues, teacher teams, the welfare team and the head of the school. Also evaluations and diagnoses/tests.’ (special pedagogue) ‘Challenge the old traditions and work to develop the school on a scientific basis and with tested experience.’ (special pedagogue) ‘To teach pupils who have a risk of not reaching the goals. Counselling colleagues and co-operation with homes and other school forms.’ (special teacher) The Swedish special pedagogues most often mentioned the task of counselling (handledning in Swedish) adults. They gave teachers advice, were a link between the head of the school and the teachers, organised support systems at school and tried to develop inclusive ways of working. Supporting pupils was also mentioned by special pedagogues, but not as often as by special teachers. Special teachers most frequently mentioned tasks related more or less directly to pupils, such as teaching and helping with reading, writing and mathematical challenges. However, they also provided counselling and helped develop the school. Special pedagogues and special teachers mentioned teaching directly an equivalent number of times, although the number of special pedagogues who participated in our research was almost double the number of special teachers. Special teachers also mentioned pupils twice as many times as special pedagogues. Adult-centred work was more often discussed by special pedagogues, whereas child-centred work was favoured by special teachers. Interestingly, the IEP (åtgärdsprogram in Swedish) was seldom mentioned; with regard to the most important tasks, it was mentioned seven times. This document 66
British Journal of Special Education · Volume 41 · Number 1 · 2014
© 2014 NASEN
Table 1: Settings in which support was given in Sweden Place Support in class Individual support Flexible small group outside class Permanent small group outside class
Special pedagogue, mean % (SD)
Special teacher, mean % (SD)
p
41 (33) 29 (24) 23 (20) 29 (25)
24 (17) 45 (26) 24 (13) 39 (31)
0.033 0.020 ns ns
Note: Percentages are estimates from the respondents, so their sum is over 100.
is required for pupils in need of support. However, it was not considered to be among the most important work tasks by the majority. The setting in which educators work varied. Special pedagogues gave support in class, whereas special teachers worked outside the classroom more often (see Table 1). Individual support was given by both professionals, but more frequently by special teachers. Special pedagogues worked more often in the classroom. These findings are in line with the Finnish research (Takala et al., 2009). Special teachers in Finland spend the majority of their work time teaching (66%), followed by preparation work (22%), such as planning and designing material. The third area of work is consultation (12%); they discuss matters with other teachers and sometimes give advice to them. This task takes up only a small amount of time (Takala et al., 2009). They also need to possess additional core areas of knowledge as well as being experts in the content knowledge of special education (Sayeski, 2009).The Finnish special educators taught mainly in small groups, in a more segregative way than their Swedish colleagues. Challenges of daily work for Swedish special educators The biggest challenge for special teachers and special pedagogues was lack of time (42% of special pedagogues’ responses related to challenges; for special teachers 57%). This included lack of time to support pupils, to document what has been done or to consult colleagues. Both experienced high expectations that led to feelings of inadequacy (special pedagogues: 15%; special teachers: 17%). Pedagogical challenges were significant, as were finding ways to support various needs (special teachers: 14%) or to develop the school (special pedagogues: 18%). Being lonely and wishing there were colleagues with whom to collaborate was mentioned several times. Other challenges were minor. Educators’ comments included the following:
© 2014 NASEN
British Journal of Special Education · Volume 41 · Number 1 · 2014
67
‘It is really difficult to have enough time for everyone. There should be an SP and an ST in every school so that you have a colleague to talk with and share the responsibility.’ (special teacher) ‘I feel that class teachers want more support than we can give.’ (special pedagogue) The complaints were similar for both groups. The main difference was that special pedagogues experienced difficulty in directly or indirectly supporting pupils. They were also not sure of their capability to work with pupils. Special teachers were more confident with their direct work skills. They talked about the difficulty for ordinary teachers to realise the needs of students with learning difficulties and how best to work with colleagues. Finnish special teachers faced similar challenges, such as lack of time and the absence of special educational needs colleagues. However, they also mentioned a lack of resources, which was not the case in Sweden (Takala et al., 2009). Swedish special educators’ work with individuals with learning difficulties We also studied how special educators work with the most common learning difficulties. We divided this area into three categories: challenges in reading and writing, challenges in mathematics and socio-emotional issues. Reading and writing in Swedish special education In order to teach pupils who have problems in reading and writing, we expected that teachers would first need to assess a pupil’s skills to identify where to start. However, that was not always the case. Reading and writing difficulties were often evaluated by standardised tests (special pedagogues: 60%; special teachers: 63%). However, some special educators did not use standardised tests but instead used observations and/or assessment templates (ready-made lists of developmental phases). Some respondents mentioned that their municipality had a model for how these evaluations of individual students should be carried out, and they could borrow a bag containing tests. Not all special educators conducted surveys of individual students. External help was available; some municipalities had teachers, psychologists or speech therapists with a specific mandate for testing. A few special educators reported that their schools only used assessment templates. Some used observations in the classroom and discussions with the class teacher. One special pedagogue said she did not teach children with reading challenges at all. 68
British Journal of Special Education · Volume 41 · Number 1 · 2014
© 2014 NASEN
Table 2: Swedish special educators’ ways of working with students who have difficulties in reading and writing Task General practice Special practice Computer-based education Counselling adults
Special pedagogue
Special teacher
44% 20% 24% 12%
42% 41% 10% 7%
Most special teachers used several different tests to investigate students’ basic reading skills – for example, testing phonological skills, letter–sound correspondence and decoding ability; the core skills in reading (Shaywitz, 2003). Talking with pupils, parents and class teachers complemented these tests. In Finland, special educators teach and test the pupils themselves in part-time special education. Sometimes they can ask for a consultation with a school psychologist. However, assessment templates were not mentioned. After a pupil’s difficulties had been defined, various interventions were utilised in Sweden. The open-ended responses regarding how Swedish special educators support pupils with challenges in reading and writing could be divided into four categories: general reading practice, special practice, using a computer and counselling colleagues. In practice, reading was taught by direct reading (see Table 2). In Sweden, the most common way to promote reading and writing was to practise these skills in various ways, such as reading comprehension tasks, guided reading and practising reading aloud. Special practice included methods such as Witting (a special method), structured learning, reading strategies, and special arrangements such as oral tests, allowing more time or the use of plain language books. Various modifications were used in individual ways (see Florian, 2010). Some differences were apparent between the ways in which the two groups of professionals worked with students. Special pedagogues used computers more often and did more counselling than special teachers. The use of computer programmes can be categorised into general or special practice. Many respondents listed programmes, some of which were general in type and some more specific. Thus we decided to make computer use an independent category. Educators’ comments on this subject included the following:
© 2014 NASEN
British Journal of Special Education · Volume 41 · Number 1 · 2014
69
‘With the youngest pupils, I often teach one or a small group. With older ones, I work in class . . . participate there . . . more flexible groups . . . pupils read and write, practice, discuss, use the computer, combine different subjects, have many contacts.’ (special teacher) ‘I let them use compensative devices like a word-read + spelling programme. I give advice and hints regarding how teachers could help these pupils, having oral tests, read the material, teacher’s notes, etc.’ (special pedagogue) ‘I counsel the staff.’ (special pedagogue) In the Finnish data, four types of work were identified: general practice, special practice, teaching metacognitive skills and giving mental support to the pupil, in that order. Counselling other teachers received some isolated mentions. Computers were not mentioned as often. However, when they were mentioned, this was in relation to general practice (Takala et al., 2009). In contrast to the Finnish data, metacognitive skills were so seldom mentioned in the Swedish data that they did not merit a separate category. Challenges in mathematics in Swedish special education Difficulties in mathematics were also evaluated by tests (SP: 68%, ST: 52%) as well as by interviewing students and/or teachers (SP: 18%, ST: 26%). Yearly screening and external expertise (for example, a speech therapist from the hospital) were also used. Although tests were common, some respondents relied only on interviews with the student and the class teacher or observations from the classroom. Three respondents said that they did not work with pupils who had challenges in mathematics, and 14 did not comment at all, and therefore are unlikely to work with these students. This lack of response could indicate either that they had no competence in this area or that such challenges did not exist. The actual work with students having difficulties in mathematics focused on concrete practice with various materials and games (SP: 42%, ST: 29%). Individual or small group support was also given (SP and ST: 13%) but relatively seldom. Special pedagogues consulted with other teachers about adapting teaching and materials (see Hallahan et al., 2009) more than special teachers (SP: 11%, ST: 3%). All in all, mathematical difficulties did not receive as much attention as difficulties in literacy. 70
British Journal of Special Education · Volume 41 · Number 1 · 2014
© 2014 NASEN
‘I teach pupils in a smaller group. We follow the same programme as they have in class, but I adapt the tasks. I try to talk about maths problems in the class. I use practical and flexible/exchangeable material when needed.’ (special pedagogue) ‘I explain texts in tasks, I try to find out what the pupil knows and understands. I sometimes go in the classroom and teach what has been difficult.’ (special teacher) Finnish special teachers’ ways of working with mathematical challenges were divided into the same categories as reading and writing challenges. Emotional support was frequent; the self-efficacy of pupils related to mathematics was sometimes very low according to teachers’ comments (Takala et al., 2009). These kinds of discussions were not mentioned as much in the Swedish data. One reason might be that in Sweden, support was mainly given in class, in contrast to the small groups used by Finnish special teachers.
Socio-emotional challenges in Swedish special education Methods for evaluating socio-emotional difficulties were similar for special pedagogues and special teachers in Sweden. Both professions made observations of the student (special pedagogues: 24%, special teachers: 23%). Special pedagogues consulted various other professionals, such as psychologists (24%), whereas special teachers usually met with parents and teachers (20%) or with the students themselves (17%). Special teachers worked more directly with the students, whereas special pedagogues worked more indirectly with others rather than the pupil. When teaching, special educators used drama, social stories and group conversations. The students’ feelings were discussed quite frequently (special pedagogues: 23%, special teachers: 38%). Additionally, they used several learning strategies: clear structure of the day, adaptation of working methods and tasks, adaptation of the work environment, and clear but reasonable demands. Other methods included contact with the student, and constant encouragement and presence. Both professions used methods that involved paying attention to the students’ feelings. Some special methods, such as the CAT-Kit (Cognitive Affective Training; Attwood, Callesen & Moller-Nielsen, 2009), aggression replacement training (ART), social stories and structured learning, were also used. Nine respondents reported that they did not work with this kind of pupil, and that it was the job of school social
© 2014 NASEN
British Journal of Special Education · Volume 41 · Number 1 · 2014
71
workers; 16 did not comment at all on this subject, and so probably did not work with these students. Special educators made the following comments on their methods: ‘Regular contact, teacher and parent together with the welfare team of school. Important to win the trust of the pupil! Important to follow regularly.’ (special pedagogue) ‘A lot of discussions and listening to the pupils. Contact with home and sometimes some other procedures.’ (special teacher) ‘I don’t work a lot with this; we have a professional for that at school, a school social worker.’ (special teacher) The Swedish educators listed more specific methods here than their Finnish colleagues. In the Finnish data, the most common ways of working were ‘giving feedback on pupils’ behaviour’ as well as ‘getting pupils to face the consequences of their behaviour’ and ‘discussing with the pupil’ and ‘using clear rules’ (Takala et al., 2009). These were not mentioned in the Swedish responses. Otherwise, the responses were in line with each other, focusing on discussions.
Summary of results In practice, special education in Sweden consists of working with various stakeholders and pupils as well as organising support systems. Work with stakeholders included advising, discussing and counselling. Work with pupils consisted of regular practice, special programmes, individual and small group support, and discussions. Sweden aims to be inclusive. Nevertheless, an inclusive way of working was not always evident; a large proportion of special support in schools was given outside the classroom. This is often considered exclusive. The Swedish documents most relevant to this subject (for example, the Swedish Act on Education, 2010) do not mention special education as such, but discuss giving support (stöd ) and investment in special education (specialpedagogiska insatser). In contrast special education is considered important but not dominant in Finnish inclusive policy (Halinen & Järvinen, 2008’ Takala et al., 2009). The 72
British Journal of Special Education · Volume 41 · Number 1 · 2014
© 2014 NASEN
Finnish Basic Education Act (1998) outlines both special education and support teaching. Special education seems to have a bigger role in Finland in the main policy documents. When comparing the amount of text in the responses related to learning difficulties, the longest responses were related to the education of children with reading and writing difficulties (1,679 words), mathematical difficulties (1,137 words) and education related to socio-emotional challenges (1,024 words). These numbers could indicate pupil need, teachers’ competence or something else. Professionals in special education in Sweden worked mostly with pupils with learning difficulties but also consulted colleagues and parents. These were the core tasks for special educators. Swedish special teachers and special pedagogues in our data had similar as well as different task profiles. The way of working varied from school to school. Special teachers were more familiar with reading and writing instruction, whereas special pedagogues were largely involved with counselling, which is consistent with their educational requirements. We could not pinpoint any other clear differences in the work of these two groups of professionals. All in all, the tasks of both professions overlapped, and sometimes were exactly the same (see also Cortes & Lundh, 2010). An interesting finding was related to IEPs. The fact that these plans were so rarely mentioned in the Swedish responses was surprising and needs to be studied further. The Swedish National Agency for Higher Education (Högskoleverket; HSV) (2012) has suggested that the special pedagogue exam should be abolished. The HSV has argued that the requirements of the two current programmes are too similar, and that the competence of both professions often overlaps. They have also pointed out that the two programmes have extensive joint studies. Our results support the arguments made by the HSV. The work of Finnish and Swedish special educators is rather similar. In Finland, special teachers do almost everything that special pedagogues and special teachers do in Sweden. One difference was that Finnish special teachers evaluated the pupils more independently and another that Finnish special educators used more segregative ways of working with pupils, teaching small groups in their own resource room. In Finland, the special teachers’ consultative role is only minor and they spend their time mostly with the pupils. Nevertheless, a consultative role seems to be needed in both countries, and therefore discussions should be held with professionals in Finland to change the culture of working alone in the class with pupils.
© 2014 NASEN
British Journal of Special Education · Volume 41 · Number 1 · 2014
73
The method of working in teacher groups (arbetslaget) is more common in Sweden. There, special pedagogues and special teachers are part of a team of teachers; they co-operate and discuss various forms of support. Nevertheless, many of our Swedish and Finnish respondents said that they were lonely; they did not have a special education colleague. This has been one reason for attrition in the field of special education. Special educators need a sense of belonging and colleagues with whom to talk (Billingsley, 2004; Takala & Uusitalo-Malmivaara, 2012; Saloviita & Takala, 2010). The work of special educators in Sweden includes the areas listed by Sayeski (2009), namely, knowledge, instructional design and using various strategies. Responses relating to core legal processes, such as designing an IEP, were rare. All the other areas were represented; characteristics of students with disabilities were sometimes mentioned, and several instructional design methods and modifications were listed alongside a variety of instructional strategies, predominantly focusing on reading- and writing-related issues. Discussion According to the Swedish Act on Education (2010), and the Finnish Basic Education Act (1998), every school needs to offer special educational support. This can be seen as a matter of equity. In Nordic welfare states, education is regarded as an effective tool to prevent unemployment, marginalisation and social exclusion. One example of this is the aspiration to provide a school for all (Arnesen & Lundhal, 2006). Social-inclusive policy has dominated the Nordic countries, and free education for all has been a cornerstone of this policy. However, over the last few decades, a reformulation of policy has taken place, more so in Sweden than in Finland. This has meant a change towards a liberal welfare model, away from a social democratic model, including competition and schools that are run as firms. One example of this is the rise in independent schools in Sweden which do not always offer special educational support (Arnesen & Lundhal, 2006; Erixon Arreman & Holm, 2011; Ramberg, 2013). This raises questions about how to prove the need for and effect of special education. In addition, we need to ask how we guarantee the scope of support and inclusivity. Is there a place for diversity in all schools in the future in both countries? Discussions of special education have included the question of who should offer support, and in what form. Nowadays, it seems that support is too often given by people who are not necessarily trained in special educational issues, such as teaching assistants (Reindal, 2008).The Nordic system demands a formal 74
British Journal of Special Education · Volume 41 · Number 1 · 2014
© 2014 NASEN
education from special education professionals. Nevertheless, formal education seems to be currently undergoing change in Sweden. The Swedish National Agency for Higher Education (2012) has suggested that if the professions were combined, several areas of special pedagogues’ expertise will be kept in special teacher training, mostly as a subject in which teachers can choose to specialise. In addition, work related to social and emotional challenges will be included in this new specialisation (Swedish National Agency for Higher Education, 2012). Our data confirmed that knowledge and skills related to work with social and emotional challenges is needed. Our respondents did not offer many solutions for these challenges. Schools place various demands on special education teachers. Special educators need to have a good understanding of the child and also of the organisation. Schools need pedagogical professionals who can act as a link between authorities and school staff: people who communicate well at various levels (von Ahlefeld Nisser, 2009). SENCos have similar requirements in the UK (Rosen-Webb, 2011). In a recent thesis the Swedish special pedagogues were called SENCos (Lindqvist, 2013). One similarity in the Swedish and British professions is that the role of SENCos is slightly different in practice from how it appears in written documents. The role is context-dependent in both countries; different environments demand different roles. SENCos are meant to contribute to school development, and to have a strategic and management role, just as special pedagogues do in Sweden. However, in Sweden, this does not always happen and similar services are delivered by special teachers and special pedagogues (Pearson, 2010; Giota & Emanuelsson, 2011). In addition, SENCos are meant to work in co-operation with the senior leadership team of the school. However, this does not always seem to be the case; not all SENCos are members of this team although, according to SENCos, the opportunity to have an impact on school development has in some cases been a factor that motivated their involvement in the field of special education (Pearson, 2010; Tissot, 2013). Only seven of the special educators in the Swedish data mentioned leadership-related issues. In the Finnish data these kinds of comments were non-existent. This study had some limitations. We only included 74 participants from Sweden, and they were generally not very experienced in their profession. The main limitation of the Finnish data, which play a minor role in this article, is that the data were collected in 2006, before the Finnish Education Act changed in 2010. However, the responses were in line with the data obtained in other studies (Göransson, Nilholm & Karlsson, 2011; Takala et al., 2012). Additional interviews and observations are needed to carry out further studies of the work of special educators.
© 2014 NASEN
British Journal of Special Education · Volume 41 · Number 1 · 2014
75
Special educators need competencies in consulting, co-operation and specific methods, which may be related to reading, writing and mathematics, as well as other school subjects, to behavioural challenges and pedagogical modifications. In addition, interaction and organisational skills and the ability to use the ‘helicopter perspective’ are needed as the field of special education is broad. Swedish and Finnish educational policymakers strive for an inclusive school and inclusive classrooms. They could benefit from the concept of ‘inclusive pedagogy’, which is used in England and Scotland, so that a focus on what can be done in the classroom creates an optimal learning environment for everyone. The concept of inclusive pedagogy recognises that all teachers need to understand that when they do not know how to help the student they can turn to experts. These experts, such as special educators, can be used to support teachers’ efforts to engage all pupils. Inclusive pedagogy means extending what is available in a classroom to a rich learning environment for everyone. This thinking avoids labelling pupils and, as such, promotes the creation of fully inclusive environments (Florian, 2010; Florian & Black-Hawkins, 2011). Our research cannot say much about inclusive pedagogy in Sweden or in Finland. It seems that inclusive practices exist, but we need to employ a different research approach, such as the use of observations, to comment on this; perhaps future research could also include a comparison with the role of SENCos. In practice, special education at schools needs at least two perspectives: an individual as well as a whole-school approach. An individual approach concentrates on individual pupils’ needs, whereas a whole-school approach focuses on structuring support systems, working in teacher teams and developing the school to be a better learning environment. These two perspectives can and will need to be combined in the future work of special educators and are a good starting point for inclusive pedagogy. It is not enough to see only the child with additional needs or to see only the pedagogical organisation. In summary, it is worth bearing in mind that you miss the forest if you only see the trees, and if you only see the forest, you do not pay enough attention to the trees.
References Abbott, L. (2007) ‘Northern Ireland Special Educational Needs Coordinators creating inclusive environments: an epic struggle’, European Journal of Special Needs Education, 22 (4), 391–407.
76
British Journal of Special Education · Volume 41 · Number 1 · 2014
© 2014 NASEN
Amendments to the Basic Education Act (642/2010) ‘Laki perusopetuslain muuttamisesta’ [online at http://www.finlex.fi/fi/laki/alkup/2010/ 20100642]. Anastasiou, D. & Kauffman, J. M. (2012) ‘Disability as cultural difference: implications for special education’, Remedial and Special Education, 33 (3), 139–149. Arnesen, A-L. & Lundhal, L. (2006) ‘Still social and democratic? Inclusive education policies in the Nordic welfare states’, Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 50 (3), 285–300. Attwood, T., Callesen, K. & Moller-Nielsen, A. (2009) The CAT-Kit: Cognitive Affective Training: new program for improving communication. Arlington, TX: Future Horizons. Cortes, L. J. & Lundh, P. (2010) ‘Vad gör specialpedagoger respective speciallärare? En studie grundad på intervjuer och observationer av en specialpedagog och en speciallärare i deras arbetsmiljö’ [‘What does the remedial teacher do? A study based on interviews and observations of a special educator and a special teacher in their working environment’]. Teacher Diploma, Teacher Education. High School of Malmö, Sweden [online at http://dspace.mah.se/bitstream/handle/2043/11235/ examensarbete%25202010.pdf?sequence=1]. Basic Education Act (1998/628) Perusopetuslaki [online at http://www .finlex.fi/fi/laki/ajantasa/1998/19980628]. Billingsley, B. S. (2004) ‘Special education teacher retention and attrition: a critical analysis of the resource literature’, Journal of Special Education, 38 (1), 39–55. Cowne, E. (2005) ‘What do Special Educational Needs Coordinators think they do?’, Support for Learning, 20 (2), 61–68. EADSNE (European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education) (2009) SNE – Data Sweden [online at http://www.european-agency.org/ country-information/sweden/national-overview/sne-data]. EADSNE (European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education) (2010a) Sweden SNE Country Data [online at http://www.european-agency .org/country-information/sweden/swedish-files/SWEDEN-SNE.pdf/ view?searchterm=statistics]. EADSNE (European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education) (2010b) Finland SNE Country Data [online at http:// www.european-agency.org/country-information/finland/finnish-files/ FINLAND-SNE.pdf/view?searchterm=statistics]. EADSNE (European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education) (2012) Sweden – SNE- Country Data [online at https://
© 2014 NASEN
British Journal of Special Education · Volume 41 · Number 1 · 2014
77
www.european-agency.org/country-information/sweden/swedish-files/ SWEDEN-SNE.pdf/view?searchterm=special%20education%20sweden]. Erixon Arreman, I. & Holm, A-S. (2011) ‘Privatization of public education? The emergence of independent upper secondary schools in Sweden’, Journal of Educational Policy, 26 (2), 225–243. Finnish National Board of Education (2011) Perusopetuksen opetussuunnitelman perusteiden muutokset ja täydennykset 2010 [Changes and Supplements in the Finnish Curriculum 2010: 20]. Helsinki. Florian, L. (2008) ‘Special or inclusive education: future trends’, British Journal of Special Education, 35 (4), 202–208. Florian, L. (2010) ‘Special education in an era of inclusion: the end of special education or a new beginning?’, Psychology of Education Review, 34 (2), 22–27. Florian, L. & Black-Hawkins, K. (2011) ‘Exploring inclusive pedagogy’, British Educational Research Journal, 37 (5), 813–828. Giota, J. & Emanuelsson, I. (2011) ‘Policies in special education support issues in Swedish compulsory school: a nationally representative study of headteachers’ judgements’, London Review of Education, 9 (1), 95–108. Giota, J. & Lundborg, O. (2007) Specialpedagogiskt stöd i grundskolan – omfattning, former och konsekvenser [Special Education support in compulsory school – extent, forms and consequences]. University of Gothenburg. IPD-report 03. Göransson, K., Nilholm, C. & Karlsson, K. (2011) ‘Inclusive education in Sweden? A critical analysis’, International Journal of Inclusive Education, 15 (5), 541–555. Halinen, I. & Järvinen, R. (2008) ‘Towards inclusive education’, Prospects, 38 (1), 77–97. Hallahan, D. P., Kauffman, J. M. & Pullen, P. C. (2009) Exceptional Learners: an introduction to special education (11th edition). Boston, MA: Pearson Education. Hausstätter, S. R. & Takala, M. (2008) ‘The core of special teacher education: a comparison of Finland and Norway’, European Journal of Special Education, 23 (2), 121–134. Lindqvist, G. (2013) ‘Who should do what to whom? Occupational groups’ views on special needs.’ School of Education and Communication, Jönköping University. Dissertation series 22:2013 [online at http:// hj.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:665062/FULLTEXT01.pdf]. Mackenzie, S. (2007) ‘A review of recent developments in the role of the SENCo in the UK’, British Journal of Special Education, 34 (4), 212–218. 78
British Journal of Special Education · Volume 41 · Number 1 · 2014
© 2014 NASEN
Ministry of Education and Culture (2007) Special Education Strategy, 2007: 47 [online at http://www.minedu.fi/export/sites/default/OPM/Julkaisut/2007/ liitteet/tr47.pdf?lang=fi]. Pearson, S. (2010) ‘The role of Special Educational Needs Co-ordinators (SENCos): “To be or not to be” ’, Psychology of Education Review, 34 (2), 30–38. Ramberg, J. (2013) ‘Special educational resources in the Swedish upper secondary schools: a total population survey’, European Journal of Special Needs Education, published online, DOI: 10.1080/08856257.2013.820458. Reindal, S. M. (2008) ‘A social relational model of disability: a theoretical framework for special needs education’, European Journal of Special Needs Education, 23 (2), 135–146. Rosen-Webb, S. M. (2011) ‘Nobody tells you how to be a SENCo’, British Journal of Special Needs Education, 38 (4), 159–168. Saloviita, T. & Takala, M. (2010) ‘Frequency of co-teaching in different teacher categories’, European Journal of Special Needs Education, 25 (4), 389–396. Sayeski, K. L. (2009) ‘Defining special educators’ tools: blocks of effective collaboration’, Intervention in School and Clinic, 45 (1), 38–44. SFS (Svensk Författningssamling) [Code of Statutes] (2007) Förordning om ändring i högskoleförordningen. Specialpedagogexamen 2007:638 [Statute of Postgraduate Diploma. Special pedagogues]. Stockholm: The Government. SFS (Svensk Författningssamling) [Code of Statutes] (2005) Förordning om ändring i grundskoleförordningen 2005: 179 [Changes in the School Statute]. Stockholm: The Government [online at http://www.notisum.se/rnp/ sls/sfs/20050179.PDF]. Shaywitz, S. (2003) Overcoming Dyslexia. A new and complete science-based program for reading problems at any level. New York: Vintage Books. Statistics Finland (2010) Special Education [online at http://www.stat.fi/til/ erop/2010/erop_2010_2011-06-09_tau_001_fi.html]. Statistics Finland (2011) Special Education [online at http://www.stat.fi/til/ erop/2010/erop_2010_2011-06-09_tie_001_en.html]. Statistics Finland (2012) Intensified or Special Support [online at http:// www.stat.fi/til/erop/2011/erop_2011_2012-06-12_tie_001_en.html]. Stockholm University (2011) Lärarutbildningsportalen [Teacher Education Portal] [online at http://www.su.se/lararutbildningar/2.6768]. Studentum (2013) Utbildning som lärare [Teacher training] [online at http:// www.studentum.se/laerare_undervisning_vaegledning___22__.html?q= speciall%C3%A4rare].
© 2014 NASEN
British Journal of Special Education · Volume 41 · Number 1 · 2014
79
Swedish Act on Education (2010) Svensk Författningssamling, Skollagen 2010: 800 [online at http://www.notisum.se/rnp/sls/sfs/20100800.pdf]. Swedish National Agency for Education (Skolverket) (2008) Allmänna råd och kommentarer. Den individuella utvecklingsplanen med skriftliga omdömen [General Advice and Comments. Individual educational plan], 8:1071. Stockholm. Swedish National Agency for Higher Education (Högskoleverket, HSV) (2012) Behovet av särskild specialpedagogexamen och specialpedagogisk kompetens i den svenska skolan [The Need for a Separate Special Education Exam and Special Education Competence in Swedish Schools]. Report 2012:11 R. Swedish National Agency for Education [Skolverket] (2011) Läroplan för grundskolan, förskoleklassen och fritidshemmet [Curriculum for Compulsory School, Preschool and Leisure-Time Centre]. Stockholm. Swedish National Agency for Education [Skolverket] (2012) Rätt till kunskap och särskilt stöd [Right to Knowledge and Special Support]. Stockholm [online at http://www.skolverket.se/regelverk/juridisk-vagledning/ ratt-till-kunskap-och-sarskilt-stod-1.126409]. Swedish School Statute [Skolförordningen] (2011) 2011: 185. Stockholm: Government [online at http://www.notisum.se/rnp/sls/fakta/a0110185 .htm]. Szwed, C. (2007) ‘Reconsidering the role of the primary special educational needs co-ordinator: policy, practice and future priorities’, British Journal of Special Education, 34 (2), 96–104. Takala, M., Hausstätter, R. S., Ahl, A. & Head, G. (2012) ‘Inclusion seen by student teachers in special education – differences among Finnish, Norwegian and Swedish students’, European Journal of Teacher Education, 35 (3), 305–325. 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. 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. Tissot, C. (2013) ‘The role of SENCOs as leaders’, British Journal of Special Education, 40 (1), 33–40. von Ahlefeld Nisser, D. (2009) Vad kommunikation vill säga. En iscensättande studie om specialpedagogers yrkesroll och kunskapande samtal [What Communication Says – an engineering study on the role of special 80
British Journal of Special Education · Volume 41 · Number 1 · 2014
© 2014 NASEN
educators and knowledge dialogues]. Stockholm: Special Education Institute, University of Stockholm. Weiss, M. & Lloyd, J. W. (2002) ‘Congruence between roles and actions of secondary special educators in co-taught and special education settings’, Journal of Special Education, 36 (2), 58–68.
Address for correspondence: Professor Marjatta Takala University of Oulu – Faculty of Education Yliopistonkatu 9 Oulu 90014 Finland Email:
[email protected] Article submitted: March 2013 Accepted for publication: December 2013
© 2014 NASEN
British Journal of Special Education · Volume 41 · Number 1 · 2014
81
Copyright of British Journal of Special Education is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
