Personal commentary from the course: Introduction to special education

Personal Commentary

-         Introduction to Special Education

Structure

This commentary will take you through my personal and professional experiences from courses of relevance to education at The University of Finland. Primarily from the course: Introduction to Special Education.

I will explain briefly what this course has had to offer and based on this I will raise a few questions which will be discussed further in this paper by examining the learning experiences I have had during this course. Based on the discussion, the conclusion of this paper gives a few suggestions for beneficial changes that could be made in the special education system in Finland and in my home country (Denmark and The Faeroe Islands).

About the course

The course has offered a journey through the general Finnish education system and the Special education system. Some historical turning points, how it functions today and what changes the Finnish special education system is facing in the near future. This is a course aimed at international students, and it has been made clear from day one that through discussions, group work, presentations and individual work we will get an idea of various different special education systems and be able to compare and analyze similarities and differences so that we can find weaknesses and strengths in the different approaches to special education.

To get a better grasp of how the inclusive education system works in Finland, we have visited three different schools in the area of Joensuu, where we have seen the three main different ways of providing special education in Finland:

- Integration in a main stream classroom,

- A separate classroom in a main stream school, and

- A special classroom in a special school.

Areas for further explanation – Raised questions..

1. Reflections from school visits with Introduction to special education.

2. Finnish class teachers provide remedial help for their pupils while Danish teachers do not.  What are the strengths and weaknesses with these two different approaches?

3. What are the strengths and weaknesses of having generally well trained special education teachers (Finland) – as the opposite of limited but very well specially trained special education teachers (Denmark)?

4. Are general teachers in main stream classes educated well enough to fulfill the requirements of “inclusive education”?

Reflections from school visits

First of all, the three schools visits have given me a basic practical experience with how the special education system in Finland works, this includes 1, Integration in main stream classrooms, 2, Separate special education classroom in a main stream school and 3, a special education classroom at the special education school (Savolainen 2009). The school visits have been a very positive experience for me and the fact that we visited in small groups and different schools, leaves me with the feeling that I now have a better comprehension of the Finnish special education system than I would have by only visiting 1-2 different schools – especially since one of the schools is the University’s practice school where my personal point of view is that it gives a slightly crooked picture of the main stream education system in Finland – thus as well the special education provided at that school[1].

Extensive research has shown that good results depend on competent teachers – not resources and number of pupils (Savolainen 2009). Putting a few pupils, many teachers and extensive resources in a school does not equal “good teaching” and learning opportunities for pupils and teachers, but it can make the learning goals easier attainable if the teachers are well trained and competent.

To me it seems like one of the striking differences between the special education system in Finland and that of my home country (Denmark and the Faroe Islands)[2] is how the systems value special education. The three school visits in Joensuu gave me an impression of the special education system in Finland supporting special education. Schools in my home country (here, I generalize) give the field of special education less priority, non-trained teachers are cheaper and often special education is more like a day-care where learning is not emphasized very much.

With this being said I would like to emphasize one point where I think teachers in my home country are overruling Finnish teachers, and this is in the integration of pupils with special needs in main stream classes. During observation lessons in Finland I have seen surprisingly little differentiation, personal assistance and accommodating the teaching to e.g. different learning styles. To me, it does not seem like Finnish teachers are actually ready for inclusive education, and I am not saying Danish and Faroese are, but they might be slightly closer to the goal than Finnish teachers are.  

The role of class teachers in remedial help

In primary school (1-6) every class has a class teacher who teaches most subjects – with the exception of a few subjects taught by subject-teachers. A class teacher will stay in the same class for 2-4 years and in secondary school (lower and upper) all subjects are taught by subject-teachers and the class teacher’s role is taken by one of the subject teachers who functions as a contact person and guide for his/her pupils.

Class teachers have a few “empty” lessons in their timetable to spend on so called, remedial help, which means helping pupils who are lagging behind to get back on the right track (often pupils who have been ill and have not been present for important lessons) (Halinen & Järvinen 2008). Even though this does not count as special education lessons, this is in my opinion definitely something that lowers the need for special education – without the remedial help these pupils could on the long run be in need of special education and it could have fatal consequences for their learning and well-being at school.

The possibility for remedial help does not exist in Denmark or on The Faeroe Islands in the same way – and to the same extent – as it does in Finland. The so called homework cafés are supposedly offering remedial help, but are not to be found in all schools and are often run by random teachers (and sometimes special education teachers or substitute teachers). In my opinion it can be an advantage that the remedial help is offered by the class teacher, who has a personal relationship to the pupil – and can do so in the pupil’s “safe environment” (classroom) – although, an obvious danger is that bad relationships between class teachers and pupils, can easily have catastrophic consequences for the pupil, because the class teacher is responsible for almost all teaching for many years at the time.

General special education or specialist special education

The Finnish special education teachers are specially trained in providing general special education for various disabilities and are not competent as main stream teacher, while the Danish special education teachers often start with a main stream teacher education and then specialize in some specific learning disability.

Both education systems aim at providing inclusive education for all and there are many similarities in the organization and structure of educational systems in Finland and Denmark (Halinen & Järvinen 2008). To mention a few: Pupils begin and end school at the same age in both countries; teachers teach a similar (+-2 lessons) amount of lessons every week and these last years, the government and municipalities have increased the centralization of schools in both countries.

Which kind of education for special education teachers is best suited for “inclusive education”?

The Danish method has its benefits in very big schools, where the special education teacher would have enough pupils with a specific disability in one group – and the teachers have the opportunity to become very good within their field. The Finnish special education teachers can easily be connected to schools of all sizes, because they have a broad competence in special education which pupils with very different disabilities can benefit from. With this being said, becoming a specialist within many specific fields of disabilities is a very demanding road for Finnish teachers and I think this might be their biggest disadvantage.

Education for Inclusive education

To be honest, this course has given me just as much information about the Danish special education system as it has about the Finnish system, because I knew very little about the Danish system before I took this course. The saying the more I know the more I know I don’t know goes very well with my experience from the course.

The Danish special education system relies on general teachers who are very well trained in differentiating their teaching to meeting every pupil’s individual needs (The Ministry of Education: veje til en bedre organisering og styring 2010). Based on readings and my own experience from the Danish teacher training and observations in mainstream classrooms (where special education pupils have been integrated) I am afraid I will have to raise the following questions: do Danish teachers have the necessary education for providing inclusive education? And what can – or will be done in the near future to embrace it? And to take it even further: Is it in reality possible to include equity and equality in inclusive education? Does inclusive education just mean the same education for all – and if so, are we actually giving all pupils the same learning opportunities?

Conclusion

The discussions above have made me come up with the following suggestions and reflections:

Offering pupils remedial help is of key importance to their academic and social wellbeing. The opportunity to get extra help from skilled teachers should be made possible for all pupils at all levels to prevent major set-backs due to uncontrollable factors out side of school.

Special education should at all times be taught by competent teachers – and if this means teachers who specialize in special education, so be it. Teacher’s competences are an integral resource when striving to reach the objectives of successful inclusive education.  Maybe all teachers should be generally trained special education teachers in addition to the main-stream teacher education?

Segregation is seen as a “bad word” in inclusive education, but I wonder if it is possible to provide equity and equality for all in inclusive education if it is to be offered for everyone at the same time at the same place – and by the same people, as it very often is in these days of “centralization”.

References

Halinen, Irmeli & Järvinen, Ritva: Towards inclusive education: the case of Finland, Published online 2008.

Savolainen, Hannu: Responding to diversity and striving for excellence: The case of Finland, Published online 2009.

www.uvm.dk  (The Ministry of Education – Denmark)

-         Special undervisning I folksekolen – veje til en bedre organisering og styring, 2010.

-          Deloitte: Analyse af specialundervisning i folkeskolen, 2010.

---

[1] The university’s practice placement school is different in many ways. Two main differences are: It has a lot more resources than “normal” schools and many teachers have higher degrees than a MA.

[2] Based on own experience