Learning from Finland: Guidelines for the development of inclusive schools 3658401761, 9783658401764

Citation preview

Christopher Mihajlovic

Learning from Finland Guidelines for the development of inclusive schools

Learning from Finland

Christopher Mihajlovic

Learning from Finland Guidelines for the development of inclusive schools

Christopher Mihajlovic Esslingen am Neckar, Germany

ISBN 978-3-658-40176-4    ISBN 978-3-658-40177-1 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-40177-1 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2023 This book is a translation of the original German edition „Lernen von Finnland“ by Mihajlovic, Christopher, published by Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH in 2021. The translation was done with the help of artificial intelligence (machine translation by the service DeepL.com). A subsequent human revision was done primarily in terms of content, so that the book will read stylistically differently from a conventional translation. Springer Nature works continuously to further the development of tools for the production of books and on the related technologies to support the authors. This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer VS imprint is published by the registered company Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature. The registered company address is: Abraham-Lincoln-Str. 46, 65189 Wiesbaden, Germany

About This Book

Since its successful performance in the PISA studies, at the latest, the Finnish education system has become the focus of public interest. In the media coverage of recent years, the Finnish school system has often been held up as a prime example of important challenges in education policy. This is particularly true of the issue of inclusive education. While few studies to date have seriously questioned the Finnish “educational miracle”, this book aims to provide an objective account of the current situation in Finland. In doing so, it takes a differentiated and critical look at inclusive schooling in Finland. In order to achieve this, the inclusive school and classroom culture was investigated using qualitative research approaches in selected Finnish schools. The building blocks of an inclusive school developed by Reich (2014) were used as criteria for analysis. Based on the findings of this study, it will finally be discussed and concluded what Germany (and other countries) can learn from Finland in terms of inclusion.

v

Contents

1 Introduction ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  1 1.1 Objective�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  4 1.2 Structure of the Book �����������������������������������������������������������������������  5 References �������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  6 2 Theoretical Background���������������������������������������������������������������������������  9 2.1 Integration and Inclusion in the International Discourse �����������������  9 2.1.1 Inclusion Debate in Finland: A School Organisation Issue?��� 11 2.1.2 Inclusion Debate in Germany: A Structural School Issue?����  16 2.2 Working Definitions and Basics������������������������������������������������������� 20 2.2.1 Understanding of Inclusion ������������������������������������������������� 20 2.2.2 Concept of Disability����������������������������������������������������������� 24 2.2.3 Normalisation, Self-Determination and Empowerment������� 25 2.2.4 Understanding School Culture��������������������������������������������� 28 2.3 Inclusive School and Teaching Culture��������������������������������������������� 31 2.3.1 Selected Approaches to Inclusive School Development ����� 31 2.3.2 The “Index for Inclusion” as a Guide for an Inclusive School Culture��������������������������������������������������������������������� 32 2.3.3 Guidelines for an Inclusive School��������������������������������������� 36 References ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 37 3 Research  Design and Methodological Approach����������������������������������� 45 3.1 Structure and Aim of the Study��������������������������������������������������������� 45 3.1.1 Field Access and Sample Selection ������������������������������������� 47 3.2 Methodological Approach����������������������������������������������������������������� 49 3.2.1 Qualitative Research������������������������������������������������������������� 49 vii

viii

Contents

3.2.2 Triangulation of Methodological Approaches��������������������� 51 3.3 Overview of Qualitative Methods����������������������������������������������������� 52 3.3.1 Participant (Classroom) Observation����������������������������������� 52 3.3.2 Oral and Written (Expert) Interviews����������������������������������� 53 3.3.3 Document Analysis�������������������������������������������������������������� 63 3.4 Data Evaluation��������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 63 3.4.1 Evaluation of the Protocols of Participant Observation������� 63 3.4.2 Evaluation Method for the Expert Interviews ��������������������� 65 3.4.3 Evaluation Method for Document Analysis������������������������� 67 3.5 Creation of School Portraits������������������������������������������������������������� 69 3.5.1 Aim of the School Portraits ������������������������������������������������� 71 3.5.2 Methodological Backgrounds���������������������������������������������� 72 3.6 Critical Comments on the Research Design������������������������������������� 74 3.6.1 Influence of Language Barriers on the Choice of Methodological Approaches ������������������������������������������� 76 References ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 76 4 Guidelines  for Inclusive Schools: Case Studies from Finland ������������� 81 4.1 Schools Based on Equal Opportunities��������������������������������������������� 87 4.1.1 A School System for All?����������������������������������������������������� 87 4.1.2 Permeability of the School System: Transitions and Interfaces����������������������������������������������������������������������� 92 4.1.3 Culture of Trust ������������������������������������������������������������������� 94 4.2 Inclusive Curricula and Subject Didactics ��������������������������������������� 95 4.2.1 Demands on an Inclusive Curriculum ��������������������������������� 98 4.2.2 Basis of the Present Understanding of Education ��������������� 99 4.2.3 Perception of the Curriculum from the Teachers’ Perspective���������������������������������������������������������������������������103 4.3 Teamwork and Multiprofessional Structures �����������������������������������104 4.3.1 Cooperation in Teaching Practice�����������������������������������������105 4.3.2 Teachers in Multi-professional Teams���������������������������������107 4.3.3 What Attitude Should Teachers Have if They Want to Work Inclusively?�������������������������������������������������������������108 4.4 Democracy and Participation �����������������������������������������������������������110 4.4.1 An Open School in the District �������������������������������������������113 4.5 Healthy and Active School���������������������������������������������������������������115 4.5.1 Excursus: Conceptual Foundations of the “Moving School”�����������������������������������������������������������������116

Contents

ix

4.5.2 Approaches and Concepts of a “Moving School” in Finland�����������������������������������������������������������������������������121 4.5.3 Case Studies: Elements of Active Learning in Everyday School Life�����������������������������������������������������������125 4.6 Accessible and Well-Designed School���������������������������������������������130 4.6.1 Barrier-Free School Architecture with Flexible Room Structures�����������������������������������������������������������������������������131 4.7 Supportive Learning Environment ���������������������������������������������������137 4.7.1 A School for Well-Being �����������������������������������������������������137 4.7.2 Culture of Promotion�����������������������������������������������������������140 4.7.3 Concept of Performance and Performance Evaluation �������144 4.8 Learners with Special Needs�������������������������������������������������������������148 4.8.1 Support Needs in a School for All���������������������������������������148 4.8.2 The Finnish Support System: Special Needs Education in Three Levels���������������������������������������������������155 4.8.3 Organisation of Special Needs Education at School Level�������������������������������������������������������������������������159 4.9 Teacher Training Schools�����������������������������������������������������������������164 4.9.1 Excursus: Teacher Education in Finland �����������������������������165 4.9.2 The Teachers’ Perspective ���������������������������������������������������170 References �������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������174 5 Conclusion:  Learning from Finland?�����������������������������������������������������185 5.1 Structural and Educational Policy Framework of the Finnish Education System�����������������������������������������������������������������������������186 5.1.1 Decision-Making at Local Level �����������������������������������������187 5.1.2 The Role of the Inclusive School System�����������������������������188 5.1.3 The Role of the Three-Tier Support System �����������������������190 5.1.4 Multi-professional Structures�����������������������������������������������193 5.2 Challenges for Inclusive School and Classroom Development �������194 5.2.1 A Question of (De-)Categorisation?�������������������������������������194 5.3 Points of Reference for Teacher Education���������������������������������������197 5.3.1 The Importance of Selection Procedures�����������������������������197 5.3.2 Possible Consequences���������������������������������������������������������202 References �������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������203

About the Author

Christopher Mihajlovic • Born 1984 • Studied of educational science and special education (with the subjects Physical Education and English) in Frankfurt am Main and Heidelberg • Since 2011: special education teacher and lecturer at the University of Education, Heidelberg In 2016/2017: 1-year study and research stay at the University of Helsinki (Finland) to explore Finnish school culture.

xi

1

Introduction

During the last 20 years, the Finnish school system has become the subject of public and educational interest. Frequently, media coverage paints a highly idealized picture of Finnish schools and their teachers in comparison to German educational institutions; for example, Spiegel Online ran the headline “What Finnish teachers do better than Germans” in 2018.1 A significant part of this public perception is due to school performance studies such as PISA, in which Finland regularly scores above average. However, not all Nordic countries seem to live up to the myth of equitable and high-performing education systems when it comes to practical implementation. (cf. Kobarg & Prenzel, 2009). In Germany, on the other hand, politicians from the educational sector warned of an educational catastrophe due to the comparatively poor performance of German students in the first PISA studies in 2000 and 2003. The media often spoke of the so-called “PISA shock”, which provided the impetus for fundamental educational reforms. The results of the PISA studies have also led to the German school system being questioned. In particular, the topic of “inclusion” has been discussed for years in the individual federal states of Germany without arriving at an overall political solution in the sense of the UNCRPD. But not only in the course of the PISA studies and educational reforms, but also when it comes to innovative approaches in the school sector, Finland is repeatedly mentioned as a role model for the German-speaking world. For example, in the recent Corona lockdown and the associated school closures, the exemplary digitalisation concept of Finnish schools was highlighted in public reporting. In particular, Finland is cited in international comparative studies as a “model”  https://www.spiegel.de/panorama/was-finnische-lehrer-besser-machen-als-deutsche-a-­ 355ed155-341a-4add-9d5b-26217ab4dca0 (accessed 01/20/2021). 1

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2023 C. Mihajlovic, Learning from Finland, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-40177-1_1

1

2

1 Introduction

country that has achieved above-average success in terms of educational quality and equality in the distribution of educational outcome among children and young people for a number of years with moderate spending on the education and training system (cf. OECD, 2011; Quenzel & Hurrelmann, 2010). In contrast, the group of children receiving little education in Germany is extremely large in comparison to other OECD countries, with almost eight percent of a cohort leaving school without a qualification (cf. Quenzel & Hurrelmann, 2010). The description of the Finnish school system in comparison to the German one already shows a different perspective on school: In Finland the education system refers to schools open for a heterogeneous student body, in Germany, on the other hand, a strongly selective system has developed due to the (tripartite) structure of the German school system. As far as the joint education of pupils with and without special educational needs is concerned, Finland seems to be much further ahead than Germany. What is special about the Finnish education system is the pedagogical intention of leaving no pupil behind. A look at the Finnish education system shows that since the beginning of the 1970s a comprehensive school with an integrated support system for students with special needs has been established, the basic structure of which is undisputed in terms of education policy (cf. Toman, 2008). In Germany, on the other hand, a mentality of exclusion has developed as a result of the tradition of a selective school system. However, Germany has also set out on the path to an inclusive education system, but there are considerable regional differences – depending on the federal state – with regard to the practical implementation of inclusion (cf. Hollenbach-Biele & Klemm, 2020). Two central educational events play a very important political role in the global discourse on inclusion in historical terms – both in Germany and in Finland: the UNESCO World Conference on Special Needs Education (1994) in Salamanca, Spain, which led to the so-called Salamanca Declaration (1994) and used the concept of inclusion explicitly for the first time. Secondly, there is the UN CRPD, which was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly at the end of 2006 and has been legally binding in Germany since 26 March 2009 and in Finland since 23 December 2010. Both education policy documents overlap in terms of content and focus on promoting the autonomy of people with special needs as a central task. Even though there has been no uniform definition of inclusion so far, there is consensus in the global discourse that inclusion is seen as a human right and also focuses on other dimensions of heterogeneity than the aspect of “disability” (cf. Booth, 2008; Hinz, 2008; Köpfer et al., 2021). However, there are considerable differences in how inclusive schooling is implemented in different countries. While Finland has a long tradition of educating students with and without disabilities together (cf. Graham & Jahnukainen, 2011; Mihajlovic, 2018), Germany has little experience in the field of

1 Introduction

3

inclusion due to the selective orientation of the school system. This also affects the respective country-specific inclusion discourse: The inclusion discourse in Finland is less linked to fundamental questions of the school system, as is the case in Germany, but is rather understood as an organisational challenge of the individual schools to incorporate students with special educational needs. The question arises whether the Finnish model of the educational system can actually serve as a model for Germany or other countries. This question cannot be answered so easily, since the structural conditions in Finland differ greatly from those in Germany. In addition to the different traditions of the school system, the social structures of the two countries also play a role: homogeneity within society is much greater in Finland, with its approximately 5.3 million citizens, than, for example, in federally structured Germany, with its more than 82 million inhabitants. Apart from this, the teaching profession is held in high esteem in Finnish society. Although teachers in Finland are paid below average, there is an extreme surplus of applicants for teacher training (cf. Hakala, 2009; Sahlberg, 2011). The success of PISA in particular has contributed to the fact that there are now a large number of empirical studies that have looked at the successful performance of Finnish pupils in international comparative studies. In contrast, the Finnish school and teaching culture has hardly been examined from an inclusive perspective. Exceptions are individual studies that have dealt with selected aspects of the Finnish school system, such as (inclusive) teacher training (Kricke, 2015) or the specific educational structures (Rühle, 2015), from the perspective of diversity and equal opportunities. In the context of this book, the Finnish education system is to be examined from a different perspective and only marginally refers to the results of the PISA studies. A more differentiated and also critical view of the situation in Finland should be taken. Many publications report on the Finnish education system in a very onesided way with a “laudatory undertone” (Rühle, 2015, p. 12). As a rule, the reporting also focuses on Finland’s success in the PISA studies and the influencing factors associated with it. Little research has been done on how inclusive schools in Finland work in practice. As Köpfer et al. (2021) state, despite the global relevance of the inclusion issue, there is still a considerable need for research on international and comparative issues in the context of inclusive education. These open questions, however, do not only relate to research, but also to practice-related aspects of inclusive education, such as particularly successful examples of barrier-free school architecture and conducive learning environments. Following on from these issues, this book aims to uncover the framework conditions of the individual Finnish schools which are analysed in this book and also to reconstruct their school culture. Different qualitative approaches (see Chap. 3 in this book) served as survey instruments, which were brought together in the sense of triangulation. The central ele-

4

1 Introduction

ments of the inclusive school and classroom culture (cf. Reich, 2014) were elaborated with the help of the individual case analyses.

1.1 Objective This book was not planned in this form. Originally, the primary aim of a dissertation project was to investigate physical education under inclusive aspects in selected schools in Finland. However, during a one-year study and research stay at the University of Helsinki, the research interest and also the objective of the project changed. Thus, over time, in addition to the specific research interest, general questions about the Finnish school system have come into focus, such as: What is special about the Finnish school system? How does Finland deal with the issue of inclusion on an educational policy level? And what makes a ‘good’ inclusive school in practice? This book is the result of the search for answers to these and other questions. The aim of this book is not so much to contribute to the academic discourse on inclusion. Rather, the book is to be understood as an empirical report based on scientific survey methods that offers impulses for school practice or inclusive school development (cf. Booth & Ainscow, 2017). Thus, the motivation for this book is precisely to make a practicable and practical contribution to the “exploration” of Finnish school culture. The (research) approach was through an intensive exploration of the school and classroom culture of four typical Finnish schools over a period of one year. Different qualitative research methods were used to explore the school culture. The building blocks of an inclusive school developed by Reich (2014) are intended to ensure that the inclusive education outlined in this book is scientifically grounded and practically effective to implement. The aim is to analyse and examine what Germany can learn from Finnish schools with regard to the topic of inclusion. Target Group This book aims to provide a practical approach to all interested actors who are interested in the “secret” of Finnish educational success and would like to gain insight into so-called “good practice” examples of inclusive Finnish schools. This insight into practice is of particular interest to readers who are interested in the inclusive orientation of schools or who are active in school and classroom development. These include in particular:

1.2  Structure of the Book

5

• Pedagogical decision-makers interested in the development of an inclusive school culture (e.g. school principals) • teachers of all types of schools • Educators and (pedagogical) professionals working in inclusive settings • Parents

1.2 Structure of the Book This book is divided into five parts: In the first part (Introduction), the subject area is roughly outlined and the relevance of the topic is highlighted. In the second chapter (Theoretical Background), the terms “integration” and “inclusion” are first discussed in an international context, with a comparative look at the historical developments in Finland and in the German-speaking world. The focus at this point will be on the elaboration and comparison of country-specific research traditions. As a result of the review of the theoretical foundations in relation to the inclusion discourse, working definitions are then established, the understanding of which is relevant for the further course of the book. Section 2.3 establishes the theoretical framework for this thesis. This theoretical framing is significant in terms of the presentation of the data obtained. In this regard, selected concepts related to inclusive school and classroom culture are elaborated and presented. The third chapter of this thesis (“Research Design and Methodological Procedure”) presents the structure of the study and the methodological procedure in more detail. In addition to the methods used for data collection and forms of data evaluation and interpretation, a critical look will also be taken at the methodological procedure. With four schools to be investigated, there was a comparatively small number of individual cases. This made it possible to first reconstruct each case separately and to write them down in the form of “school portraits”. Subsequently, the empirical data was analysed with regard to the educational policy and curricular framework conditions on the basis of selected criteria of inclusive schools. At this point, the challenges of conducting research in foreign languages are also discussed, as these had a major influence on the methodological procedure and the creation of the survey instruments. The fourth chapter (Guidelines of inclusive schools: case studies from Finland) represents the key aspect of this book. The building blocks for developing an inclusive school developed by Reich (2014) serve as a structuring aid for presenting the most important aspects of Finnish school culture. These have emerged from practice, have already been used to analyse different schools (in Germanspeaking countries) and have consequently proved their worth for practical use.

6

1 Introduction

These ­characteristics of inclusive schools were added as analysis criteria for the inclusive school and teaching culture of the Finnish schools studied and were shaped in the course of the research process. Finally, the fifth and final chapter will summarise the findings and discuss them in relation to the overarching research question (learning from Finland?). In this concluding chapter, the main findings will be brought together and possible consequences for the German education system will be explained.

References Booth, T. (2008). Ein internationaler Blick auf inklusive Bildung: Werte für alle? In A. Hinz, I. Körner, & U. Niehoff (Hrsg.), Von der Integration zur Inklusion. Grundlagen, Perspektiven, Praxis (S. 53–73). Lebenshilfe Verlag. Booth, T., & Ainscow, M. (2017). Index für Inklusion. Ein Leitfaden für Schulentwicklung. Beltz. 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 Hakala, J. (2009). Die Ausbildung der Klassenlehrer für die neunjährige Grundschule. In A.-L.  Matthies & E.  Skiera (Hrsg.), Das Bildungswesen in Finnland (S. 201–213). Klinkhardt. Hinz, A. (2008). Inklusion – historische Entwicklungslinien und internationale Kontexte. In A. Hinz, I. Körner, & U. Niehoff (Hrsg.), Von der Integration zur Inklusion. Grundlagen – Perspektiven – Praxis (S. 33–52). Lebenshilfe- Verlag. Hollenbach-Biele, N., & Klemm, K. (2020). Inklusive Bildung zwischen Licht und Schatten: Eine Bilanz nach zehn Jahren inklusiven Unterrichts. Bertelsmann Stiftung. Kobarg, M., & Prenzel, M. (2009). Keyword: The myth of the Nordic educational systems. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 12(4), 597–615. Köpfer, A., Powell, J., & Zahnd, R. (2021). Entwicklungslinien internationaler und komparativer Inklusionsforschung. In A. Köpfer, J. Powell, & R. Zahnd (Hrsg.), Handbuch Inklusion international  – Globale, nationale und lokale Perspektiven auf Inklusive Bildung. International handbook of inclusive education – Global, national and local perspectives (S. 11–41). Verlag Barbara Budrich. Kricke, M. (2015). Lernen und Lehren in Deutschland und Finnland: eine empirische Studie zu Schulsystem und LehrerInnenbildung im Ländervergleich (Dissertation). Universität zu Köln. Mihajlovic, C. (2018). Zwischen PISA und Inklusion: Die Rolle des sonderpädagogischen Fördersystems in Finnland. Zeitschrift Für Inklusion, 1. Abgerufen von https://www. inklusion-­online.net/index.php/inklusion-­online/article/view/412 OECD. (2011). PISA 2009 Ergebnisse: Potenziale nutzen und Chancengerechtigkeit sichern. Sozialer Hintergrund und Schülerleistungen (Band 2). Paris: Organisation für wirtschaftliche Zusammenarbeit und Entwicklung. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264095359-­de. Accessed 2016, September 26.

References

7

Quenzel, G., & Hurrelmann, K. (2010). Bildungsverlierer: Neue soziale Ungleichheiten in der Wissensgesellschaft. In G.  Quenzel & K.  Hurrelmann (Hrsg.), Bildungsverlierer. Neue Ungleichheiten (S. 11–33). Springer VS. Reich, K. (2014). Inklusive Didaktik. Bausteine für eine inklusive Schule. Beltz. Rühle, S. (2015). Diversität, Curriculum und Bildungsstrukturen. Eine vergleichende Untersuchung in Deutschland und Finnland. Waxmann. Sahlberg, P. (2011). Finnish lessons: What can the world learn from educational change in Finland? Teachers College Press. Toman, H. (2008). Auf der Spur des Erfolges: Zur Frage nach den besonderen Bedingungen des guten Abschneidens Finnlands bei internationalen Vergleichsstudien  – insbesondere im Vergleich zu Deutschland. In A.-L. Matthies & E. Skiera (Hrsg.), Studien zum Bildungswesen und Schulsystem in Finnland (S. 289–298). https://www.oulu.fi/sites/ default/files/content/Giellagas_BildungswesenSchulsystemFinnland_0.pdf. Accessed 2021, juni 01. UNESCO. (1994, June 7–10). The Salamanca statement and framework for action on special needs education. In World Conference on Special Needs Education: Access and Quality, Salamanca. UNESCO.

2

Theoretical Background

2.1 Integration and Inclusion in the International Discourse The professional and political discussion about inclusion as an overcoming of an integration pedagogy is present in both national and international discourse. Since the 1960s, the concept of integration has been the dominant approach in most Western industrialized countries (cf. Hausstätter & Jahunkainen 2014; Sander, 2003). At that time, a segregated school system for people with different impairments had already developed in most European countries (cf. Hausstätter & Jahunkainen, 2014, p. 120). The process of integration was accompanied by a general social critique (Masschelein & Simons, 2005), integration was supposed to counteract the exclusion of marginalized groups in society. From a special education perspective, integration at this time was understood as integrating people with impairments into an existing system (e.g., a mainstream school). Thus, the term integration was closely associated with the segregation of people with disabilities in Western industrialised countries: “Integration was embedded in the Western European history of segregation of disabled people.” (Vislie, 2003, p. 18). According to Vislie (1995), two integrative strategies were developed between the 1970s and 1980s, which also had an impact on the understanding of integration and led to the (extended) concept of integration approaching the concept of inclusion as defined by the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. The first strategy refers to a further development within special needs education to meet the new requirements of inclusion (e.g. interdisciplinary cooperation and consultation between special needs teachers and mainstream teachers). The second strategy involves the reorientation of the mainstream school system to cope with © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2023 C. Mihajlovic, Learning from Finland, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-40177-1_2

9

10

2  Theoretical Background

the increasing diversity of pupils. In the international political context, the use of the term “inclusion” in the Salamanca Declaration was intended to significantly broaden the field of vision with regard to the integration efforts of individual Western industrial types and thus to ascribe a global role to the political ‘vision’ of a comprehensive, uniform inclusion strategy: Unesco’s actions in the field went beyond the western region and had a global orientation. A policy vision for a wider world context needed a new label to avoid giving the wrong signals to significant actors representing relevant interests and partners on a wider international arena. (Vislie, 2003, p. 19)

In international discourse, too, the concepts of integration and inclusion are not used uniformly. According to Vislie (2003), there have been inconsistent views and discussions since the 1990s about what is meant by the terms inclusion and integration: Turning again to the OECD arena, different opinions about the meanings of the two notions have been expressed and debates on integration versus inclusion have been going on during the 1990s. The literature is full of examples of ‘voices from the west’, who may argue that the terms mean the same, while others are making distinctions. (Vislie, 2003, p. 19)

The implementation of inclusive education differs enormously between countries and depends on the understanding of the term and the framework conditions in each country. Hausstätter and Jahunkainen (2014, p. 120ff.) believe that the understanding of integration and inclusion has a major influence on how individual countries align their “inclusion strategy”. Thus, the debate on inclusive education has continued at a slower pace in recent years, especially as no clear definition of what inclusion actually means has been found. At least this is true of the inclusion discourse outside the German-speaking world (Armstrong et al., 2011; Pirttimaa et al., 2015). In other countries, rather negative developments can be observed from an “inclusive perspective”: Due to the difficult relationship of inclusive education to education systems characterised by market orientation and freedom of choice, paradoxical developments have emerged in the form of a culture of diagnosis and action and a renaissance of separate instruction in the UK and Scandinavia (Denmark, Norway and Sweden) (cf. Barow et al., 2015). The rise of diagnostic attributions and the re-establishment of special classes and special support institutions are features of this development (cf. Barow et al., 2015, p. 192). These contradictory trends form a central challenge of future school development. In the Scandinavian countries, the effort to create a school for all can already be seen in

2.1  Integration and Inclusion in the International Discourse

11

the 1980s. Around the same time as in Great Britain, the term inclusion became established in Scandinavia in 1990s (cf. Barow et al., 2015, p. 189). Inclusive education, however, also in the Scandinavian countries goes beyond the understanding of a mere spatial integration of children with special needs in mainstream schools. The broad international development of the inclusion discourse, which found expression in the Salamanca Declaration (UNESCO, 1994) and the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (United Nations, 2006), has reignited the inclusion debate in many countries. Barow et al. (2015) point to different developments in individual countries: While in Denmark a lot of energy has recently been put into the further development of inclusive schooling, in parts of the UK and in Sweden rather regressive developments can be discerned. Due to an increased market orientation and privatisation of the education systems in these countries, an “education for all” with fundamentally equal educational opportunities is increasingly being called into question. The need to objectify the inclusion debate is particularly evident in the emotionally charged discussion about the concepts of inclusion and integration in the German-speaking world. Both terms are not used uniformly depending on the discipline. Frequently, both terms are used as a pair of opposites, with the term inclusion being regarded as a more far-reaching definition. Other authors take both terms as synonyms without concretely dealing with their underlying approaches, the problems of which have been expounded by Giese and Weigelt (2015) (cf. also Frühauf, 2008). Basically, there are – depending on the discipline and subjective view – different approaches to the concept of inclusion. In special education discourse, the concept of inclusion is often reduced to the diversity dimension of “disability”. If, on the other hand, one considers inclusion as a topic of general pedagogy, inclusion basically takes all dimensions of diversity into account (cf. Hinz, 2008), and derives from this the need for social institutions to adapt to people’s needs and not vice versa. In order to understand and change the current barriers to inclusive education, both systematic cross-national comparisons of educational systems and research on international movements (e.g. neoliberal or human rights-based developments) in education are of great importance (cf. Köpfer et al., 2021). In the following, the focus will be on the understanding and lines of development of the discourse on inclusion in Finland and Germany.

2.1.1 Inclusion Debate in Finland: A School Organisation Issue? In contrast to Germany, the inclusion debate in Finland is dealt with on a theoretical level largely detached from school structures and primarily on an international

12

2  Theoretical Background

research basis. There are two main reasons for this: First, a “school for all” has already existed in Finland for several decades, and its basic structure is undisputed by the publicand educational policy. The special educational support system was gradually integrated into the mainstream school system after the school reform in the 1970s (cf. Jahnukainen & Korhonen, 2003; Kivirauma, 2009), with special needs education increasingly being provided in different organisational forms ­under the umbrella of the comprehensive school. The integrated support system is considered by many Finnish special educators to be one of the reasons for the success of the Finnish school system (Hausstätter & Takala, 2011; Itkonen & Jahnukainen, 2010; Kivirauma & Ruoho, 2007). Secondly, there was an early connection to international research by necessity: the different influences from abroad had a special significance on the development of the Finnish comprehensive school system in that it was necessary at this stage to form a new, own model of national basic education from the controversial political views and sporadic pedagogical thoughts (cf. Malinen, 2008).

Development of the Current Finnish School Model The development of the inclusive school system has had a major influence on how the goal of inclusion is defined in Finland today. Until the 1970s, the Finnish school system can be described as a segregated system: It consisted of a six-year elementary school followed by a two-tier school career, subdivided into a vocational and an academic branch (Hausstätter & Jahunkainen, 2014). However, in the 1970s, the school system underwent a fundamental reform, which was due to the growing social awareness regarding social participation. It became apparent in several scientific studies that students’ choice between vocational and academic careers was largely determined by socio-economic factors. This finding is considered the main argument for the legitimacy of the fundamental school reform at that time (cf. Hausstätter & Jahunkainen, 2014). In the years 1972–1977 the nine-year “Peruskoulu” (nine-year “primary school”) was successively introduced in Finland. Since then, Finland has had a comprehensive school system for all children and adolescents, and with the beginning of the school year 1985/86 also a uniform curriculum for all pupils: the previously often practiced external differentiation (“performance courses”) in some subjects of grades 7–9 was abandoned at this time in favour of the integration of the – in terms of performance and socially – heterogeneous class community (cf. Skiera, 2008). At the same time, a new system of internal differentiation was introduced, which enabled individual schools to freely dispose of a specially allocated hourly allowance and to use it, for example, for remedial measures. Thus, individual schools were given a high degree of pedagogical autonomy, a symbol of the

2.1  Integration and Inclusion in the International Discourse

13

‘culture of trust’ (cf. Sahlberg, 2013). In this way, Finland, along with all the Nordic countries, has created a “comprehensive school” whose level of integration possibilities is exemplary compared to other Western European countries (cf. Skiera, 2008). This structural design of the school system is very close to the idea of the “unified school”, a core concern of many reform pedagogues.

The Role of Special Education The inclusion debate in Finland is strongly influenced by special education. This is reflected in the large number of publications in this field. Finnish special education has been significantly influenced by international concepts and terminology, especially from the USA. However, in the past there has always been a national emphasis based on country-specific conditions. The development of a three-tier support model within the framework of the “Special Education Strategy” (Ministry of Education and Culture, 2007), which has parallels to the “Response to Intervention” (RTI) model, is considered a prime example of the innovative handling of educational challenges. The support system developed in Finland is considered exceptional, as support is not necessarily linked to a diagnosis of support needs, but is initially legitimised through (classroom) observations (cf. Itkonen & Jahnukainen, 2010; Jahnukainen & Itkonen, 2015). Until the 1950s, however, special needs education in Finland took place primarily in separate special needs institutions. As in other neighbouring Nordic countries, discussion of inclusion began in Finland in the 1960s, with Finland taking more time to implement the ideas (see Graham & Jahnukainen, 2011, p. 19). Looking back at the historical development of integration or inclusion, the “normalisation principle” (cf. Pitsch, 2006, Sect. 2.2.3 in this book, among others) played an important role in Finland – as in other countries – in the 1960s, specifically for the rights of people with an intellectual disability However, the most important milestone for inclusive development at school level is considered to be the introduction of a “school for all” in the 1970s under the Comprehensive School Act (cf. Graham & Jahnukainen, 2011). In order to cope with the growing diversity in the Finnish population, the divided school system, which until then had been based on the German and Swedish model, was abolished (Kivirauma & Ruoho, 2007). However, according to Jahnukainen (2003), the Finnish education system has been based on the fundamental philosophy of “education for all” since the first Finnish school law, the Compulsory Education Act (1921). Along with the fundamental reform of the school system, special needs education, which had been separated until then, became part of mainstream education in community schools (Graham & Jahnukainen, 2011; Kivirauma, 2009). However, this process was gradual, initially with children and young people with ‘mild’ impairments, and lasted until the mid-1980s (cf. Jahnukainen & Korhonen,

14

2  Theoretical Background

2003). In practice, Finland began to train special education teachers at this time, preparing them to be part of the support system in mainstream schools. However, the special school system was not abandoned. The number of special schools, as well as the number of pupils educated in these schools, started to decrease only in the early 1990s (cf. Jahnukainen, 2011). In Finland, the principle of free school choice was also introduced in the 1990s (Rinne et al., 2002). However, this has had very little impact in practice, as there are no major differences in quality between public community schools, especially as private schools hardly play a role in Finland. Graham & Jahnukainen (2011, p. 16) consider that parents in Finland are not forced to choose at all: In other words, because there is consistency in quality and relative equity in educational outcomes, the Finnish parent is not compelled to choose.

Neoliberal tendencies in education through increased privatisation seem to be unpopular in Finland, which also applies to standardised testing of student performance: Indeed, with regards to national testing and ranking of student/school performance, Finland is considered the most “under-developed” of the Nordic countries. (Graham & Jahnukainen, 2011, p. 16)

In this context, Sahlberg (2007) emphasizes the Finnish “culture of trust”: there is a fundamental trust in the abilities of teachers and in the high quality of the Finnish school system, both from the side of educational policy and from parents. As far as the research area is concerned, historical concepts from the USA have had a great influence on the field of Special Education and the discussion of Inclusive Education in Finland. This is reflected in the consistent use of terminology and concepts and the close cooperation on a research-related level (cf. Jahnukainen & Itkonen, 2015). However, other research partners at the international level should also be mentioned, for example Canada and Australia (Graham & Jahnukainen, 2011). Although some concepts and approaches from current Finnish special education have been influenced by the United States, the Finnish support system is considered unique because it can be understood as an everyday form of school support (cf. Itkonen & Jahnukainen, 2010).

Reform of the Special Needs Education System Until the reform of the special education system in 2011 in the course of the Basic Education Act 642/2010, children with special educational needs were supported in two different forms at mainstream schools: In the form of part-time special edu-

2.1  Integration and Inclusion in the International Discourse

15

cation, children with “mild” impairments were given the opportunity to participate in regular classes and to receive hourly educational support from a special education teacher in small groups. The support could take place, for example, in reading or arithmetic. This form of support was a flexible form of special educational support that did not involve a special educational review procedure and thus had no formal hurdles (cf. Graham & Jahnukainen, 2011). Children with more extensive needs were entitled to full-time special education. The children concerned were then usually grouped in special classes within the mainstream school. This more intensive form of support required formal decision-making and an individual support plan (cf. Halinen & Järvinen, 2008). The restructuring of the organisation and funding of the support system in Finland can be explained by the fact that there was a steady increase in the number of pupils with permanent entitlement to “full-time special education” from the late 1990s onwards. More and more pupils were assigned to special classes within mainstream schools or to separate special education institutions: While the percentage was 6.7% in 2004, it was 8.4% in 2008. Especially the voluntary additional year after the compulsory ninth school year was taken up, as the financial support of the municipalities was significantly higher for this: Before the reform of the government transfers system, basic education funding was determined by pupil numbers, and pupils with SEN in nine years of compulsory education received 1.5 times more funding than the basic amount. For pupils with disabilities in extended compulsory education, the funding was 2.5 times higher than basic funding, and for pupils with the most severe developmental disabilities, funding was increased four-fold. (Pulkkinen & Jahnukainen, 2016, p. 175).

Before the reform of the support system, the amount of support was linked to the number of pupils with special educational needs who received particularly intensive support (mostly in separate support institutions and support classes within mainstream schools) (see Pulkkinen & Jahnukainen, 2016; Pulkkinen et al., 2020). This development has been viewed with concern, especially from the special education community. Saloviita (2009) referred to Finland as a “black sheep” in terms of international inclusion efforts, referring to the increasing number of pupils with intensive special educational needs in segregated settings. In order to counteract this development, the support system was revised and restructured: since the reform of the special education system in 2011, special needs education is now organised in three levels, depending on the type and intensity of the support measures: general support, intensified support and special support (cf. FNBE, 2016). This has also changed the allocation of resources to municipalities: The flat-rate allocation of support resources for pupils in separative support settings was abol-

16

2  Theoretical Background

ished, and was now based on the total number of pupils of school age in the respective municipality (cf. Pulkkinen et  al., 2020). However, pupils with severe and multiple disabilities are excluded from this regulation. As current statistics show, the change to the new system of support has been successful: the proportion of pupils with special needs who are educated in segregated settings has decreased significantly in recent years (cf. Jahnukainen & Itkonen, 2021; Pulkkinen et al., 2020). Overall, it is clear that inclusive education in Finland is seen primarily as an educational challenge, rather than a school system issue. However, the inclusion debate in Finland is also primarily linked to the heterogeneity dimension of “disability” – similar to the German-speaking countries (Malinen et al., 2012).

2.1.2 Inclusion Debate in Germany: A Structural School Issue? In the past, the German-language discourse on inclusion was primarily conducted as an emotionally charged, structural debate about schools. Furthermore, inclusion in Germany is often reduced to the heterogeneity category of disability (cf. Hinz, 2008; Wocken, 2012). The special school system in Germany has a long tradition, which finds its origin in the selective school system designed for homogeneity: Mainly, segregation is based on the intellectual outcome related to the school curriculum, on the homogeneity-oriented educational system, and with a severe effect on the social segregation of marginalized groups of the German society (e.g., migrants). It seemed to be a logical consequence that students with special needs would also be better served in a special track or system. (Merz-Atalik et al., 2016)

Powell (2011, p. 152) even considers Germany as a “pioneer” of special education or the special education school system. The first special needs class was founded as early as 1859, with the intention of providing more intensive support for the pupils concerned and thus enabling them to return to the general school system. However, this supposedly positive approach led to exactly the opposite development, namely to the legitimisation of segregating educational structures. Thus, a complex special school system has emerged in Germany, which distributes the support of impaired children among different types of special schools (cf. also Merz-Atalik et  al., 2016). Their orientation also differs from state to state. Currently, the following special education institutions are particularly widespread throughout Germany: • Schools with the special focus “Learning disabilities” • Schools with the special focus “Mental disorders”

2.1  Integration and Inclusion in the International Discourse

• • • • • •

17

Schools with the special focus “Emotional and Social Development” Schools with the special focus “Physical and Motor Development” Schools with the special focus “Visual Impairments and Blindness” Schools with the special focus “Hearing Impairment” Schools with the special focus “Language impairments” Schools for the sick or in prolonged hospital treatment

In the public and academic debate, special schools have always been regarded as institutions that are often associated with mortifying and humiliating effects (cf. Wocken, 2011). In line with this negative assessment, the stigmatising effect of exclusionary institutions is cited by many authors (including Hinz, 2002; Wocken, 2011) as an argument against the raison d’être of special schools in the debate about an inclusive education system. Although the legal conditions in Germany now leave parents free to decide whether their child should attend a mainstream or special school, the case of ‘Henri’ in Baden-Württemberg, for example, clearly showed that “inclusion” cannot be achieved simply by changing the law. In this case, ‘Henri’, a boy with Down syndrome, was supposed to attend a grammar school despite his mental disability. However, this wish of his parents met with resistance from the school management of the grammar school, which triggered a discussion about parental choice. In the German-language discourse on inclusion, two aspects are particularly central to the debate (cf. Giese & Weigelt, 2015, p. 11): On the one hand, there is the already mentioned parental choice, and the related demand for the general dissolution of all special schools (on this, among others, Hinz, 2008). The second aspect concerns decategorisation: behind this lies the dissolution of special educational priorities in favour of adequate individual and holistic support, as well as the avoidance of discriminatory “pigeonhole thinking” (cf. Hinz, 2002; Wocken, 2011, 2012). The controversial discussion about the German education system and about the position of disabled people in our society is also reflected in Germany in the debate about the use of the terms integration and inclusion. Thus, the term integration is increasingly becoming a “historically” tinged term, which is being replaced by the term inclusion. This is also reflected in the updated German translation of the UN Convention (cf. UN, 2006; Federal Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs 2011): While the initial translation still used the term integration for the English word “inclusion”, the current shadow translation  – after protests from disability associations and individuals  – deliberately uses the term inclusion. Giese and Weigelt (2015, p. 21) also critically point out that the non-use of the term inclusion still makes it difficult to use the term consistently in the German-speaking world. In German discourse, the term inclusion is increasingly reduced to the aspect of

18

2  Theoretical Background

joint schooling of children and young people with and without disabilities, while the term integration is often used in connection with people with a migration background (cf. Allemann-Ghionda, 2013). In terms of the UNCRPD, however, the term inclusion explicitly refers to the joint schooling of all children (cf. Hinz, 2008; Klemm, 2010). Allemann-Ghionda (2013) sees this “division of tasks” of ­integration and inclusion in the context of Germany’s selective and separative educational structures (cf. also Rühle, 2015). From the perspective of German special education, both terms, integration and inclusion, are largely linked to the diversity dimension of “disability”. In the context of the current discussion about inclusion in pedagogy, these different disciplinary approaches and their manifold connectivity do not necessarily seem to contribute to objectifying the inclusion discourse. However, even within the discourse of special education, the terms inclusion and integration are not understood and used in the same way by all authors (cf. Ahrbeck, 2012, 2014; Sander, 2003). From a historical perspective, Bürli (1997, p. 56) outlines a four-stage model that starts from exclusion and aims at inclusion via the individual stages of separation and integration (cf. Figure 2.1). Bürli (1997) thus sees the concept of inclusion as the beginning of a fundamentally new pedagogical era, replacing the epoch of integration. This historical development model was later taken up and differentiated by Sander (2003), among others. Sander (2003) presents inclusion as a kind of final state of a developmental process. Inclusion can thus be understood as an optimised or further developed form of integration of people with disabilities. Thus, children or adolescents with disabilities were excluded from any school attendance in the first stage of development, exclusion. Children with impairments were thus denied the ability to be educated. Sander (2003) points to a period of at least until the end of the eighteenth century. In the second phase, segregation, children with impairments could attend educational institutions, but these were sepa-

Fig. 2.1 Developmental stages of special education according to Bürli (1997). (Own representation) Exclusion

Separaon

Integraon

Inclusion

2.1  Integration and Inclusion in the International Discourse

19

rate from mainstream schools. According to Sander (2003), this phase began in Europe about 200 years ago with the establishment of the first permanent educational institutions for the deaf and for the blind in Paris, and shortly thereafter in Vienna, Leipzig, and Berlin. This phase can be called the beginning of special education. The third stage of development, integration, began in many industrialised countries during the 1960s. Children and adolescents with special educational needs should – if possible – take part in classes at general schools through the cooperation of special educators in “normal” classes. For the first time, this required interdisciplinary cooperation between mainstream teachers and special needs teachers. Integration in this context is understood as the integration of “special” children into a “normal” group, thus the concepts of specialness and normality remain (cf. Stobbe, 2014). According to Sander (2003), the fourth developmental stage, inclusion, differs quantitatively, but above all qualitatively, from the preceding stages, since inclusion can be understood as an optimized and comprehensively expanded integration. However, Sander points out that inclusion is not always understood in this sense (cf. Sander, 2003). Thus, at least three understandings of the concept of inclusion can be found in the literature (see Fig. 2.2). The term “Inclusion I” is understood as a synonym for the concept of integration, “Inclusion II”, on the other hand, as a form of integration that has been cleansed of misforms (cf. Sander, 2003). The term “Inclusion III” differs from the definition of “Inclusion II” in that the range of tasks is significantly broadened and – following the definitional basis in the Salamanca Declaration – is not limited to people with special educational needs. Thus, this definition of inclusion ushers in a new “era”. The term inclusion, considered in this context, aims to change per-

•Inclusion as a synonym for Integra on

Inclusion I

Inclusion II •Inclusion as "op mized integra on"

•exten on of the concept as interdisciplinary defini on

Inclusion III

Fig. 2.2  Terms of inclusion in the literature according to Sander (2003). (Own representation)

20

2  Theoretical Background

spectives: Inclusive education explicitly takes into account each child with his or her individual needs, without pursuing an adaptation to a specific norm. Inclusive education thus addresses the specific needs of the pupils and not vice versa. The added value of the term inclusion lies in the fact that, in contrast to integration pedagogy, it clearly broadens its field of vision (cf. also Vislie, 2003). Rather, ­inclusion is closely linked to the concept of heterogeneity with all its elements or partial aspects, and focuses on the individual child with its individual characteristics. The basic idea of inclusion is in essence not a fundamentally new idea, the concept of a pedagogy of diversity (cf. Prengel, 2006) comes quite close to today’s understanding of inclusion. The positive handling of heterogeneous learning groups has already been taken up in many reform pedagogical concepts and was already present in Germany before the beginning of the integration movement (cf. Stobbe, 2014). Thus, a pedagogy of diversity in the sense of Prengel (2006) is based on a positive approach and appreciation of heterogeneity on the basis of equal rights. Accordingly, each person is to be considered in his or her uniqueness and with regard to his or her individual circumstances. In contrast, the division into certain categories (e.g. disabled vs. non-disabled), which can lead to the social exclusion of entire groups of people, is viewed critically. Consequently, the added value of the inclusion concept is also to be found in the fact that discriminatory “two-group thinking” can be overcome (cf. Meyer, 2016; Hinz, 2010).

2.2 Working Definitions and Basics 2.2.1 Understanding of Inclusion Inclusion is an ongoing topic in the current discussion on education policy. With the ratification of the UNCRPD, inclusion is enshrined in law, but the interpretation of the term differs from discipline to discipline and author to author. Katzenbach (2015) sums up the problem by critically noting that it is currently hardly possible to present a reasonably consensual definition of the concept of inclusion. There is at least a broad consensus that inclusion is not limited to children with disabilities alone, but encompasses all dimensions of heterogeneity (cf. Budde & Blasse, 2017; Katzenbach, 2015). A variety of definitional attempts can be found in the discussion around the term inclusion. In the current inclusion discourse, one can often read of a “broad” and a “narrow” concept of inclusion. If inclusion is considered as a special education topic, a focus of the concept of inclusion on the participation and recognition of people with disabilities can be observed, which Budde and Blasse (2017) also refer to as a “narrow understanding of inclusion”. According to

2.2  Working Definitions and Basics

21

Lindmeier (2017, p.  232), these different conceptions of inclusion, which often imply a “right” or “wrong”, should be critically assessed and rather seen as a powerful positioning within the arena of science policy than as a contribution to a scientific discourse. Accordingly, the diverse conceptualisations of the term have led to the concept of inclusion becoming less and less tangible in public and scientific discourse. In this context, this “broad” understanding not only includes the social coexistence or cooperation of people with or without disabilities, but also extends inclusion to other groups of people who are disadvantaged, discriminated against or affected by a lack of participation. The “broad” concept of inclusion is strongly advocated by school pedagogy, among others, as it includes all dimensions of heterogeneity. What at first sight is to be “affirmed”, however, shows at second glance clear problematic aspects of this view: It does not reflect that with the diversity category “disability” as an interdependent category this is already constituted by other categories of difference. Moreover, there is a danger that people with a disability are understood as a homogeneous group. Within the category of “disability” there are different forms or characteristics, which in the German language area are called “Förderschwerpunkte”. But also the individual special needs themselves are characterised by an enormous heterogeneity. This is exemplified by the special focus (“Förderschwerpunkt”) “vision”: In Germany, a distinction is made under social law between visual impairment, severe visual impairment and blindness – the term visual impairment or the special focus “vision” is used as a generic term in the school context. However, it must always be pointed out that visual impairment is not equal to visual impairment, and not even blindness is equal to blindness. Rather, in an inclusive classroom, it must be a matter of clarifying (together with the respective students) how the remaining vision can be optimally used in everyday teaching with the help oft he respective students. This example makes it clear that such homogenizing categorizations, which group individuals under supposedly uniformed groups, cannot be reconciled with the basic idea of inclusive teaching or inclusive didactics (cf. Reich, 2014). A social attitude that considers “disability” as a “normal” component of a society and values it as an expression of social diversity requires the recognition of egalitarian difference (cf. Prengel, 2006; Prengel & Heinzel, 2012): In the sense of a “pedagogy of diversity”, difference is not seen in a negative sense as a deviation from the norm, but as an egalitarian difference. Following the understanding of Prengel (2006), equality and difference are not understood as opposites, but as mutually dependent. The understanding of inclusion that is used as a basis in this thesis will initially be linked to the ideas of a pedagogy of diversity (Prengel, 2006) and to the definitional basis of UNESCO (2008) (cf. Booth & Ainscow, 2011; Reich, 2014). UNESCO (2008) increasingly

22

2  Theoretical Background

focuses on the human rights‘theoretical foundations of inclusion and inclusive education, with the fundamental recognition and participation of all people: In several countries, inclusion is still thought of simply as an approach to serving children with disabilities within general education settings. Internationally, however, it is increasingly seen more broadly as a reform that supports and welcomes diversity amongst all learners. It presumes that the aim of inclusive education is to eliminate social exclusion resulting from attitudes and responses to diversity in race, social class, ethnicity, religion, gender and ability. (UNESCO, 2008, p. 5)

Following Booth and Ainscow (2011), inclusion from a school perspective means increasing the participation of all children, young people and adults. Schools are faced with the task of responding to diversity in terms of the backgrounds, interests, experiences, knowledge and abilities of all participants in a manner of responsibility, respectfulness and equal-opportunity. (cf. ibid., p. 9). The diversity of children and young people and their different needs are taken into account in new forms of learning and learning formats, requiring learning environments and learning spaces that meet the different talents and needs of all children and young people (Kricke et al., 2018): This includes the increased use of self-learning phases, projects with cross-curricular topics, and working groups according to interests and inclinations to enable lifelong learning. From a pedagogical point of view, this change goes hand in hand with a change in the previous role of schools and teachers, but also demands altered spatial concepts (cf. Kricke et al., 2018). (School) inclusion as a political demand, however, often encounters its limits in practice when it comes to the professionalized handling of inclusion in actual pedagogical action (cf. Budde & Hummrich, 2015).

Reflexive Inclusion With regard to the present work, the understanding of “reflexive inclusion” offers valuable starting points for analysing pedagogical action in dealing with heterogeneity. Budde and Hummrich (2013, 2015) have reflected on the concept of inclusion from a scientific educational perspective, whereby social inclusion and exclusion are always in a relationship of tension with each other. Through an exemplary review of selected social science theories, the authors show that inclusion can hardly be addressed without addressing exclusion as a dialectical counterpart (Budde & Hummrich, 2013). In doing so, Budde and Hummrich (2013) refer on the one hand to structural theoretical determinations as found in Bourdieu’s concept of habitus and milieu (Bourdieu, 1974), but also consider inclusion & exclu-

2.2  Working Definitions and Basics

23

sion from a systems theoretical perspective1 (cf. on this Farzin, 2006; Luhmann, 1989). Consequently, Budde and Hummrich (2013, 2015) argue for a broad version of the concept of inclusion from an educational science perspective, taking the relationality of inclusion and exclusion as a starting point. In order to place pedagogical action under the guiding concept of inclusion, in the sense of Bude and Hummrich (2013), it is less a matter of expanding the methodological-didactic spectrum, but rather of a change in the professional orientations of the pedagogical actors who take on a key role in the implementation of inclusion (cf. among others Dlugosch, 2011; Mihajlovic, 2020). In the course of current research developments, the attitudes of teachers have become the focus of attention, as relevant international and national studies show (e.g. Trumpa et al., 2014). To summarize, “reflexive inclusion” is meant to borrow from Budde and Hummrich (2013, 2015): • Perceiving differences and taking them seriously and making the disadvantage inscribed in them visible • Refrain from codifying and prolonging implicit norms by deconstructing them. • not be located subject-specifically, but be understood as an interdisciplinary task • be based on a broad, intersectional understanding (reduction to the heterogeneity category of disability should be avoided) It becomes clear in these remarks that reflexivity as a professional attitude moves to the centre and becomes particularly significant for professional (pedagogical) action. For pedagogical practice, an “attitude of reflexivity with regard to the relations of universalism, individuality and difference” (Budde & Hummrich, 2015, p. 39) is central to reflective inclusion. Since this is a claim that brings pedagogical action to its limits, it requires systematic case work in which the exclusionary aspects of school and teaching, or of pedagogical action as a whole, become reflexively accessible (Budde & Hummrich, 2013).

 From the perspective of systems theory, an analytical categorisation is proposed with inclusion & exclusion, based on the considerations of Farzin (2006), which “designates the way in which social functional contexts are made accessible to members of society, i.e. in what form participation is possible and secured”. An individual’s inclusiveness in society stems from a “variety of inclusion and exclusion distinctions” (Farzin, 2006, p. 32). 1

24

2  Theoretical Background

2.2.2 Concept of Disability The discussion about inclusion was also accompanied by a paradigm shift with regard to the concept of disability. This was followed by a move away from the medical, deficit-based view towards an understanding of disability as a social construct or social category. In the context of disability studies, the concept of disability is widely discussed in social and cultural science research (cf. Dederich, 2007; Waldschmidt, 2006, 2007). The central finding is that disability depends on barriers and opportunities for participation  – i.e. environmental factors. At the same time, however, the deconstruction of the concept of disability also leads to a certain dilemma (cf. Meyer, 2016): On the one hand, the critical examination of the medical view of disability is reasonable and correct. On the other hand, deconstructing the concept of disability involves the paradox that people with a disability are only entitled to disability services if they are simultaneously certified as having a disability. Deconstruction, strictly speaking, would also mean a loss of entitlement to benefits (cf. Meyer, 2016). A solution to this problem seems to be provided by approaches that view the concept of disability from a multidimensional perspective. The understanding of disability underlying the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities breaks away from a deficit-oriented view, and combines medical and social science assumptions. This approach is also reflected in the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF). The ICF represents an expanded approach of the ICIDH (International Classification of Impairments, Disabilities and Handicaps), the medical classification of disabilities created by the WHO. The ICIDH approach was based on the disease consequence model, and was outdated as a disorder- and deficit-oriented approach. The ICF model aims to capture impairments of people with disabilities in a holistic way. The model seems to be gaining acceptance internationally and also in German-­ speaking countries as a basis for classification. In the current Finnish framework curriculum for the subject of sport, for example, the term “physical functioning” is used based on the WHO definition. In Germany, for example, the ICF terminology has also found its way into the SGB IX “Rehabilitation and Participation of Disabled People”. The multi-level model of the ICF (cf. DIMDI, 2005, p. 21) represents an interaction between biological components, environmental factors and opportunities for activity as well as opportunities for participation (see Fig. 2.3). In the ICF, disability is no longer regarded (as in the ICIDH) as a direct consequence of an illness or damage, but as the result of the interaction of various components. In the ICF model, the aspect of “functional health” in relation to environmental factors plays a special role: The state of functional health is understood in the ICF

2.2  Working Definitions and Basics

25

Fig. 2.3  The bio-psycho-social model of the ICF. (DIMDI, 2005, p. 21)

as the result of the interaction between a person’s health problem (defined according to ICD) and the contextual factors (cf. Meyer, 2016, p. 13). With regard to the ICF model and the importance of physical activity, numerous studies show that contextual factors in particular have an influence on participation opportunities or barriers. These include, for example, the family environment, infrastructure or monetary factors (cf. Bedell et al., 2013; Heah et al., 2007). The notion of ‘functioning’ takes on a key role in this context. The concept of “functional capacity” includes the aspect of physical, mental and emotional health as well as the possibilities for activity and participation (Meyer, 2016, p. 14). The multidimensional understanding of disability of the ICF will also be used in this thesis. The added value of the ICF model compared to other approaches is that the model represents a comprehensive collection of components of health and well-being with which the person and their entire environment can be represented. It is explicitly regarded as an instrument for describing the health and related situations of all people. Furthermore, the classification is internationally valid and seems to have become accepted as a classification model in most countries (cf. Kipp & Weiss, 2013; Rimmer, 2006).

2.2.3 Normalisation, Self-Determination and Empowerment Promoting the autonomy of people with special needs is not a fundamentally new idea. In the discourse of inclusion, the focus on the autonomous action of each person – on the basis of equal rights – has regained importance. The examination of existing concepts that focus on autonomy are profitable in that they provide the work with a sound connection to current educational discourse and a depth in basic

26

2  Theoretical Background

theory. Particularly from the field of special education, there are approaches that are compatible with current thinking. Concepts that emphasize pedagogical action in relations of recognition play a special role. In this context, the normalisation, self-determination and empowerment approaches play an important role.

Normalization In the context of recognising the autonomy of people with disabilities, its approach of normalisation plays an important role and will be briefly outlined below. The principle of normalisation assumes that people with a disability are entitled to legal equality, i.e. that they have the same rights and obligations as the rest of the population. Apart from that, people with their disability should be recognized and put on an equal footing with “normal” citizens (citizenship status and acceptance). The normalization principle originated in Denmark in 1959 as an anti-dogma to end inhumane isolation and barracking after the end of World War 2 (see Pitsch, 2006). According to Pitsch (2006), normalization encompassed two areas in particular: Living conditions and administration.

Normalisation of Living Conditions On the one hand, housing conditions fall under this area: Children with a mental impairment should, like others, have the right to live with their own parents. Exceptions are children with severe disabilities or children from problematic family backgrounds that do not allow for family accommodation. In addition, adolescents or young adults with disabilities should also have the opportunity to leave their parental home at the appropriate age and to choose a form of housing that is suitable for them. The normalisation principle also covers working conditions, whereby people with disabilities should be guaranteed the right to attend school and also the right to paid employment in the open labour market, as well as in special work and day centres. Other areas are the leisure sector (right to leisure activities and holidays) and localisation (spatial separation of home, workplace and leisure activities).

Normalisation of Management In Denmark, a uniform welfare system has been developed since 1970, which applies to both people with disabilities and people without disabilities. The aim was to ensure that the same administrative bodies are responsible for all people, irrespective of their individual circumstances.

2.2  Working Definitions and Basics

27

 elf-Determination and Empowerment: Similarities S and Differences Both approaches, self-determination and empowerment, focus on the autonomy of people with special needs. In the following, similarities and differences of both approaches will be reviewed.

Self-Determination Hahn (1999) understands self-determination as the “provision of choice or decision-­making opportunities”. However, a clear distinction must be made here between self-determination and autonomy: Self-reliance only includes the ability to perform actions independently. Self-determination, on the other hand, means that one’s own motives and needs are brought to bear, that one sets and plans goals oneself, and that one evaluates the consequences of one’s actions oneself. Independence is a favourable, but not a necessary condition of self-determination (cf. Klauß, 2003). The almost unfulfillable requirement of being completely on one’s own poses problems especially for people with special needs. For example, people who are dependent on a wheelchair due to their physical impairment can plan the timing of an action, but the actual execution of the action can only take place with the help of another person. For people with a mental impairment, on the other hand, there is the problem that they are often denied any ability to act in everyday life. This makes a possible self-determined life considerably more difficult. In the context of self-determination, however, independence for people – regardless of whether they are disabled or not – by no means only implies liberation, but also a duty: namely, to bear responsibility for one’s own actions. The idea of self-­ determination basically promotes the realisation that people cannot be promoted against their will and against their interests. The persons concerned are the actual actors of their development, the provision of possible offers and the support by an “assistance” should only help in the decision-making process.

Empowerment The empowerment approach originates from the USA and takes up central aspects of the idea of self-determination. Nevertheless, both approaches are not to be equated: “Empowerment” is rather to be understood as a theory-based concept that goes beyond the idea of self-determination (cf. Kulig & Theunissen, 2006). The empowerment principle is based on the so-called “strengths perspective”, which is intended to emphasise the positive attributes and abilities of people and is thus based on an optimistic view of human beings. The strengths philosophy contains

28

2  Theoretical Background

certain basic insights that are also relevant with regard to the “empowerment” principle (cf. ibid., 2006, p. 243): • Moving away from the deficit perspective • The unconditional acceptance of the other and acceptance of his or her being like this • Confidence in individual and social resources • Respect for the view of others and their decisions • The acceptance of unconventional lifestyles • Respect for (the “own” ways of) the other person’s way of his own • The renunciation of labelling, incapacitating and denouncing expert judgements • The basic orientation towards the rights perspective, the needs and interests, as well as the life future of the person concerned. Based on the basic insights that form the foundation of the empowerment approach, both similarities and differences between self-determination and empowerment can be discovered. Commonalities of both approaches lie, for example, in the criticism of the deficit orientation of people with disabilities: Thus, less attention should be paid to the weaknesses of the individual, but individual strengths should be emphasized. Similarities can also be seen in the general criticism of the medical model, which regards the person with disabilities as a patient and discriminates against them in this way. Both approaches also emerged from civil rights and self-­ help movements (cf. Katzenbach, 2004). On the other hand, there are also clear differences between the two approaches: While the self-determination approach aims to protect the individual from encroachment by the state and its institutions, and insists on the individual’s rights, the empowerment approach aims to integrate the individual into the community.

2.2.4 Understanding School Culture The theoretical background for the present study is an action- and structure-­ theoretical understanding of school culture (cf. Helsper, 2008), which has been differentiated by Laging (2017) within the framework of his development model in relation to movement-oriented school development. Interfaces to inclusive school development can be found in the dimensions of “content”, “pedagogical orientation”, “performance” and “participation” defined by Helsper (2000), which have been interpreted by Laging (2017) in terms of structure theory for school development processes. The understanding of the term school culture has evolved over the

2.2  Working Definitions and Basics

29

last decades. Thus, in the current discourse on school culture, there is a move away from normatively oriented concepts in favour of an action- and structure-­theoretical understanding of school culture (cf. Helsper, 2008). The understanding of school culture according to Helsper (2008) will be dealt with briefly here, as it is relevant in the context of the present research project.

 tructural Theoretical Understanding of School Culture S (Helsper) The term “school culture” is defined and discussed very differently in the literature. The excessive use of the term in the context of school and classroom research, as well as in everyday pedagogical life, has led to a highly ambivalent use of the term school culture (cf. Helsper, 2008). Thus, there is a risk that the term cannot fulfil the conciseness required for “scientific terms” (Luhmann, 1995, p. 32) because of its wide range of definitions. Due to the very different approaches to the term school culture, only the understanding of school culture available for this study will be presented in more detail here. In the context of this thesis, an action- and structure-theoretical understanding of school culture was taken as a basis (cf. Helsper, 2008; Stobbe, 2014). In this understanding, school is to be understood as a pedagogical unit of action, which, in the sense of Fend (1996, p. 93), requires a multi-perspective view of everyday school events, and is thus “the result of the configurative interplay of shaping factors on different levels.” In addition to the level of action of the school actors, structural and educational theoretical frameworks of schools play an important role. In this sense, Fend (1996) addresses the interplay between state-specific design features at the system level and local design features at the school level: Each education system of a nation represents an individual constellation of design features on the national and regional system level with design features on the local school level and unique personalities of teachers and their repertoire of possibilities of holding school. (Fend, 1996, p. 93)

In this context, it is therefore important to have a certain background knowledge with regard to the respective levels of school culture, as Fend (1996) further explains: Furthermore, the quality of the school at different levels can only be properly assessed with knowledge of the respective boundary conditions for creative action at the respective levels. (Fend, 1996, p. 93)

30

2  Theoretical Background

In completely differently organised national education systems, as it is the case e.g. in Finland and Germany, the consideration of the educational policy background with regard to the analysis of the levels of action plays an important role in order to make the findings fruitful for the respective country-specific discourse. Helsper (2008, p. 67) speaks of “structural problems of an educational system”, which become evident in the acting confrontation of school actors, and which on the one hand limit and regulate the actors’ possibilities of action, but on the other hand also open up specific spaces of possibility for action. Helsper (2008) distinguishes between three aspects of school culture that are in tension with each other: The imaginary, the real and the symbolic of a school culture. The imaginary can be seen as an ideal image of the pedagogical designs of a school, and becomes visible in the self-designs of the actors of an institution (e.g. in school programmes, school-­ specific curricula). The more demanding the pedagogical designs are formulated, the more clearly the respective school is to be understood as an “imaginary culture of demands” (Helsper, 2008, p. 68) vis-à-vis the school actors. However, with the culture of aspiration, the risk of failure of the actors grows at the same time. On the one hand, the real of a school culture is to be understood as the result of the joint pedagogical action of the actors of an institution, whereby the irrevocable constitutive antinomies (cf. Helsper, 2008) are in the foreground as the structural core of professional pedagogical action. On the other hand, the real of a school culture is also expressed in the so-called structural principles of higher symbolic orders of the educational system (cf. Oevermann, 2007). These symbolic orders go hand in hand with fundamental structural problems that are generated as a result of the educational policy actions of the actors (cf. Helsper, 2008). The third element of a school culture, the symbolic, is expressed in the (pedagogical) practices, routines and arrangements of the respective schools. This includes forms of teaching, school rules and rituals, teaching content, (subject)specific working materials, but also practices of performance assessment (cf. Helsper, 2008). The symbolic becomes clear in the relations of action and interaction between the pedagogical actors and students, as well as between the students themselves. Overall, the reconstruction of a school culture in the sense of Helsper (2008) should depict the interplay between the real, the symbolic and the imaginary of the respective schools. In doing so, ideal-typical constellations should be designed, which express themselves by showing overall low moments of tension between the three elements of a school culture (cf. Helsper, 2008). However, school cultures as symbolic orders of an individual school are by no means to be understood as homogeneous images. Often there are controversial pedagogical practices and rules within a school on a symbolic level, which can be traced back to different subject boundaries and generational conflicts, for example, with regard to the composition of the teaching staff (cf. Helsper, 2008).

2.3  Inclusive School and Teaching Culture

31

2.3 Inclusive School and Teaching Culture 2.3.1 Selected Approaches to Inclusive School Development In the international context, the “Index for Inclusion” has become established for inclusive school development (Booth & Ainscow, 2002), which was also developed for German-speaking countries by Boban and Hinz (2003). However, Heimlich et al. (2016) point out that due to its complexity of more than 500 items for inclusive school development, the index cannot be implemented in the everyday life of an inclusive school without external support. The more recent, revised version of the Index for Inclusion (Booth & Ainscow, 2017) attempts to respond to this ­criticism, and is now primarily intended to be used as an application-based guide to support inclusive processes in educational practice. From an international perspective, Dyson et al. (2002) highlighted particular characteristics in their systematic research review of studies of inclusive schools in England. According to this research review, inclusive schools are characterised by a school culture that: • is characterised by recognition and appreciation of diversity (conducive learning environment, renunciation of stigmatisation) • Educational offers developed for all pupils according to their individual levels of development (content level/opening up into the living world) • has a strong cooperation between teachers (relationships and teams) • as well as promoting cooperation between pupils and the constructive involvement of parents (participation). According to Feldhoff (2017), there is still no generally accepted model for the analysis of school development processes at the scientific level in German-­language research on inclusion. In Bavaria, a multi-level model of inclusive school development has been developed (e.g. Heimlich et  al., 2016), which seems to be quite useful for the analysis of school development processes. In recent years, many studies of inclusive model schools have emerged in which conditions for success have been systematically transferred from practice to inclusive school development and didactics (see, among others, Reich, 2014). Reich (2014) has elaborated important characteristics of an inclusive school and didactics, which can be regarded as “minimum standards” of an inclusive school and of successful joint learning. These include the importance of relationships and teams, democracy and participation, a conducive learning environment, the renunciation of stigmatisation, a new (performance) assessment system, a new school architecture and opening up to the

32

2  Theoretical Background

living world. Arndt and Werning (2017) conducted a study on quality criteria and school development processes at a total of ten schools that were awarded the Jakob Muth Prize for inclusive schools. Using methodological approaches such as group discussions and interviews with a total of 193 teachers, school management members, parents and students, it was possible to identify central conditions for success for inclusive education at the schools within the framework of the qualitative data analysis (cf. Werning, 2017): Thus, the design of lessons and school life aim at the individual support of all pupils, whereby an “individualised idea of achievement” is central. Inclusion must be seen as a cross-sectional task that affects the entire school. The interaction of reliable structures and continuous reflection was identified as a further condition for success (cf. Werning, 2017, p.  20): While the structures ­include internal school agreements of high bindingness, the own (pedagogical) practice is critically questioned and modified again and again. This very brief overview does not claim to represent the current state of research in all its complexity. However, it does show that the selected studies on quality criteria and school development processes come to similar conclusions.

2.3.2 The “Index for Inclusion” as a Guide for an Inclusive School Culture If one relates inclusion to a whole system, then in addition to educational policy and societal factors, the school level also comes to the fore. The “Index for Inclusion” developed by Booth and Ainscow, which is also available in a German version (Boban & Hinz, 2003), is often used as a model for inclusive school development. In the German-speaking world, the “Index for Inclusion” is widely used and is one of the best-known instruments for managing inclusive school development. In the meantime, it is already available in its fourth edition (Booth & Ainscow, 2016), also in an adapted form for German-speaking education systems. The “Index for Inclusion” is intended to serve as a guide for educational institutions and other institutions in the development of inclusive structures. In practice, its use has become established both in school development processes for the development of inclusive school cultures and in work in day-care centres and in child and youth work. In Germany, Austria and Switzerland, the Index for Inclusion is used by many school boards and ministries of education (e.g. in Hesse) as material for school development and self-evaluation. Furthermore, the index has also found its way into organised sport: The German Disabled Sports Association (DBS, 2014), for example, has published an adapted version of the Index as a guide to

2.3  Inclusive School and Teaching Culture

33

Fig. 2.4  The index for inclusion based on Boban and Hinz (2003). (Own adapted representation) A: Creang Inclusive Cultures The index for inclusion C: Developing Inclusive Pracces

B: Producing Inclusive Policies

promoting diversity in organised sport. Overall, the Index in its original form distinguishes between three dimensions and two sub-areas each of inclusive school development (cf. Boban & Hinz, 2003, p. 17): • Creating inclusive cultures (build community, embed inclusive values) • Establishing inclusive structures (develop a school for all, organise support for diversity) • Developing inclusive practices (organise learning arrangements, mobilise resources) (Fig. 2.4) The three main dimensions of the Index are subdivided into further sub-areas, each of which has specific questions for self-reflection. Overall, the Index process ­proceeds in five phases, depending on the institution and specific framework conditions (see Table 2.1). As an example, the three dimensions from the original version of the Index for Inclusion (cf. Boban & Hinz, 2003, p. 50ff.) are now presented with their respective domains and indicators.

Dimension A: Creating Inclusive Cultures Indicator A. 1 Building Community • Everyone feels welcome. • The students help each other.

34

2  Theoretical Background

Table 2.1  The index process of inclusive school development in five phases Phases In school (cf. Boban & Hinz, 2003). Phase I Starting the index process Phase II Illuminating the school situation Phase III Phase IV Phase V

• • • • •

Designing an inclusive school programme Implementing the priorities Reflecting on the index process

In the sports club or association (DBS, 2014) Starting the index process Illuminate the situation (in the association) Set the goals and priorities Implementing the priorities Reflecting on the index process

The employees work together. Staff and students treat each other with respect. Staff and parents deal with each other in a spirit of partnership. Staff and school committees work well together. All local groups are involved in the work of the school.

Indicator A 2 Anchoring Inclusive Values • High expectations are placed on all students. • Staff, students, parents and school committees share a common philosophy of inclusion. • All students are valued equally. • Staff and students respect each other as persons and as role bearers. • Staff seek to remove barriers to learning and participation in all areas of the school. • The school strives to keep all forms of discrimination to a minimum.

Dimension B: Establishing Inclusive Structures Indicator B 1 Developing a School for All • • • • • •

The treatment of employees in the school is fair. New staff members are helped to settle in at the school. The school accepts all students in its area. The school makes its buildings accessible to all. All new students are helped to settle into the school. The school organises learning groups in such a way that all pupils are valued.

2.3  Inclusive School and Teaching Culture

35

Indicator B 2 Organising Support for Diversity • • • • • • • • •

All forms of support will be coordinated. In-service training helps staff to respond to the diversity of pupils. ‘Special education’ structures are structured to be inclusive. The equality requirement is met by removing barriers to learning and participation for all pupils. The support for pupils with German as a second language is coordinated with the learning support. Support systems for mental and behavioral problems are coordinated with those for learning problems and with content planning. Pressure to exclude as punishment is reduced. Barriers to attendance are reduced. Bullying and violence are reduced.

Dimension C: Developing Inclusive Practices Indicator C. 1 Organise Learning Arrangements • • • • • • • • • • •

Lessons are planned with the diversity of the students in mind. The lessons strengthen the participation of all students. Lessons develop a positive understanding of differences. Students are subjects of their own learning. The students learn with each other. Assessment is done for all students in a way that promotes achievement. Discipline in the class is based on mutual respect. Teachers plan, teach and reflect as a team. Educators support the learning and participation of all students. Homework contributes to the learning of all students. All students participate in activities outside of class.

Indicator C. 2 Mobilise Resources • • • • •

The diversity of pupils is used as an opportunity for teaching and learning. The expertise of the employees is fully utilized. The College develops resources to support learning and participation. The resources in the school environment are known and used. School resources are distributed equitably to achieve inclusion.

36

2  Theoretical Background

A major strength of the Index is certainly its flexible handling and its reflexive basic structure. Due to its flexibility, the principles of the Index can be individually adapted to the specific situations and framework conditions of the institutions, as the exemplary implementation in Table 2.1 shows. The Index does not provide a ready-made concept, but is intended to stimulate (educational) institutions to “inclusive ways of thinking” with the help of a catalogue of questions and to initiate inclusive development processes. The specific school situation is to be illuminated and the establishment of inclusive values as well as school structural and organisational aspects are to be taken into account.

2.3.3 Guidelines for an Inclusive School Reich (2014) has derived a total of 10 minimum standards of an inclusive school in his “Inclusive Didactics”. These conceptual features have been used by the “Inclusive University School Cologne” and function as cornerstones of this school concept. The characteristics of the “Inclusive Didactics” also form, in a slightly modified form, the basis of the guidelines for the “Pedagogy of the New School” (Reich et al., 2015). The ten guidelines of the “Pedagogy of the New School” at a glance (Reich et al., 2015, p. 24):

Guideline 1 Comprehensive approach to inclusion: Inclusion and a school for all; diversity as an opportunity; longer shared learning; understanding and responding to diversity Guideline 2 Structure of the school in all-day education Guideline 3 Participation through democracy and equality Guideline 4 An inclusive and competency-based model of teaching and learning Guideline 5 A School with high qualifications for all learners – Curriculum, Subjects and Interdisciplinary Perspectives, Degrees Guideline 6 Qualified and cooperative personnel Guideline 7 The Gender Equitable School Guideline 8 The active and healthy school Guideline 9 School – Space – Architecture and Accessibility Guideline 10 Inclusive University School: Teacher Training and Research

References

37

The overall value of Reich’s approach is that it has proven to be a practical and manageable tool for analysing inclusive schools. Thus, the minimum standards – similar to the “Index for Inclusion” – can serve as a practicable tool for building inclusive structures and practices of school work. As a guide to the analysis of inclusive structures and practices, it will also be used in this book. The guidelines (Reich et  al., 2015) or building blocks (Reich, 2014) used in this book refer in particular to preliminary work from two volumes: 1. Inclusive didactics” (Reich, 2014) shows which inclusive structures are important and how joint teaching can be designed didactically and methodically in order to implement inclusion in school practice. 2. The volume “Eine inklusive Schule für alle” (Reich et al., 2015), uses a “good practice” example (the Inclusive University School Cologne) to elaborate the standards and guidelines of an inclusive school that have proven themselves in practice as “minimum standards”.

References Ahrbeck, B. (2012). Inklusion! Inklusion? Fakten und Überlegungen zu einer aktuellen Kontroverse. Vortrag von Prof. Dr. Bernd Ahrbeck auf der Mitgliederversammlung der Landeselternschaft der Gymnasien am 21. April 2012 in Dortmund. Ahrbeck, B. (2014). Inklusion. Eine Kritik. Kohlhammer. Allemann-Ghionda, C. (2013). Bildung für alle, Diversität und Inklusion: Internationale Perspektiven. Schöningh. Armstrong, D., Armstrong, A.  C., & Spandagou, I. (2011). Inclusion: By choice or by chance? International Journal of Inclusive Education, 15(1), 29–39. Arndt, A.  K., & Werning, R. (2017). Inklusive Schul- und Unterrichtsentwicklung. In M.  Schweer (Hrsg.), Lehrer-Schüler-Interaktion. Schule und Gesellschaft. (Bd. 24). Springer VS. Barow, T., Persson, B., & Allan, J. (2015). Inclusive education in Großbritannien und Skandinavien. In I.  Hedderich, G.  Biewer, J.  Hollenweger, & R.  Markowetz (Hrsg.), Handbuch Inklusion und Sonderpädagogik (S. 189–193). Klinkhardt. Bedell, G., Coster, W., Law, M., Liljenquist, K., Kao, Y., Teplicky, R., & Khetani, M.  A. (2013). Community participation, supports, and barriers of school-age children with and without disabilities. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 94(2), 315–323. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2012.09.024 Boban, I., & Hinz, A. (Hrsg.) (2003). Index für Inklusion. Lernen und Teilhabe in der Schule der Vielfalt entwickeln. Martin-Luther-Universität. http://www.eenet.org.uk/resources/ docs/Index%20German.pdf. Accessed on: 12.Juni.2020.

38

2  Theoretical Background

Booth, T., & Ainscow, M. (2002). The index for inclusion: Developing learning and participation in schools. Centre for Studies on Inclusive Education. Booth, T., & Ainscow, M. (2011). Index for inclusion: Developing learning and participation in schools. Centre for Studies on Inclusive Education. Booth, T., & Ainscow, M. (2016). Index for inclusion: A guide to school development by inclusive values (4. Aufl.). Index for Inclusion Network. Booth, T., & Ainscow, M. (2017). Index für Inklusion. Ein Leitfaden für Schulentwicklung. Bourdieu, P. (1974). Zur Soziologie der symbolischen Formen. Suhrkamp. Budde, J., & Blasse, N. (2017). Forschung zu inklusivem Unterricht. In B.  Lütje-Klose, S.  Miller, S.  Schwab, & B.  Streese (Hrsg.), Inklusion: Profile für die Schul- und Unterrichtsentwicklung in Deutschland, Österreich und der Schweiz. Theoretische ­ Grundlagen, empirische Befunde, Praxisbeispiele (S. 239–252). Waxmann. Budde, J., & Hummrich, M. (2013). Reflexive Inklusion. Zeitschrift für Inklusion, 8(4). www.inklusion-­online.net/index.php/inklusion-­online/article/view/193/199. Accessed on: 01.Juli.2019. Budde, J., & Hummrich, M. (2015). Inklusion aus erziehungswissenschaftlicher Perspektive. Erziehungswissenschaft, 26, 33–41. Bürli, A. (1997). Internationale Tendenzen in der Sonderpädagogik  – Vergleichende Betrachtung mit Schwerpunkt auf den europäischen Raum. Hagen (Fernuniversität, Kurseinheit 4098-1-01-51). Dederich, M. (2007). Körper, Kultur und Behinderung: Eine Einführung in die disability studies. transcript. Deutscher Behindertensportverband (DBS). (2014). Index für Inklusion im und durch Sport. Ein Wegweiser zur Förderung der Vielfallt im organisierten Sport in Deutschland. Deutsches Institut für medizinische Dokumentation und Information (DIMDI) (Hrsg.). (2005). ICF.  Internationale Klassifikation der Funktionsfähigkeit, Behinderung und Gesundheit. Verlag MMI Medizinische Medien Information. Dlugosch, A. (2011). Der “Fall” der Inklusion: Divergenzen und Konvergenzen in Professionalitätsvorstellungen. In B. Lütje-Klose, M.-T. Langer, B. Serke, & M. Urban (Hrsg.), Inklusion in Bildungsinstitutionen. Eine Herausforderung an die Heil- und Sonderpädagogik (S. 135–142). Klinkhardt. Dyson, A., Howes, A., & Roberts, B. (2002). A systematic review of the effectiveness of school-level actions for promoting participation by all student. Research Evidence in Education Library. EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education, University of London. Farzin, S. (2006). Inklusion-Exklusion. Entwicklungen und Probleme einer systemtheoretischen Unterscheidung. transcript. Feldhoff, T. (2017). Transformation inklusiver Schulsystementwicklung. Zeitschrift Für Inklusion, 4. https://www.inklusion-­online.net/index.php/inklusion-­online/article/ view/398. Fend, H. (1996). Schulkultur und Schulqualität. Zeitschrift für Pädagogik, 34. Beiheft: Die Institutionalisierung von Lehren und Lernen. Beiträge zu einer Theorie der Schule, 85– 97. Finnish National Board of Education (FNBE). (2016). National Core Curriculum for basic education 2014. National core curriculum for basic education intended for pupils in compulsory education.

References

39

Frühauf, T. (2008). Von der Integration zur Inklusion – Ein Überblick. In A. Hinz, I. Körner, & U.  Niehoff (Hrsg.), Von der Integration zur Inklusion. Grundlagen, Perspektiven, Praxis (S. 11–32). Lebenshilfe-Verlag. Giese, M., & Weigelt, L. (2015). Konstituierende Elemente einer inklusiven Sportdidaktik. In M. Giese & L. Weigelt (Hrsg.), Inklusiver Sportunterricht in Theorie und Praxis (S. 10–52). Meyer & Meyer Verlag. 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 Hahn, M.  T. (1999). Anthropologische Aspekte der Selbstbestimmung. In E.  Wilken & F.  Vahsen (Hrsg.), Sonderpädagogik und Soziale Arbeit. Rehabilitation und soziale Integration als gemeinsame Aufgabe (S. 14–30). Luchterhand. Halinen, I., & Järvinen, R. (2008). Towards inclusive education: The case of Finland. Prospects, 38(1), 77–97. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11125-­008-­9061-­2 Hausstätter, R., & Jahunkainen, M. (2014). From integration to inclusion and the role of special education. In F. Kiuppis & R. S. Haussätter (Hrsg.), Inclusive education twenty years after Salamanca (S. 119–132). Lang. Hausstätter, R., & Takala, M. (2011). Can special education make a difference? Exploring the differences of special education systems between Finland and Norway in relation to the PISA results. Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research, 13(4), 271–281. https:// doi.org/10.1080/15017419.2010.507372 Heah, T., Case, T., McGuire, B., & Law, M. (2007). Successful participation: The lived experience among children with disabilities. The Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 74(1), 38–47. Heimlich, U., Kahlert, J., Lelgemann, R., & Fischer, E. (Hrsg.). (2016). Inklusives Schulsystem Analysen, Befunde, Empfehlungen zum bayerischen Weg. Helsper, W. (2000). Wandel der Schulkultur. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 3(1), 35–60. Helsper, W. (2008). Schulkulturen – Die Schule als symbolische Sinnordnung. Zeitschrift Für Pädagogik, 54(1), 63–80. Hinz, A. (2002). Von der Integration zur Inklusion – Terminologisches Spiel oder konzeptionelle Weiterentwicklung? Zeitschrift Für Heilpädagogik, 53, 354–361. Hinz, A. (2008). Inklusion – Historische Entwicklungslinien und internationale Kontexte. In A. Hinz, I. Körner, & U. Niehoff (Hrsg.), Von der Integration zur Inklusion. Grundlagen – Perspektiven – Praxis (S. 33–52). Lebenshilfe- Verlag. Hinz, A. (2010). Aktuelle Erträge der Debatte um Inklusion – worin besteht der ‘Mehrwert’ gegenüber Integration? In Ev. Stiftung Alsterdorf, & Kath. Hochschule für Sozialwesen Berlin (Hrsg.), Enabling Community. Anstöße für Politik und soziale Praxis (S. 191– 202). Hamburg: alsterdorf. Itkonen, T., & Jahnukainen, M. (2010). Disability or learning difficulty? Politicians or educators? Constructing special education in Finland and the United States. Comparative Sociology, 25(9), 1–20. Jahnukainen, M. (2003). The development of education for all in Finland. In M.  Hui, R. Dowson, & M. G. Moont (Eds.), Inclusive education in the new millennium (pp. 31– 37). The Association for Childhood Education International.

40

2  Theoretical Background

Jahnukainen, M. (2011). Different strategies, different outcomes? The history and trends of inclusive and special education in Alberta (Canada) and in Finland. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 55(5), 489–502. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2 010.537689 Jahnukainen, M., & Itkonen, T. (2015). Tiered intervention: History and trends in Finland and the United States. European Journal of Special Needs Education., 31, 140–150. https://doi.org/10.1080/08856257.2015.1108042 Jahnukainen, M., & Itkonen, T. (2021). Steps to inclusion? In A. Köpfer, J. J. W. Powell, & R. Zahnd (Hrsg.), Handbuch Inklusion international (S. 345–356). Budrich. Jahnukainen, M., & Korhonen, A. (2003). Integration of students with severe and profound intellectual disabilities into the comprehensive school system: Teachers’ perceptions of the education reform in Finland. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 50(2), 169–180. Katzenbach, D. (2004). Anerkennung, Missachtung und geistige Behinderung; sozialphilosophische Perspektiven auf den so genannten Paradigmenwechsel in der Behindertenpädagogik. In B.  Ahrbeck & B.  Rauh (Hrsg.), Behinderung zwischen Autonomie und Angewiesensein (S. 127–144). Kohlhammer. Katzenbach, D. (2015). Ressourcen und Ressourcensteuerung für inklusive Bildung. Nationale Entwicklungen und internationale Erfahrungen. Gemeinsam Leben, 4, 197– 208. Kipp, L. E., & Weiss, M. R. (2013). Physical activity and self-perceptions among children and adolescents. In P. Ekkekakis (Hrsg.), Routledge handbook of physical activity and mental health (S. 187–199). Routledge. Kivirauma, J. (2009). Erityisopetuksen historialliset kehityslinjat (the historical development of special education). In S.  Moberg, J.  Hautamäki, J.  Kivirauma, U.  Lahtinen, U. Savolainen, & S. Vehmas (Hrsg.), Erityispedagogiikan perusteet (grounds of special education) (S. 25–41). WSOY. Kivirauma, J., & Ruoho, K. (2007). Excellence through special education? Lessons from the Finnish school reform. International Review of Education, 53(3), 283–302. Klauß, T. (2003). Selbstbestimmung als Leitidee der Pädagogik für Menschen mit geistiger Behinderung. In E. Fischer (Hrsg.), Pädagogik für Menschen mit geistiger Behinderung. Athena Verlag. Klemm, K. (2010). Gemeinsam lernen. Inklusion leben. Status Quo und Herausforderungen inklusiver Bildung in Deutschland. Bertelsmann Stiftung. http://www. bertelsmann-­s tiftung.de/cps/rde/xbcr/SID-­3 86A35D7-­6 51750FE/bst/xcms_bst_ dms_32811_32812_2.pdf. Accessed on: 20.Sept.2016. Köpfer, A., Powell, J., & Zahnd, R. (2021). Entwicklungslinien internationaler und komparativer Inklusionsforschung. In A. Köpfer, J. Powell, & R. Zahnd (Hrsg.), Handbuch Inklusion international  – Globale, nationale und lokale Perspektiven auf Inklusive Bildung. International handbook of inclusive education – Global, national and local perspectives (S. 11–41). Budrich. Kricke, M., Reich, K., Schanz, L., & Schneider, J. (2018). Raum und Inklusion: Neue Konzepte im Schulbau. Beltz. Kulig, W., & Theunissen, G. (2006). Selbstbestimmung und Empowerment. In E. Wüllenweber, G. Theunissen, & H. Mühl (Hrsg.), Pädagogik bei geistiger Behinderung. Ein Handbuch für Studium und Praxis. Kohlhammer.

References

41

Lindmeier, C. (2017). Das aktuelle Thema: Enger und weiter Inklusionsbegriff – Eine fragwürdige Unterscheidung?! Sonderpädagogische Förderung Heute, 62(2017), 231–232. Luhmann, N. (1989). Gesellschaftsstruktur und Semantik (Bd. 3). Suhrkamp. Luhmann, N. (1995). Kultur als historischer Begriff. In N.  Luhmann (Hrsg.), Gesellschaftsstruktur und Semantik (Bd. 4, S. 31–55). Suhrkamp. Malinen, P. (2008). Vertiefender Exkurs II: Ausländische Einflüsse bei der Gestaltung der finnischen Grundschule. In A.-L. Matthies & E. Skiera (Hrsg.), Studien zum Bildungswesen und Schulsystem in Finnland (S. 81–89).https://www.oulu.fi/sites/default/files/content/ Giellagas_BildungswesenSchulsystemFinnland_0.pdf. Accessed on: 01.Juni.2021. Malinen, O.-P., Väisänen, P., & Savolainen, H. (2012). Teacher education in Finland: A review of a national effort for preparing teachers for the future. Curriculum Journal. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585176.2012.731011. Masschelein, J., & Simons, M. (2005). The strategy of the inclusive education apparatus. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 24(2), 117–138. Merz-Atalik, K., Beuse, K., & O’Brien, C. (2016). Sentiments, concerns and attitudes towards inclusive education  – A comparison between teacher education students at the University of North Carolina (Charlotte, USA) and the University of Education (Ludwigsburg, Germany). Zeitschrift für Inklusion, (1). https://www.inklusion-­online. net/index.php/inklusion-­online/article/view/313. Meyer, T. (2016). Inklusion von Menschen mit Behinderung in der Kinder- und Jugendarbeit sowie der Jugendsozialarbeit in Baden-Württemberg. Eine Expertise im Auftrag des Ministeriums für Arbeit und Sozialordnung, Familie, Frauen und Senioren Baden-­ Württemberg. IfaS. Mihajlovic, C. (2020). Special educators’ perceptions of their role in inclusive education: A case study in Finland. Journal of Pedagogical Research, 4(2), 83–97. Ministry of Education and Culture. (2007). Erityisopetuksen strategia [the special education strategy]. Ministry of Education and Culture. Oevermann, U. (2007). Profession contra Organisation? Strukturtheoretische Perspektiven zum Verhältnis von Organisation und Profession in der Schule. In W. Helsper, S. Busse, M. Hummrich, & R.-T. Kramer (Hrsg.), Pädagogische Professionalität in Organisationen (S. 55–79). VS Verlag. Pirttimaa, R., Kokko, T., Räty, L., Pesonen, H., & Ojala, T. (2015). Intensive special educational needs and the development of inclusive practices in Finland. In F.  Dovigo, C. Favella, F. Gasparini, A. Pietrocarlo, V. Rosso, & E. Zappell (Hrsg.), Special education needs and inclusive practices: An international perspective (S. 149–153). University of Bergamo. Pitsch, H.-J. (2006). Normalisierung. In E. Wüllenweber, G. Theunissen, & H. Mühl (Hrsg.), Pädagogik bei geistiger Behinderung (S. 224–236). Kohlhammer. Powell, J. W. (2011). Barriers to inclusion. Paradigm Publishers. Prengel, A. (2006). Pädagogik der Vielfalt. Verschiedenheit und Gleichberechtigung in Interkultureller, Feministischer und Integrativer Pädagogik (3. Aufl.). VS Verlag. Prengel, A., & Heinzel, F. (2012). Heterogenität als Grundbegriff inklusiver Pädagogik. Zeitschrift für Inklusion, 3. https://www.inklusion-­online.net/index.php/inklusion-­ online/article/view/39.

42

2  Theoretical Background

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 Pulkkinen, J., Räikkönen, E., Jahnukainen, M., & Pirttimaa, R. (2020). How do educational reforms change the share of students in special education? Trends in special education in Finland. European Educational Research Journal, 19(4), 364–384. https://doi. org/10.1177/1474904119892734 Reich, K. (2014). Inklusive Didaktik. Bausteine für eine inklusive Schule. Reich, K., Asselhoven, D., & Kargl, S. (2015). Eine inklusive Schule für alle: Das Modell der inklusiven Universitätsschule Köln. Beltz. Rimmer, J. H. (2006). Use of the ICF in identifying factors that impact participation in physical activity/rehabilitation among people with disabilities. Disability & Rehabilitation, 28(17), 1087–1095. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638280500493860 Rinne, R., Kivirauma, J., & Simola, H. (2002). Shoots of revisionist education policy or just slow readjustment? The Finnish case of educational reconstruction. Journal of Education Policy, 17(6), 643–658. Rühle, S. (2015). Diversität, Curriculum und Bildungsstrukturen. Eine vergleichende Untersuchung in Deutschland und Finnland. Waxmann. Sahlberg, P. (2007). Education policies for raising student learning: The Finnish approach. Journal of Educational Policy, 22(2), 147–171. Sahlberg, P. (2013). Teachers as leaders in Finland. Educational Leadership, 71, 36–40. Saloviita, T. (2009). Inclusive education in Finland: A thwarted development. Zeitschrift für Inklusion, 3(1). https://www.inklusion-­online.net/index.php/inklusion-­online/article/ view/172. Sander, A. (2003). Von Integrationspädagogik Zu Inklusionspädagogik. Sonderpädagogische Förderung, 48(2003), 313–329. Skiera, E. (2008). Reformpädagogik und Innere Schulreform in Geschichte und Gegenwart – Das Beispiel Finnland. In A.-L. Matthies & E. Skiera (Hrsg.), Studien zum Bildungswesen und Schulsystem in Finnland (S. 101–122). https://www.oulu.fi/sites/default/files/content/Giellagas_BildungswesenSchulsystemFinnland_0.pdf. Accessed on: 01.Juni.2021. Stobbe, C. (2014). Bewegung an einer inklusiven Ganztagsschule. In R.  Hildebrandt-­ Stramann, R. Laging, & J. Teubner (Hrsg.), Bewegung und Sport in der Ganztagsschule. StuBBS: Ergebnisse der qualitativen Studie (S. 250–287). Schneider. Trumpa, S., Janz, F., Heyl, V., & Seifried, S. (2014). Einstellungen zu Inklusion bei Lehrkräften und Eltern – Eine schulartspezifische Analyse. Zeitschrift für Bildungsforschung, 4(3), 241–256. https://doi.org/10.1007/s35834-­014-­0103-­y. UNESCO. (1994). The Salamanca statement and framework for action on special needs education. Adopted by the world conference on special needs education: Access and quality, Salamanca, Spain, 7–10 June 1994. UNESCO. UNESCO. (2008). ‘Inclusive education: The way of the future’, International conference on education, 48th session, Final Report. Geneva: UNESCO. United Nations. (2006). Convention on the rights of persons with disabilities and optional protocol. http://www.un.org/disabilities/documents/convention/convoptprote.pdf. Accessed on: 22.Okt.2016.

References

43

Vislie, L. (1995). Integration policies, school reforms and the organisation of schooling for handicapped pupils in Western societies. In C. Clark, A. Dyson, & A. Milward (Hrsg.), Towards inclusive schools? (S. 42–53). David Fulton. Vislie, L. (2003). From integration to inclusion: Focusing global trends and changes in the western European societies. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 18(1), 17–35. Waldschmidt, A. (2006). Soziales Problem oder kulturelle Differenz? Zur Geschichte von “Behinderung” aus der Sicht der “Disability Studies”. Traverse. Zeitschrift Für Geschichte, 13(3), 31–46. Waldschmidt, A. (2007). Behinderte Körper: Stigmatheorie, Diskurstheorie und Disability Studies im Vergleich. In T.  Junge & I.  Schmincke (Hrsg.), Marginalisierte Körper. Beiträge zur Soziologie und Geschichte des anderen Körpers. Unrast Verlag. Werning, R. (2017). Aktuelle Trends inklusiver Schulentwicklung in Deutschland. Grundlagen, Rahmenbedingungen und Entwicklungsperspektiven. In B.  Lütje-Klose, S.  Miller, S.  Schwab, & B.  Streese (Hrsg.), Inklusion: Profile für die Schul- und Unterrichtsentwicklung in Deutschland, Österreich und der Schweiz. Theoretische Grundlagen – Empirische Befunde – Praxisbeispiele (S. 17–30). Waxmann. Wocken, H. (2011). Zur Philosophie der Inklusion. Teilhabe. Die Fachzeitschrift Der Lebenshilfe, 2, 52–60. Wocken, H. (2012). Rettet die Sonderschulen? Rettet die Menschenrechte! Zeitschrift für Inklusion. http://www.inklusiononline.net/index.php/inklusion-­online/article/ view/81/81. Accessed on: 21.Juni.2016.

3

Research Design and Methodological Approach

The methodological procedure for the collection of data is to be presented in this chapter in a compact form in order to provide the reader with an overview of the collection and evaluation methods and to ensure transparency in the research process. However, this chapter does not claim to depict the methodological procedure in its full complexity, as the focus of this book is on a practice-oriented approach to the topic.

3.1 Structure and Aim of the Study In the present research project, the school and classroom culture under inclusive aspects was investigated exemplarily at four different schools in Finland. In the context of this research project, school culture is understood in the sense of Helsper (2008) as a space of experience that is constituted by common actions of the school actors. A special focus in this study was therefore on the actions of the individual school actors. While many studies in the inclusion discourse have already dealt with individual questions of macro-organisation (school structure) and micro-level (teaching in heterogeneous learning groups), the body of research in the context of heterogeneity and the role of (individual) school development is still expandable (cf. Trautmann & Wischer, 2011). There are a variety of educational systems with an inclusive structure. Finland has been chosen because the Finnish education system can already point to a practice of “inclusive” teaching for several decades. Since the Finnish school system is regarded as exemplary in the context of inclusive education, the study’s analysis is to start precisely there. In international comparative studies, the low influence of socio-economic status on the educational © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2023 C. Mihajlovic, Learning from Finland, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-40177-1_3

45

46

3  Research Design and Methodological Approach

success of students has already been proven (see, among others, OECD, 2004, 2017). As the PISA studies also show, the “culture of support” and the renunciation of selection mechanisms are not in contradiction with the top academic performance of the students. Many Finnish authors see the main reason for the successful inclusive orientation of the Finnish school system and the associated “educational justice” in the exemplary support system (Hausstätter & Takala, 2011; Itkonen & Jahnukainen, 2010; Kivirauma & Ruoho, 2007). Relevant studies show that respect for and orientation towards students’ needs is an essential part of schooling in the Nordic region, especially in Finland. This appreciation of individuality is obviously reflected in an innovative, student-oriented school management and design of the learning environment (cf. Kricke, 2015; Müller-Using, 2010). The focus of the research interest is the question of how the handling of heterogeneity shapes the Finnish school culture, and what role the structures of the educational system play. Specifically, it will be investigated how the topic of diversity is taken into account in the school organisation, in school life and at the teaching level in the Finnish schools studied. In light of the research guiding question, the following sub-questions emerge for the study: • What role does the structural framework of the Finnish education system play in the consideration of inclusive education? • How does Finland address diversity in the curriculum at the level of educational objectives and content? • How is special needs education provided at the school organisational level? What is the significance of individual support measures or support lessons in separate groups? • What role does (barrier-free) school architecture play in dealing with diversity? Which spatial concepts can be observed? • What role does dealing with heterogeneity play in shaping daily classroom practice? How is teaching carried out on a methodological level? • How is the topic of inclusion perceived by the interviewed actors (teachers, pupils) in Finland? • What role does university teacher education play and how is it perceived by the teachers interviewed? It is assumed that the orientation of the educational system (integrative, segregative), as well as the structural framework conditions have a major influence on the

3.1  Structure and Aim of the Study

47

handling of heterogeneity in the school context. In this study, however, a comparison between the German and the Finnish educational system was deliberately avoided in order to avoid a normative-idealizing starting perspective and to focus on an analytical clarification of the complex framework conditions of the Finnish individual schools and their school culture. Furthermore, a comparison is very difficult, since the federal and multi-tiered structure of the German education system makes it almost impossible to analyse the specific framework conditions of all federal states and the different types of schools or courses of education. This is also not the aim of this qualitative study. Thus, only selected schools typical of each area were chosen for the qualitative survey. The individual cases were first examined for common characteristics, and then arranged according to these comparative aspects. The case comparison was carried out with the aim of analysing the case-­ specific, but also overarching characteristics of the schools with regard to inclusive didactics or the building blocks of an inclusive school according to Reich (2014).

3.1.1 Field Access and Sample Selection The fieldwork took place in Finland with the help of the University of Helsinki. Within the framework of my participation in a doctoral program of the Department of Teacher Education, I was able to build on existing contacts with typical schools in the Helsinki metropolitan area, and I was also able to gain very diverse insights into the Finnish education system through participation in courses at the university. In the run-up to the project, it was necessary to consider which types of schools would be suitable for carrying out the research project. Since there are a large number of schools in Helsinki with very different focuses, the selection of schools was not easy. For example, there are many international schools where the language of instruction is mostly English. In total, four schools participated in the study: one school with a primary focus on sports in grades 7–9, one school with a primary focus on languages in grades 7–9, one school in grades 1–6 (primary education) and one special education institution. Due to the small sample, only a limited overall picture can be derived. For example, one type of upper secondary school (grades 10–2) is missing in order to complete all possible types of school. In order to achieve a more differentiated overall picture, even more different schools should have been included in the study. However, the manageable number of schools and the size of the interview sample allowed for a stronger individual case analysis, which in retrospect can also be seen as profitable with regard to the complex questions of this work. Thus, a differentiated picture of the conceptual orientation and

48

3  Research Design and Methodological Approach

the concrete implementation of the school concept in practice could be gained from the participating schools (Table 3.1). The selection of the study participants at the schools was realized by “selective sampling” (cf. Lamnek, 2005): A purposive selection of subjects took place whose characteristics seemed relevant for the study. These included the type of school, previous (professional) experience, and the profession or role of the actors (special needs teachers, subject teachers, pupils with and without impairments). In the selection process, care was taken to ensure that the selection of cases to be studied was as heterogeneous as possible in order to take into account the widest possible distribution (cf. Lamnek, 2005). In addition, “objective” social data, such as age Table 3.1  Overview of the researched schools Grades School profile

Type of school

Number of pupils

Pedagogical teaching staffb

School I 1–6 Primary school without specific school profile

Public school

School II 7–9 Sports focus, international branch (language of instruction completely in English), additionally: mathematical focus

Public school with special status (independent statusa) 550 (according 350, of which 95 to information students in from the international school, school classes (according year 2016/17) to information from the school, school year 2016/17) 48 36

School III 7–9 Linguistic focus with bilingual classes (partly in English), additionally: musical focus

Public school

327 (according to information from the school, school year 2016/17)

32

School IV 1–9 Special educational counselling and support centre focusing on “vision”, “hearing”, “autism”, multiple impairments Public school

200, of which 120 pupils receive inclusive education (according to information from the school, school year 2016/17) 22

The school is officially a public school and is financed by state funds, but it is municipally independent and therefore not subject to the curricular regulations of the Helsinki municipality b The number includes the school management, class, subject and special school teachers, but not the other school staff a

3.2  Methodological Approach

49

and gender, were used in the search for cases in order to be able to reconstruct differences in experience backgrounds here as well (cf. Nohl, 2007). The consideration of different school types was considered important in order to obtain a more differentiated overall picture. A total of eight teachers (four subject or class teachers and four special needs teachers) and ten pupils (including five pupils with comprehensive special educational needs) were interviewed.

3.2 Methodological Approach 3.2.1 Qualitative Research In the context of this research project, various qualitative approaches were used to generate data. The different methods of data collection and data analysis are presented in more detail in this chapter. First, however, it will be explained why qualitative research approaches appeared to be particularly useful in answering the research questions. According to Vogt and Werner (2014), qualitative social research is interested in the description and analysis of subjective phenomena or complex social action contexts, group processes, or political decision-making processes. Qualitative social research can thus discover completely new and unexpected contexts and is thus relatively open in its findings. It captures the constructions of meaning and actions from the perspective of the various actors. The reconstruction of the subjective reality of the different actors (teachers and students) is the focus of the research project. As a researcher, I assume that the interviewees are experts in their field and leave them room to present their own views. Qualitative research claims to describe the living environment from the perspective of the acting actors, whereby the researcher’s level of knowledge is expanded through the systematic observation of the outside world (cf. Müller-Using, 2010). Every utterance and every action is thus always contextual, so it is elementary to consider the social context of the acting actors in the research. The theories that have had a lasting impact on qualitative research include, in particular, symbolic interactionism (Blumer 1900–1987, Mead 1863–1931, among others), ethnomethodology, phenomenology and hermeneutics. Ethnomethodology was founded by Harold Garfinkel (1967), and differs from symbolic interactionism, among other things, in that it does not only research the procedures and intention of acting, but also the knowledge of the acting people (cf. Lamnek, 2005; Müller-Using, 2010). In Garfinkel’s sense, general rules only take place in the actual interaction of the actors, and thus become observable and interpretable (cf. Müller-Using, 2010). Characteristic for this approach is the way of thinking that social facts are only

50

3  Research Design and Methodological Approach

made in the ­interaction that takes place: In an inclusive context, disability – similar to other diversity dimensions – is not a fixed fact, but a result of practices of “doing disability” that are constructed in social micro-practices (cf. on this also Budde & Hummrich, 2013). Budde and Hummrich (2013) therefore argue for the consideration of “doing difference” from an intersectional perspective in order to understand social positioning at the level of the individual school as an interplay of different (structural) categories.

J ustification of the Methodological Decision and Development of the Research Process Qualitative research approaches are particularly useful when an open approach to an object of study is desired, which gives the researcher sufficient freedom in the field to be researched to concretise the actual research question. This type of research approach is particularly suitable in “foreign” cultural circles, as corresponding hypotheses or partial questions about how and why can only be clarified and answered after a longer stay in the field (cf. Müller-Using, 2010). In the preparatory phase for the research stay in Finland, I first dealt with the basic principles in conducting qualitative research (cf. Helfferich, 2011). The approach to the research subject initially took place without the prior formulation of theories and hypotheses (principle of “openness”). For researchers with little experience, there is a danger that they often want to explore an “objective truth” as part of their qualitative research: Novice researchers then tend to take on a lot of interviews or develop a guideline that asks for facts and is thus more suitable for quantitative social research (cf. Vogt & Werner, 2014). For me, too, coming to terms with the various research methods and revising the interview guide was a process that took place over a long period of time and only became clearer through intensive study of the principles of qualitative thinking and the approach and implementation of qualitative research methods (Helfferich, 2011; Kelle & Kluge, 2010). This approach was further complicated in practical terms, as the qualitative interviews were conducted in a foreign language and culture. The contributions of Kruse and Schmieder (2012) proved helpful in this context. The implementation of the empirical part of the thesis requires a stringent time and work planning due to the time-limited field access of one year (one-year research stay in Finland). On the one hand, the research object and research question must fit the method, on the other hand, it must be weighed up which methodological procedure is to be selected, which is to be carried out in a simplified form under the given framework conditions. In addition, it must be taken into account that the research will be carried out by only one person, and not – as is usual in research projects – by several researchers. This has a significant impact on the choice of research method and the scope of interviews to

3.2  Methodological Approach

51

be conducted. Thus, the choice of research method has to be justified not only purely in terms of content on the research object, but also on the basis of the given framework conditions (cf. Vogt & Werner, 2014). In retrospect, the chosen methodological approaches proved to be useful in reconstructing the school and teaching culture of the individual schools. With the help of the different survey methods, different data could be collected that complemented each other and contributed to a deeper understanding of the case. Particularly through the methodological approach of participant (classroom) observation, it was possible to gain deep insights into the didactic actions of the teachers with regard to dealing with heterogeneity at the classroom level for each case. With the help of this approach, it was possible to gain information regarding the methodological design of the lessons, which was less evident in the interviews.

3.2.2 Triangulation of Methodological Approaches In order to be able to take the school and teaching culture adequately into account, individual case studies lend themselves to this. The cases should first be examined individually with regard to a variety of dimensions (cf. Lamnek, 2005). By diving into the concrete case, individual aspects as well as similarities to other cases become clear. These are to be understood in their entirety and analysed in relation to the research questions. Various qualitative approaches served as survey instruments, which were brought together in the sense of triangulation. The central elements of the inclusive school and teaching culture are to be elaborated with the help of the individual case analyses. With the help of triangulatory research projects, particularly complex issues – such as those present in the analysis of a school culture – can be captured from multiple perspectives, which enables a broader and more in-depth view of the research object than is possible with just one methodological approach (cf. Flick, 2004; Müller-Using, 2010). Ethnographic field research is not limited to the observation and description of phenomena in foreign cultures, but aims to explore intracultural phenomena such as situations and milieus (cf. Müller-Using, 2010). In the present study, data from participatory (classroom) observation, interviews with class, subject and special school teachers and students as well as document analyses of the curricular framework and school concepts were triangulated and analysed. The collected data were first considered and evaluated separately from the different (actor) perspectives. In the document analysis, the pedagogical designs of a school (e.g. in school programmes, school-­specific curricula) were analysed. The observer perspective of the researcher was documented within the framework of participant observation in the form of observation

52

3  Research Design and Methodological Approach

protocols of the school and classroom culture and evaluated in terms of content analysis. The perspective of the respective school actors (teachers and students) was methodically collected and analysed in the form of expert interviews, also individually – depending on their role in the school system. Subsequently, the respective data sets were integrated in the form of school portraits. The school portraits represent a snapshot of the respective individual school with regard to its inclusive school development. Through this methodological approach, one data set per individual case was created from three different types of data. The three perspectives mentioned were thus not only taken into account in the data collection, but also in the data evaluation and interpretation.

3.3 Overview of Qualitative Methods 3.3.1 Participant (Classroom) Observation Following the methodological tools of the multi-level model of inclusive school development (Lelgemann et  al., 2013) and the further developed “Index for Inclusion” (Booth & Ainscow, 2016), two pre-structured observation guidelines were developed to analyse the school culture and the learning and teaching culture under inclusive aspects. In particular, these include the following two levels of observation (cf. Lelgemann et al., 2013): • The structural and organisational level of the school (e.g. supply structures, personnel, spatial and material conditions) • The instructional level (including inclusive instructional design, staffing requirements, class size) By pre-structuring the observation guidelines, the observations at the individual schools can be better compared. All participating schools were analysed with regard to the school concept, the institutional framework, as well as the teaching and extra-curricular activities. What was observed was recorded in writing by means of a protocol and field notes. The recording of the events mostly took place in the form of keywords during the observation itself. Immediately after the observation, the notes were formulated and supplemented. It is recommended to record the observations promptly, otherwise important contents can be forgotten (Lamnek, 2005; Flick, 2004). In addition, any peculiarities that occurred during the observation process and the participants’ own thought processes were recorded in writing in the form of field notes. With participant observation, an ethnographic approach

3.3  Overview of Qualitative Methods

53

was chosen because the school field is complex and a comprehensive approach to the field is also important because of the intercultural context. The question of what should be observed depends on the specific research question of this thesis. The aim is to gain a comprehensive picture of the four participating schools, the specific framework conditions and everyday school life. It is also about experiencing the different school actors and explicitly exploring the relationship between students and teachers. Participant observation is much more time-consuming than the interview. However, according to Becker and Geer (1979), it provides first-hand accounts of events and processes and comprehensively documents the activities within an organization by providing direct insight into things that can at best be learned from “hearsay” through interviews. An important prerequisite is sufficient time spent in the field  – usually over several months  – so that the researcher is perceived as less disruptive. In the context of my research project, field access took place with the help of the University of Helsinki, and data collection took place over a relatively long period of time from September 2016 to May 2017. In preparation for the stay in the field, an information letter was sent to the respective schools, and permission was obtained in writing from the participating actors or their legal guardians. The advantage of participant observation is that statements can be related to the respective context of action. Thus, the various actors can be confronted with school-specific background knowledge, which was obtained in advance from school documents such as school-specific curricula and information materials.

3.3.2 Oral and Written (Expert) Interviews While the interviews with the teachers were conducted face-to-face, both interviews with the students were conducted in written form. In general, two basic forms of qualitative interviews can be distinguished in written qualitative interviews – similar to oral interviews: Guided and narrative-generating interviews (cf. Schiek, 2014). In both cases – the oral and the written interviews – primarily open-­ ended and narrative-generating questions were selected, whereas in the written interview a more structured approach was taken in addition to the narrative-­generating guiding questions by integrating supplementary questions and keywords into the guiding questions. The supplementary questions aimed to prepare the interviewees for the topic in a somewhat more small-step manner and to allow them to participate in the research project. Vogt and Werner (2014) point out that guided interviews and their evaluation with qualitative content analysis do not follow the research logic of qualitative

54

3  Research Design and Methodological Approach

s­ocial research in all points, but are on the borderline of quantitative social research. Thus, the researcher does not approach the object of research in a completely unbiased way, but deals in advance with presuppositions that are derived from a theoretical framework and are concretized in the context of category formation. The principles of the greatest possible openness and impartiality, which serve as important characteristics of qualitative social research, are thus only followed to a limited extent. Nevertheless, the guideline as a whole and in all its parts must comply with the basic principles of qualitative research and allow for openness (cf. Helfferich, 2011). Accordingly, the questions must have a sufficient degree of openness so that they leave room for the subjective perspectives of the actors interviewed. The aim of the interviews was primarily to gain access to the “expert knowledge” of the actors interviewed. The definition of who should be considered an expert is flexible: Helfferich (2011) points out that there are different proposals in the literature and that there is only agreement that the definition depends on the research question and the field of action in which the persons act. Accordingly, laypersons can also be considered experts if they have a “special knowledge” relevant to the research question. Considering the research object of this thesis, all interviewed actors – teachers and students – are to be regarded as experts. In this context, the interviews conducted can be understood as expert interviews. Due to their focus on factual information, expert interviews tolerate a greater degree of structuring, a simplified transcription and a faster, complexity-reducing evaluation (Meuser & Nagel, 2009). Helfferich (2011) also states that in expert interviews, a greater degree of structuring is generally considered useful, with the degree of structuring depending on whether it is more information or interpretive knowledge that is to be collected. Even if a stronger structuring of the guideline is necessary at the beginning of the interview, in the further course of the interview, depending on the situation, an opening and withdrawal of the pre-structuring can be quite sensible.

Oral Interviews with the teachers Structure of the Interview Guide When preparing the guidelines for the qualitative interviews with the teachers, the first step was to follow the SPSS principle according to Helfferich (cf. Helfferich, 2011, p. 182ff.): First, all questions were collected that were related to the research subject. In doing so, as many questions as possible were collected that could be traced back to the personal research interest. Of central importance in the preparation of the questionnaires was the question wording. The interview guidelines for the StuBSS study served as an initial guide to the content of the questions. In the

3.3  Overview of Qualitative Methods

55

second step (“checking”), the collected questions were significantly reduced and structured. For example, all factual questions (e.g. How big are the classes on average?) were deleted, as these can be asked elsewhere. In addition, the questions were screened for openness: The questions should lend themselves to generating open-ended responses and narratives. A major temptation at the start of a qualitative study is to seek confirmation of what is already known (see Helfferich, 2011). Thus, all questions that only ask for prior knowledge should be deleted or new formulations should be found. In the next step, the remaining questions and keywords were sorted. The sorting took place according to content aspects and was based on the multi-level model of the qualitative survey of the research project schulische Inklusion Würzburg. The questions were assigned to the following four levels (Fig. 3.1): In the last step (“subsuming”), the guide was revised in terms of its form: For each content level of the interview, the simplest possible narrative prompts were found, under which the individual aspects were subsumed. After subsuming the questions, individual questions remained which were assigned to the individual content levels as maintenance or deepening questions. The remaining questions were placed at the end of the guideline because they had a stronger questioning character or because none of the content levels could be assigned exactly. The questions of the interview guide were translated from German into English after completion.

Content Orientation on Four Categories (See Multi-Level Model) The preliminary superordinate categories (thematic levels) with the corresponding guiding questions were already developed from theory (deductive category formation) during the creation of the theory section of the thesis before the interviews were conducted. The four different levels thus formed the basis for the development of the guidelines. For this purpose, an analysis grid with guiding questions was created. The analysis grid consists of the content levels (categories) already presented, which were used in a similar form in the research project schulische Inklusion Würzburg. The four levels and their subcategories were taken up in the context of this work and modified in terms of content. Content-related extensions or adaptations were made at all levels under the aspect of the socio-political and structural peculiarities of the Finnish education system. These content-related extensions were necessary in order to take a differentiated look at the specific framework conditions of the Finnish education system. The extracurricular level (level 1) deals with the country’s societal and educational policy framework. On the one hand, general factors influencing co-education, which were surveyed within the framework of the Würzburg research project, are to be taken into account, such as

• Understanding inclusion and diversity • Dealing with disability • Dealing with gender-specific aspects

• Inclusive teaching strategies • Personnel resources • Class size and composion

• Accommodaons and modificaons of the school environment • Organisaon of special needs educaon • Framework condions at schools • Social-communicave structures

• Educaonal and school policy aspects of Finland • Finnish Core Curriculum • Socio-polical discussion

Fig. 3.1  Multi-level model used to categorise the interview questions and participant observation. (Adapted from Lelgemann et al., 2013)

Atude level

Level

Classroom related

level

school organisaon

School structural and

Extracurricular level

56 3  Research Design and Methodological Approach

3.3  Overview of Qualitative Methods

57

the importance of counselling or external counselling systems as well as the social discussion about inclusion. In addition, country-specific characteristics, such as the role of curricular guidelines and teacher training in Finland, will also be included. For this level, document analysis plays a major role, as much of the relevant information is obtained through content analysis of the relevant literature and curricula. On the level of school structure and school organisation (level 2), the school-­ specific offer structures as well as exemplary structural and personnel framework conditions are to be examined. In addition to the document analysis, the other survey instruments, participant observation and interviews with teachers, play a key role at this level. On the teaching-related level (level 3), the primary question is what role the handling of heterogeneity plays in the design of daily teaching practice in the classroom. In addition to the instrument of participant observation, interviews with teachers will provide information on this question. At the level of attitudes (level 4), the main focus will be on how the topic of inclusion and dealing with heterogeneity is perceived by the interviewed actors (teachers and students) (Table 3.2).

The Role of Language Skills in the interviews In the context of qualitative interview research, the social interaction between researcher and researched plays an important role. While the quantitative research approach is primarily about collecting data, qualitative research always generates or produces data. This always happens in an interactive context between researcher and researched (cf. Kruse & Schmieder, 2012). The communication processes in an interview should be as close as possible to an everyday conversation in terms of form, rules of conversation and understanding of content (principle of Table 3.2  Overview of the interviews with teachers (n = 8) Age Pseudonym Gender (years) Matti Male 30 Vilho Male 48 Tuomas Male 51 Iina Female 40

School name School II School IV School III School I

Work experience (years) 4 21 22 9

Julia Suvi Janika Satu

School II School III School IV School I

4 13 11 29

Female Female Female Female

32 44 41 60

Job title Subject teacher (sport) Subject teacher (sport) Subject teacher (sport) Class and subject teacher Special needs teacher Special needs teacher Special needs teacher Special needs teacher

58

3  Research Design and Methodological Approach

“­ communication”). It has also proven useful to think about and rehearse the opening and introductory words in advance. This made it easier for me personally to get started with the interview. If the interview language is not the native language for both sides, interviewer and interviewee, paraphrases can be used in the interview situation. Unknown terms are paraphrased in the interviewer’s own words in such a way that the person can understand them. In this context, the use of key words, which should be written down in advance and ready to hand in the interview situation, has also proved helpful in my own experience. Kruse and Schmieder (2012) also recommend that the researcher should have specific key words at hand that are significant for the research context. It remains to be noted that sufficient language skills in the interview language can be considered a basic requirement for conducting qualitative interviews. Thus, when selecting interviewees, care must be taken in advance to ensure that sufficient language skills are available. A key piece of advice (ibid., 2012, p. 54) is therefore to realistically assess the language skills of all participants. Depending on this assessment, alternatives to conducting the interview in person may have to be found (e.g. using an interpreter, conducting the interview in writing). In addition to one’s own linguistic resources, other factors often play an important role in this context, such as material resources (financial budget), time resources and the nature of the research question. If one’s own language skills are at an appropriate level, it is advisable to conduct the interviews oneself. There are positions, as mentioned earlier, that low language skills support a specific form of openness in conducting interviews, and technical skills are considered more important than language skills (cf. ibid., 2012). In addition, the selection of good technical equipment and suitable spatial conditions is particularly important when conducting interviews in foreign languages in order to achieve good recording quality. This facilitates the later transcription and translation performance enormously. The aspect of generating appropriate framework conditions was initially underestimated by me. In the first interviews, which had a lower sound quality, significantly more time was spent on transcribing the interviews as some queries were necessary during transcription due to difficulties in understanding. From experience, poor quality audio recordings can unnecessarily drag out the transcription time, which in any case takes a wider time frame for transcriptions in foreign languages. The interviews conducted with the teachers lasted on average 40–50  min and were recorded on a Dictaphone and then fully transcribed. The transcription rules were based on Dresing and Pehl’s (2011) evaluation criteria, with the focus not on linguistic aspects but on the content of the interviews.

3.3  Overview of Qualitative Methods

59

Written Student Interviews Especially for the interviews with the students, sufficient knowledge of English was the biggest hurdle. This led to the interviews with the students being conducted in written form with the help of a questionnaire. According to Schiek (2014, p.  381), written qualitative interviews are “problem-solving and reader-oriented text productions that are obtained within the framework of a delayed interaction and in the absence of the respective interaction partner, either in a clearly self-­ directed, monologic or rather dialogic structure and with the help of different forms of communication”. The students or their caregivers received the interview questions by e-mail and had two weeks to answer the interview questions as independently as possible. For this purpose, the interview guide, which was designed in English, was translated into Finnish and made available to the study participants in both languages. The students who were not able to complete the questionnaire independently received support from a reference person of the student (teacher or parent). In many cases, the questions were first answered in Finnish. Afterwards, the answers were translated into English in consultation with the reference person. For some of the interviewed pupils with special educational needs, the caregivers (usually the parents or teachers) played an important role in making the interviews possible. The methodological decision in favour of a written interview instead of a face-to-face interview was thus also made due to the special communicative needs of several study participants* with impairments (cf. Keeley et al., 2019). For example, some students require additional visual and photographic material and other supportive aids (in the sense of “augmentative and alternative communication”). In addition, the highly visually impaired students were able to complete the questionnaire in digital form largely independently with the aid of the speech output and Braille display. This methodological approach can therefore primarily be justified by the fact that there was no or only very difficult access by means of oral face-to-face interviews (cf. Schiek, 2014). In addition, the use of written qualitative interviews can be legitimized for those questions that deal with personal experiences that cannot be verbalized in a face-to-face situation, or only at risk (cf. Schiek, 2014). Schiek (2014) cites as examples borderline experiences or borderline areas of social interactions and intimacy and personal experiences that often cannot be articulated and reflected upon in face-to-face encounters without the risk of losing face. Particularly in the case of children and adolescents with an impairment, their personal life situations mean that they are likely to have corresponding previous experiences, which are difficult to ascertain in a personal conversation with a person unknown to them.

60

3  Research Design and Methodological Approach

 ritten Qualitative Interviews: Chances and Limitations W of the Methodological Approach From the researcher’s point of view, conducting qualitative e-mail surveys or written interviews is associated with advantages on the one hand, but also with difficulties on the other. Meho (2006) is of the opinion that a mixed form of face-to-face and e-mail interviews should always be considered if possible. In my case, preliminary interviews with the study participants took place at the schools. Since the interviews could not be conducted in the native language of the interviewees, language barriers turned out to be the greatest difficulty in conducting the interviews. Sufficient language skills among the interviewees was thus a selection criterion when choosing the sample. While the language requirements of the adult participants posed little problem, the language barrier of the students became more of a focus. Consequently, I developed an e-mail questionnaire for the students as an alternative to the originally conceived interview guide. The content of this questionnaire was based on the questions of the semi-structured guide, but required a restructuring of the guide: a stronger structuring of the questions and a small-step approach were necessary. Thus, inevitably, the scope of the questions on each category increased, and the questions were more specifically tailored to the research interest. Written interviews, according to Bampton and Cowton (2002), have the advantage of allowing interviews to be conducted in a foreign language, even if the interviewer or interviewee does not have sufficient command of the language for a face-to-face interview. Karchmer (2001) also sees a major advantage in email interviewing over face-to-face interviews when the interview language is not the native language for the interviewer and the interviewee. Written interviews can be a relief for both the researcher and the interviewee. For the researcher, written interviews via e-mail offer the advantage of already receiving the data in digital and largely pre-structured form. This represents a reduction in workload, as the step of transcribing is no longer necessary. The use of e-mail in research also decreases the cost of transcribing. Data from e-mail interviews are generated in electronic format and require little editing or formatting before they are processed for analysis. (Meho, 2006)

The interviewee has the advantage that he/she can determine the time and place for answering the interview questions. This eliminates the unusual situation that the interviewee is confronted with questions that he may not immediately understand and is confronted with stress (cf. Opdenakker, 2006). On the other hand, e-mail interviewing inevitably loses spontaneity in answering the questions. While the researcher can react more quickly to what is said in real time during personal

3.3  Overview of Qualitative Methods

61

i­nterviews and can thus influence the course of the conversation, the respondent has more time to answer the questions reflectively during e-mail interviews: Although the advantage can be that the interviewee does not hesitate in giving a socially undesirable answer but the chance of a spontaneous answer to a question is smaller, because the interviewee has more time to reflect on the question. And spontaneity can be the basis for the richness of data collected in some interviews. It depends of course on the research questions if this reflective behaviour is a disadvantage or not. On the other hand an e-mail interview has the advantage that the interviewer can take time to respond to the developing dialogue. (Bampton & Cowton, 2002)

Unlike email surveys, qualitative, semi-structured email surveys usually consist of email communication between the interviewer and interviewee over an extended period of time (cf. Meho, 2006). However, due to the asynchronous form of communication, the researcher must allow days or weeks to expect the questions answered. The risk is that the interviewee may lose interest in the research and forget to answer the questions. To prevent this problem, the questionnaires included a deadline with a time to be considered for answering the questions. According to Meho (2006), time delays vary widely in research that used qualitative email surveys. Some researchers* reported a delay of several months before data collection was completed, while other researchers took as little as a week. One of the most important differences between e-mail interviews and face-to-face interviews is the “media richness”. This means different communication media offer communication partners the opportunity to interact in different ways, using different senses (cf. Robert & Dennis, 2005). For example, in email interviews, the interviewer will not be able to read facial expressions and body language, hear eye contact or speech tones of the participants. Thus, written language is not a substitute for face-to-face oral communication (cf. Schiek, 2014), as the interaction takes place in asynchronous form, and the interaction partner is not immediately present. On the other hand, written interviews can particularly motivate respondents to participate, as face-to-face interactions exclude the danger of a direct evaluation of the utterances and have a somewhat more anonymous character (cf. Schiek, 2014).

Aim and Structure of the Interview Guide The perspective of students with disabilities is a research desideratum, especially in German-speaking countries. This is especially true for people with cognitive impairments, who are rarely heard in research. Research mostly takes place about people with impairments, and only rarely with them (cf. Keeley et  al., 2019). However, from a research methodology perspective, methodological difficulties in data collection can be put into perspective by adapting survey instruments. Open-

62

3  Research Design and Methodological Approach

ended interviews, for example, were conducted by Spencer-Cavaliere and Watkinson (2010) with students* with cognitive impairments, with interview questions framed in child-friendly and simplified language. Consideration of voices from the ‘affected person’s perspective’ is intended to contribute to narrowing this research gap. For this purpose, students with and without impairments at the schools studied were interviewed about their personal experiences with regard to their opportunities for participation in everyday school life. The consideration of the individual experience of inclusion and the corresponding framework conditions play an important role. The interest of the research project is first of all to analyse the subjective “understanding of inclusion” of the interviewed actors and to identify possible barriers to participation. The focus should not only be on the classroom itself, but also on the extracurricular and extracurricular areas. Especially the extracurricular area, e.g. break situations, has so far only been researched by a few authors (e.g. Spencer-Cavaliere & Watkinson, 2010) under the aspect of participation. Inclusion – from the perspective of those affected – is often understood as a subjective need for social acceptance (cf. in summary: Holland & Haegele, 2021; Spencer-­Cavaliere & Watkinson, 2010). Following previous work by SpencerCavaliere and Watkinson (2010), a semi-structured interview guide with mostly open-ended questions was created. The questions were aimed at perceptions and experiences of inclusion and were directed at both learners with an impairment and learners without an impairment. (e.g. What kind of things make you feel included (or be part of a community) in school and outside school? Do you remember a moment when you felt not included? Can you tell me about it?) (Table 3.3). Table 3.3  Overview of the written interviews Pupils with and without special needs (The interviewed pupils with special needs belong to the third support level (special support)) (n = 10) Pseudonym/ gender Kirsi (female) Henri (male) Elias (male) Kari (male) Tom (male) Jussi (male) Ilona (female) Jenni (female) Kaisa (female) Jari (male)

Age (years) 10 10 15 16 14 15 16 12 12 13

Class 4 4 9 9 7 7 9 6 6 6

Impairment – Autism Spectrum Disorder – – – – Visual impairment Visual impairment Visual impairment, cerebral palsy Visual impairment, Down syndrome

Type of school School I School I School II School II School III School III School III School IV School IV School IV

3.4  Data Evaluation

63

3.3.3 Document Analysis The third form of data collection, document analysis, is of great importance for the analysis of the school framework. Only with the help of the analysis of relevant school documents such as school laws and school programmes is it possible to analyse the participant observation and the expert interviews in the context of the country-specific, institutional framework (cf. Müller-Using, 2010). The analysis of written documents with control-relevant content has its own informative value. Document analysis thus provides its own unique approach to the field, which can help to understand the context in which social interaction takes place from a control perspective (cf. Müller-Using, 2010). The documents of the school examined in advance and viewed on site are analysed with regard to the research questions. The basis of the document analysis are the following documents, which were available in the English language: • Educational policy and school law documents (National Core Curriculum, curricula, school laws) • School program • School-specific curricula • In-school and external professional development programmes and planning for teachers • School homepage, flyers and information brochures • Powerpoint presentations by the school management to introduce the school • Examples of Individual Education Plans (IEP) • Interview notes or transcripts of informal interviews

3.4 Data Evaluation 3.4.1 Evaluation of the Protocols of Participant Observation The evaluation of participant observation protocols is closely related to the theoretical conception of participant observation, the specific observation task and the aim of the respective study (cf. Merkens, 1992). Moreover, according to Merkens, it presupposes the existence of a framework concept that builds on the prior knowledge of the researcher. The perceptions of the observer, taking into account the prior knowledge, thereby reflect an individual view of the events, and are thus

64

3  Research Design and Methodological Approach

r­ ecorded in the protocol (cf. Merkens, 1992). For the evaluation of the protocols, which were created in the context of participant observation, Merkens (1992) recommends qualitative content-analytical procedures as a systematic and goal-­ oriented evaluation method (cf. also Müller-Using, 2010). In doing so, the material should first be examined for significant instances and situations of events, persons or things. Prior to the start of the participant observation, preliminary observation guides were prepared, which were based on the research dimensions of the study by Lelgemann et al. (2013). The guides were repeatedly revised during the research process as new observation aspects were added during the fieldwork. The permanent revision of the observation assignment in the form of a guide is thereby an important part of the research process. The guideline of the present research project is divided into two parts: For the macrosystem school, and the microsystem school class or classroom. Thus, two different observation focuses are considered in the guide: For the microsystem school, teaching in the narrower sense is meant; for the macrosystem school, the focus is on the spatial conditions, the time structures, but also the actions of the school actors. These aspects also formed the main categories that were used to analyse the data. This deductive approach to data analysis was chosen in order to achieve an initial thematic pre-structuring of the observations recorded in writing. The following focal points emerged for the participatory observation of the school and classroom culture: Inclusive school structures (school structural and organisational level) • • • •

Common rules and rituals Spatial framework conditions Time structures/rhythm School and out-of-school support systems (organisation of special needs education, staffing conditions)

Inclusive cultures and practices (teaching level) • Inclusive forms of learning in general (subject) teaching • Possibilities of individual support and subject-specific learning on the common object • Cooperation at the team level (multi-professional teams) • Methodical-didactical design of the lessons

3.4  Data Evaluation

65

The observation protocols form the basic material for the data evaluation. These contain the impressions gained from classroom observations and informal conversations with school actors. The spatial situation at the school was also surveyed with the help of participant observation. The evaluation of the observation protocols was based on qualitative content analysis (cf. Mayring, 2008; Merkens, 1992). The category system developed in the course of data collection was first applied to the material. In doing so, the protocol sections were assigned to the categories of the guideline if there were matches. Priority was given to the material itself (cf. Merkens, 1992), i.e. new categories were created for observation passages that could not be assigned to a category. This process was continued until the complete observation material had been processed.

3.4.2 Evaluation Method for the Expert Interviews  nalysis of the Educators’ Interviews: Data Evaluation By Means A of Deductive-Inductive Category Formation The evaluation procedure is based on the specifications of the summary content analysis (Mayring, 2010, p.  65). Summary content analysis is a special form of qualitative content analysis. For the most part, the categories were formed inductively during the data analysis based on the interview material collected (cf. Mayring, 2010; Vogt & Werner, 2014). However, prior to the inductive category formation, a rough pre-structuring of the interview data took place based on the four main categories of the interview guide. This deductive approach allowed for an initial thematic and organisational structure. The individual subcategories were then derived directly from the material without referring to any previously used theoretical concepts. The aim of the summary content analysis is to narrow down the textual elements without distorting the core content of the material. By this reduction of the transcribed interview statements a clarity of the data can be generated, which still corresponds to the basic form of the material (cf. Mayring, 2010). The material was worked through step by step with regard to the research question and taking into account the defined coding units. All relevant text passages were marked in colour. The text passages were then collected and paraphrased and generalised in a joint working step. The next step was reduction, i.e. subsuming the collected paraphrases. These individual steps were run through several times, as some categories could only be sharpened in this way. If data material was found in the course of the analysis process that could not be assigned to the previously formed categories, a new category was formed. Thus, the category system was revised several times during this analysis process (see Fig. 3.2). After several runs

66

3  Research Design and Methodological Approach

Step model deducve category applicaon

Step model inducve category formaon

Subject, research queson

Subject, research queson, theory

Theory-based determinaon of the Structuring dimensions (as main categories and, if applicable, subcategories)

Determinaon of the category definion & level of abstracion

Theory-based formulaon of definions, anchor examples and encoding rules

Material processing, category formulaon, Subsumpon/new category formaon

Revision of the categories and the Coding Guide

Revision of the categories (a…er approx. 1050% of the material)

Final working through the text

Final working through the text

Evaluaon

Interpretaon of the results, analysis

Fig. 3.2  Qualitative content analysis: evaluation with deductive and inductive category formation. (Own representation based on Mayring, 2010)

through some of the interview material, a differentiated category system emerged. Since no new statements (or categories and subcategories) could be found, only those passages that could be assigned to the existing category system were included in the further analysis. In addition to the interviews, individual lessons were observed. These contributed to a better understanding of the case situations.

Evaluation of the Student Interviews Since the student interviews were not conducted by me personally, a different methodological approach was used here. The students’ statements were obtained by means of a questionnaire, which had to be partly translated from Finnish into

3.4  Data Evaluation

67

English in cooperation with a reference person of the interviewed student. As the interviews were conducted in written form, there was no need to transcribe the interviews and most of them were available in digital form. This approach thus saved much of the data preparation that would have been involved in face-to-face interviews in verbal form. The analysis of the data was based on the qualitative content analysis model developed by Mayring (2010). In doing so, the data analysis was done in a deductive-inductive manner. First, the deductively formed supercategories of the questionnaires served to achieve a pre-structuring of the interview data. The narrative-generating guiding questions of the questionnaire functioned as deductively formed superordinate categories. The statements of the students were first assigned to the topic areas (upper categories) of the guideline, which were formed in advance during the construction of the guideline from the literature. This deductive element was chosen in order to achieve an initial pre-structuring of the individual statements. The analysis of the data was then carried out systematically from the material with the help of inductive category formation. The subcategories were then obtained step by step from the material in the sense of inductive category formation according to Mayring (2010). From these thematic commonalities of the statements, new subcategories emerged for which coding rules were established. The establishment of coding rules is important in order to avoid demarcation problems between categories, and thus to enable a clear assignment of the statements to the individual subcategories. Communicative validation (also called “member check”) was chosen as the validation procedure: The research results (or the central statements) were presented to the respondents – usually by e-mail – and thus they had the opportunity to comment on them or to add statements (cf. Moser, 1995) (Table 3.4).

3.4.3 Evaluation Method for Document Analysis The subject of the document analysis are the school documents already listed, which were available in written form and were selected and analysed according to various criteria (e.g. type of document, relevance to the subject matter). The advantage of document analysis is that most of the material was already available and did not have to be obtained through data collection. As crucial in the analysis of the material is the researcher’s prior understanding, which develops from scientific theories and empirical findings (cf. Mayring, 2010). Understanding the meaning of the documents is at the forefront of the analysis, although interpretive inference of the text was made more difficult due to the language barrier present (documents were in English). An inclusive school culture is an important factor in the process

68

3  Research Design and Methodological Approach

Table 3.4  Survey procedure and evaluation for the qualitative interviews Survey instrument Interview language Conducting the interviews Transcription/ translation Evaluation of the data Evaluation method

Teachers Expert interview, face-to-face (semi-structured guide) English

Pupils Interview questionnaire, in written form Finnish/English

Researcher himself (based on the interview guide with questions in English). Researcher himselfb (transcription and data analysis was done in English) Researchers

Third persona (teacher, parents, other caregiver)

Summary content analysis, deductive-inductive category formation

Qualitative content analysis, deductive-inductive category formation

Third party in collaboration with the researcher (translation into English only) Researchers

Due to the language barrier, and the importance of fixed reference persons for pupils with special educational needs b Review by third party with research experience and native level English skills a

of creating an inclusive school (Boban & Hinz, 2003). In order to analyze an inclusive school culture, it is necessary that diversity and heterogeneity are recognized and lived in schools as norms guiding action (Feldhoff, 2017). An important prerequisite for diversity and heterogeneity to be significant in schools and to influence the actions of the actors is the reflection of existing norms, values and routines of action (cf. Feldhoff, 2017). According to Feldhoff (2017), schools must therefore examine the extent to which the norms and values that already guide their actions are compatible with the concept of diversity. The anchoring of inclusive norms and values in the corresponding school documents (e.g. school programme or mission statement of the school) and curricular framework guidelines have an important influence on the emergence of corresponding action routines. From a pedagogical-ethical point of view, it must be checked, for example, whether the curricula consistently assume a heterogeneous student body. Based on this understanding, UNESCO has developed educational policy guidelines for the development of an inclusive curriculum (UNESCO, 2009, p.  18ff.). Selected aspects of these guidelines were used as criteria for the analysis of the Finnish curriculum and will be presented below. Thus, the following guiding questions of UNESCO (2009) served as a starting point for the analysis: • Are human and children’s rights part of the curriculum?

3.5  Creation of School Portraits

69

• Are principles such as anti-discrimination, valuing diversity and tolerance promoted? • Does the curriculum raise awareness of issues related to gender, cultural identity and linguistic background? • Is the curriculum inclusive for all children? In order to be able to consider the aspect of dealing with heterogeneity in the context of the document analysis, a systematisation, concretisation and prioritisation of the different heterogeneity dimensions also lends itself to it. (cf. Rühle, 2015; Trautmann & Wischer, 2011). After applying these steps to the present study, the following categories were defined (cf. Rühle, 2015): • • • •

Disability or (special) educational needs Gender Socio-economic background Socio-cultural and linguistic diversity

The content-structuring analysis started with the handling of the heterogeneity categories in the general guidelines of the Finnish core curriculum. Here, the focus was also on the pedagogical foundation as well as the “inclusive” value orientation in the sense of an inclusive core curriculum of UNESCO (2009). Subsequently, the school-specific documents (school concepts, school programmes) were also subjected to a content analysis (Table 3.5).

3.5 Creation of School Portraits The evaluation of the interviews conducted, the observation protocols and the documents formed the data basis for the creation of the school portraits for the individual schools studied. The data collected was initially considered and evaluated separately from the different (actors’) perspectives. This is to ensure that the perspectives of the different persons are initially considered separately from each other and that a balance is achieved between the reproduction of subjective impressions and objective facts (Table 3.6). Subsequently, the respective data sets were integrated in the form of school portraits. The different perspectives of the actors were thus not only taken into account in the data collection, but also in the data evaluation and interpretation. The writing of the four schools in the form of individual case analyses represents the “overall picture” of the information gained from the various sources. The school’s

70

3  Research Design and Methodological Approach

Table 3.5  Evaluation procedure participant observation and document analysis Survey instrument Data material

Language of these documents Evaluation of the data Evaluation method

Participatory observation Observation guide

Document analysis –

Protocols of lesson sequences and extra-­ curricular observations (e.g. break situations) German

Educational policy and school law documents, school programme, school-­ specific curricula, school homepage, flyers and information brochures, PowerPoint presentations English

Researchers

Researchers

Qualitative content analysis with deductive-inductive approach (cf. Mayring, 2010; Merkens, 1992)

Structuring qualitative content analysisa (Mayring, 2010), deductive category application

For this purpose, an analytical grid was formulated in the form of guiding questions on specific thematic complexes (categories). The categories were primarily deductively derived and expanded from the theoretical part of this thesis, existing curriculum analyses on dealing with diversity in Finland (e.g. Rühle, 2015), and the principles of inclusive education and inclusive core values surveyed in the current literature (cf. Reich, 2014; UNESCO, 2009). Subsequently, the material was systematically filtered thematically along guiding questions a

Table 3.6  Perspectives of the actors and type of data collection Method of data collection Document analysis Expert interviews

Perspective “Ideal image” of the pedagogical designs of a school (mission statement) Perspective of the educators Perspective of the students

Participatory observation

Researcher’s perspective Perspective of the studentsa

Source School programmes, school concepts, (school-specific) curriculum Transcripts or evaluation sheets of the interviews with class, subject and special school teachers, as well as pupils Observation protocols of the school and classroom culture

Due to the linguistic and methodological barriers in conducting the student interviews, the reconstruction of the students’ perspectives was based on data from participant observation in addition to the interview data a

mission statement is based on the document analysis of different school documents and was primarily collected deductively by orienting to the guiding questions created from theory. The researcher’s perspective is based on the category system of

3.5  Creation of School Portraits

71

the observation guide, which was further developed during the data collection process, but was also originally created from theory. The formation of categories in the interviews with the educators, on the other hand, was primarily inductive from the material. In the case of the students’ perspective, a mixed approach was used, since in addition to the inductively collected data from the interviews, deductively obtained data material from the participant observation was also used.

3.5.1 Aim of the School Portraits The aim of the school portraits is to analyse similarities and differences of the researched schools taking into account the overall research question. From the perspective of school development research, school portraits offer the possibility to analyse obstacles to development as well as innovation perspectives of a school (cf. Senff, 2008). Thereby, connections can be made between a school portrait and the underlying pedagogical mission statement of the school, school profile and school programme. Due to the research interest, special attention should be paid to the form in which basic values and guiding ideas for dealing with heterogeneity are anchored in the school programmes. In addition to the integration of these guiding ideas into the overall pedagogical concept of the school, it must also be a matter of establishing appropriate framework conditions and structures. According to Eversheim (2015), who draws on the guiding ideas of the “Inclusive University School Cologne” (IUS), this refers primarily to spatial planning and the development of appropriate spatial concepts. Spontaneous movement opportunities should also be possible during cognitive learning phases, which, however, requires promptly accessible spaces, such as a movement room or movement niches. In terms of objectives, inclusive schools have a lot in common with “good schools” (Heimlich et al., 2016): As a rule, they have a pedagogical concept that is supported by all stakeholders and whose implementation is jointly ensured in all areas of the school. An inclusive school must always start with the individual potentials of the students and orient its offers towards the needs and interests of the learners. The age-specific interests of the learners must also be taken into account. From a didactic perspective, school portraits offer the possibility to vividly describe and analyse learning situations and to consider them in the individual school context (cf. Senff, 2008; Lütgert & Meyer, 1999). In this way, connections between school settings and the possibilities of teaching and learning can be made transparent. In inclusive settings, cooperation between pedagogical actors from different disciplines is also considered a basic prerequisite for the development of an inclusive school and teaching culture (cf. Lütje-Klose & Miller, 2017; Arndt & Werning, 2017). In rela-

72

3  Research Design and Methodological Approach

tion to the creation of the school portraits, attention should be paid to whether conducive cooperation structures exist at the micro and meso levels, and how these relate to the actual pedagogical actions of the actors. It has to be examined whether the cooperation between the pedagogical actors in the classroom really takes place “at eye level” or whether hierarchies between the different professions are recognizable.

3.5.2 Methodological Backgrounds In qualitative school research, school portraits are often used in the field of educational science to initiate processes of school development. Sport- and movement-­ related school portraits have also gained importance in sport pedagogical research. School portraits with a sport and exercise-related focus were used in terms of research methodology, for example, by Senff (2008) and Laging and Stobbe (2011) as part of a research project on the implementation of movement, play and sport in all-day schooling. In this context, the school portraits were also used to advise schools on school development processes. Most school portraits in single school research often arise from a specific perspective or context. With the help of school portraits, on the one hand, the specific characteristics of a school are to be elaborated, and on the other hand, they strive for generalizable statements and findings, or they enable comparison with other school portraits. In this present work, school portraits were used as representations of state-specific educational institutions with special attention to the inclusive aspects of the schools. Thus, the created school portraits are to be understood as excerpts from the whole school portrait from a specific point of view. School portraits are suitable tools to present different perspectives regarding a specific issue. In the context of this research work, for example, the students’ and teachers’ perspectives were taken into account. In a school portrait, however, it is rarely possible to capture the school reality in its entire complexity. However, if a school portrait succeeds in tracking down the specifics of an individual case and making generalizable statements, then several school portraits can be compared with each other, taking into account the respective framework conditions (cf. Lütgert & Meyer, 1999). A major challenge in writing school portraits is certainly to find the right balance between the reproduction of subjective impressions and the representation of those facts and relationships that make a school special and essential (cf. Senff, 2008). Following on from these considerations, the following “quality criteria” (Lütgert & Meyer, 1999) can be used as guidelines for the design of successful school portraits (cited from Senff, 2008, p. 61ff.):

3.5  Creation of School Portraits

73

• Indication of the author, the addressees, the intention of the school portrait • Disclosure of theoretical assumptions, research questions, research context • Presentation of data collection (survey methodology, data basis) and data interpretation (methodology) • Narrative, descriptive, and discussion passages in the presentation • Integration of the perspectives of different people • Presentation of essential background information about the school system • School portraits should be developed in cooperation with the school in an action-­oriented arrangement. • Finding a balance between the reproduction of subjective impressions and objective facts • explicit formulation of criticism for positive school development • Presentation of development potentials and proposals for change for the individual school • School portraits refer to the experimental character of school pedagogy The school portraits were created in the context of this research project at four Finnish schools. Therefore, of the “quality criteria” mentioned above, the aspect of taking into account essential background information about the Finnish school system is of great importance. The portrayal of school reality in the school portraits cannot be detached from the country-specific framework conditions. The social and educational background of the country must always be taken into account. Thus, in preparing the school portraits, theoretical references to educational theory (e.g. core curricula, school laws) were also made, which are important with regard to the portrayal of school reality.

Procedure of the Comparative Case Study With four schools to be examined, there was a comparatively small number of individual cases. This made it possible to first reconstruct each case individually. Only then was a comparison of the cases made. In concrete terms, this meant for the analysis carried out that the available information of each case was first analysed and interpreted, and from this “school portraits” were created that went beyond a mere description of the case. The interpretation of the data was based on the evaluation strategy for the comparative analysis of a small number of cases (cf. Gläser & Laudel, 2010). Following Wiebke’s (2011) approach, the aim of the case comparison is to find out which results can be generalised and which results can only be used to make case-specific statements. The case comparison is carried out with the aim of presenting the case-specific, but also overarching results in relation to the research question. Following on from

74

3  Research Design and Methodological Approach

the considerations of Flick (2004), the aim is to find out how authentically the individual case was reconstructed and to what extent structures that can be generalised beyond this case, but which are founded in the specific individual case, were obtained (cf. Flick, 2004). A grouping of the individual cases in the form of typifications was dispensed with due to the small total number of cases. Instead, a topic-­ centred comparison (cf. Rühle, 2015) was carried out, in which the case studies were examined with regard to the guidelines formed from the theory on several levels, and then arranged according to these aspects of comparison. In the theme-­ centred comparison, a content orientation towards the “building blocks of an inclusive school” (cf. Reich, 2014) took place. The building blocks of inclusive schools and inclusive didactics developed by Reich (2014) initially functioned as upper categories and enabled a preliminary structuring of the individual school portraits in terms of content and topic. Subsequently, the upper categories were differentiated into subcategories. The upper and sub- categories were differentiated in the course of the analysis process and serve as an outline for the presentation of the results. The category system will be outlined in Fig. 3.3, following the preliminary work of Reich (2014).

3.6 Critical Comments on the Research Design A total of four schools took part in the study: one school with a primary focus on sports in grades 7–9, one school with a primary focus on language in grades 7–9, one school in grades 1–6 (primary level) and one special education institution. Due to the small sample, only a limited overall picture can be derived. For example, one type of upper secondary school (grades 10–12) is missing in order to complete all possible types of school. In order to achieve a more differentiated overall picture, even more different schools should have been included in the study. However, the manageable number of schools and the size of the interview sample allowed for a stronger individual case analysis, which in retrospect can also be seen as profitable with regard to the complex questions of this thesis. In this way, a differentiated picture of the conceptual orientation and the concrete implementation of the school concept in practice could be gained from the participating schools. Conducting the qualitative interviews in English was partly a language barrier for the Finnish teachers. For the student survey, a questionnaire was used that was translated into Finnish and sent to the participants by e-mail. The written interview questions were partly answered with the support of the teachers or other reference persons. The key messages from the written interviews with the students with special needs were analysed in cooperation with the teachers and other caregivers. The central

3.6  Critical Comments on the Research Design A school with high standards of qualifica on for all learners Inclusive curricula and subject didac cs Teamwork and mul professionalism

One educaon system for all? • Permeability of the school system: transions and interfaces • Culture of trust

Demands on an inclusive core curriculum • Foundaon of the present understanding of educaon • Percepon of the curriculum from the perspecve of the teaching staff

Teachers in mulprofessional teams • What atude do I need to have as a teacher if I want to work inclusively?

A school based on democra c values and equal opportuni es

• Gender equitable school • Migraon and mullingualism • A school that is open to all relevant dimensions of the life-world

Healthy and physically ac ve school

• Conceptual foundaons of the “Physically Acve Schools” • Approaches and concepts of a “Schools on the Move” in Finland • Case studies: Elements of acve learning in everyday school life

Barrier-free and well designed school Suppor ve learning environment Learners with Special Educa onal Needs

•Teacher Training Schools

75

Barrier-free school architecture • Flexible space and me structures

A school that makes you feel good • Culture of individualized support • Understanding of performance and assessment pracces

Special educaonal support in a school for all • The Finnish support system: special needs educaon in three levels • Organisaon of special needs educaon at school level

Teacher educaon in Finland • The perspecve of the teaching staff

Fig. 3.3  Category system for the analysis of Finnish school and teaching culture. (Own representation based on Reich, 2014)

s­tatements of the interviews were documented in English. This approach meant that the statements of the pupils could probably not be analysed to the same extent and in the same depth as was the case in the interviews with the teachers. Due to the complexity of the research question, some aspects could not be dealt with in depth. This concerns, among other things, the presentation of the school-specific curricula, which were only treated as examples in this thesis. With regard to the general structure of the Finnish education system and the consideration of diversity-sensitive factors (e.g. intercultural aspects), reference was made to preliminary work by Rühle (2015) and Kricke (2015), among others. The reduction at certain points was considered necessary to enable an intensive and more in-depth examination of the research questions.

76

3  Research Design and Methodological Approach

3.6.1 Influence of Language Barriers on the Choice of Methodological Approaches Since the interviews could not be conducted in the native language of the interviewees, language barriers turned out to be the greatest difficulty in conducting the interviews. As a consequence, sufficient English language skills were defined as an important selection criterion when choosing interview partners. Especially for the interviews with the pupils, sufficient knowledge of English was the biggest hurdle for the interview partners. For some of the interviewed pupils with special educational needs, the reference persons (usually parents or teachers) played an important role in ensuring that the interviews could be conducted at all. In order to obtain statements from the pupils, a different methodological approach was pursued due to the language barrier.

References Arndt, A.  K., & Werning, R. (2017). Inklusive Schul- und Unterrichtsentwicklung. In M. Schweer (Hrsg.), Lehrer-Schüler-Interaktion. Schule und Gesellschaft (S. 607–623). Springer VS. Bampton, R., & Cowton, C. J. (2002). The e-interview. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/ Forum: Qualitative Social Research [Online Journal], 3(2), Art. 9. http://www. qualitative-­­research.net/fqs-­texte/2-­02/2-­02bamptoncowton-­e.htm. Accessed on: 12 Nov 2016. Becker, H.  S., & Geer, B. (1979). Teilnehmende Beobachtung: Die Analyse qualitativer Forschungsergebnisse. In C. Hopf & E. Weingarten (Hrsg.), Qualitative Sozialforschung (S. 139–166). Klett-Cotta. Boban, I., & Hinz, A. (Hrsg.). (2003). Index für Inklusion. Lernen und Teilhabe in der Schule der Vielfalt entwickeln. Martin-Luther-Universität. http://www.eenet.org.uk/resources/ docs/Index%20German.pdf. Accessed on: 12.Juni.2020. Booth, T., & Ainscow, M. (2016). Index for inclusion: A guide to school development by inclusive values (4th ed.). Index for inclusion network. Budde, J., & Hummrich, M. (2013). Reflexive Inklusion. Zeitschrift für Inklusion, 8(4). www.inklusion-­online.net/index.php/inklusion-­online/article/view/193/199. Accessed on: 01.Juli.2019. Dresing, T., & Pehl, T. (2011). Praxisbuch Transkription & Analyse. Anleitungen und Regelsysteme für qualitativ Forschende (1. Aufl.). Eigenverlag. Eversheim, U. (2015). Eine gute (inklusive) Schule ist eine bewegte Schule – Leitideen für Bewegung, Spiel und Sport im Schulleben der Inklusiven Universitätsschule Köln. In K. Reich, D. Asselhoven, & S. Kargl (Hrsg.), Eine inklusive Schule für alle: Das Modell der Inklusiven Universitätsschule Köln (S. 374–380). Beltz.

References

77

Feldhoff, T. (2017). Transformation inklusiver Schulsystementwicklung. Zeitschrift Für Inklusion, 4. Abgerufen von https://www.inklusion-­online.net/index.php/inklusion-­ online/article/view/398 Flick, U. (2004). Triangulation. Eine Einführung. VS Verlag. Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Prentice-Hall. Gläser, J., & Laudel, G. (2010). Experteninterviews und qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. VS Verlag. Hausstätter, R., & Takala, M. (2011). Can special education make a difference? Exploring the differences of special education systems between Finland and Norway in relation to the PISA results. Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research, 13(4), 271–281. https:// doi.org/10.1080/15017419.2010.507372 Heimlich, U., Kahlert, J., Lelgemann, R., & Fischer, E. (Hrsg.). (2016). Inklusives Schulsystem. Analysen, Befunde, Empfehlungen zum bayerischen Weg. Klinkhardt. Helfferich, C. (2011). Die Qualität qualitativer Daten. Manual für die Durchführung qualitativer Interviews. VS Verlag. Helsper, W. (2008). Schulkulturen – Die Schule als symbolische Sinnordnung. Zeitschrift Für Pädagogik, 54(1), 63–80. Holland, K., & Haegele, J.  A. (2021). Perspectives of students with disabilities toward physical education: A review update 2014–2019. Kinesiology Review, 1–10. https:// journals.humankinetics.com/view/journals/krj/aop/article-­10.1123-­kr.2020-­0002/article-­ 10.1123-­kr.2020-­0002.xml. Accessed on 11 Jan 2021. Itkonen, T., & Jahnukainen, M. (2010). Disability or learning difficulty? Politicians or educators? Constructing special education in Finland and the United States. Comparative Sociology, 25(9), 1–20. Karchmer, R. A. (2001). The journey ahead: Thirteen teachers report how the Internet influences literacy and literacy instruction in their K-12 classrooms. Reading Research Quarterly, 36(4), 442–466. Keeley, C., Munde, V., Schowalter, R., Seifert, M., Tillmann, V., & Wiegering, R. (2019). Partizipativ forschen mit Menschen mit komplexem Unterstützungsbedarf. Teilhabe, 58(3), 96–102. Kelle, U., & Kluge, S. (2010). Vom Einzelfall zum Typus. Fallvergleich und Fallkontrastierung in der qualitativen Sozialforschung (2. aktualisierte Aufl.). VS Verlag. Kivirauma, J., & Ruoho, K. (2007). Excellence through special education? Lessons from the Finnish school Reform. International Review of Education, 53(3), 283–302. Kricke, M. (2015). Lernen und Lehren in Deutschland und Finnland: Eine empirische Studie zu Schulsystem und LehrerInnenbildung im Ländervergleich. Dissertation, Universität zu Köln. Kruse, J., & Schmieder, C. (2012). In fremden Gewässern. Ein integratives Basisverfahren als sensibilisierendes Programm für rekonstruktive Analyseprozesse im Kontext fremder Sprachen. In J. Kruse, S. Bethmann, D. Niermann, & C. Schmieder (Hrsg.), Qualitative Interviewforschung in und mit fremden Sprachen. Eine Einführung in Theorie und Praxis (S. 248–296). Beltz Juventa. Laging, R., & Stobbe, C. (2011). Bewegungsaktivitäten im Alltag von Ganztagsschulen – Ausgewählte Ergebnisse aus dem Projekt StuBSS. In R. Naul (Hrsg.), Bewegung, Spiel und Sport in der Ganztagsschule (S. 213–228). Meyer & Meyer. Lamnek, S. (2005). Qualitative Sozialforschung. Lehrbuch (4. Aufl.). Beltz.

78

3  Research Design and Methodological Approach

Lelgemann, R., Singer, P., Walter-Klose, C., & Lübbeke, J. (2013). Qualitätsbedingungen schulischer Inklusion für Kinder und Jugendliche mit dem Förderschwerpunkt Körperliche und motorische Entwicklung. Zeitschrift Für Inklusion, 4. Abgerufen von https://www.inklusion-­online.net/index.php/inklusion-­online/article/view/35 Lütgert, W., & Meyer, M. A. (1999). Nachträgliche Bemerkungen: Schulporträts als Mittel der Erkenntnis. In I. Kunze (Hrsg.), Schulporträts aus didaktischer Perspektive. Schulen in England, in den Niederlanden und in Dänemark (S. 213–241). Beltz. Lütje-Klose, B., & Miller, S. (2017). Kooperation von Lehrkräften mit allgemeinem und sonderpädagogischem Lehramt in inklusiven Settings. Forschungsergebnisse aus Deutschland, Österreich und der Schweiz. In B.  Lütje-Klose, S.  Miller, S.  Schwab, & B.  Streese (Hrsg.), Inklusion: Profile für die Schul- und Unterrichtsentwicklung in Deutschland, Österreich und der Schweiz (S. 203–214). Waxmann. Mayring, P. (2008). Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. Grundlagen und Techniken (10. Aufl.). Beltz. Mayring, P. (2010). Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse: Grundlagen und Techniken (11. Aufl.). Beltz. Meho, L. (2006). E-mail interviewing in qualitative research: A methodological discussion. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(10), 1284–1295. Merkens, H. (1992). Teilnehmende Beobachtung: Analyse von Protokollen teilnehmender Beobachter. In J. H. P. Hoffmeyer-Zlotnik (Hrsg.), Analyse verbaler Daten: Über den Umgang mit qualitativen Daten (S. 216–247). Westdt. Verlag. Meuser, M., & Nagel, U. (2009). Das Experteninterview – konzeptionelle Grundlagen und methodische Anlage. In S. Pickel, G. Pickel, H. J. Lauth, & D. Jahn (Hrsg.), Methoden der vergleichenden Politik- und Sozialwissenschaft (S. 465–479). VS Verlag. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-­3-­531-­91826-­6_23. Moser, H. (1995). Grundlagen der Praxisforschung. Lambertus. Müller-Using, S. (2010). Ethos und Schulqualität: Pädagogisch-ethische Aspekte im professionellen Umgang mit SchülerInnen in Dänemark. Budrich UniPress. Nohl, A.-M. (2007). Komparative Analyse: Forschungspraxis und Methodologie dokumentarischer Interpretation. In R. Bohnsack, I. Nentwig-Gesemann, & A.-M. Nohl (Hrsg.), Die dokumentarische Methode und ihre Forschungspraxis (S. 255–276). VS Verlag. OECD. (2004). Lernen für die Welt von morgen. Erste Ergebnisse von PISA 2003. Paris: Organisation für wirtschaftliche Zusammenarbeit und Entwicklung. unter: https://doi. org/10.1787/9789264063556-­de. Accessed on: 20.Sept.2016. OECD. (2017). Finland. Student performance (PISA 2015)  – index of social inclusion (Indicator). https://doi.org/10.1787/888933433214. Opdenakker, R. (2006). Advantages and Disadvantages of Four Interview Techniques in Qualitative Research. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung. http://www.qualitative-­­ research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/175/391. Accessed on: 22.Okt.2016. Reich, K. (2014). Inklusive Didaktik. Bausteine für eine inklusive Schule. Beltz. Robert, L.  P., & Dennis, A.  R. (2005). Paradox of richness: A cognitive model of media choice. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 48(1), 10–20. Rühle, S. (2015). Diversität, Curriculum und Bildungsstrukturen. Eine vergleichende Untersuchung in Deutschland und Finnland. Waxmann. Schiek, D. (2014). Das schriftliche Interview in der qualitativen Sozialforschung. Zeitschrift für Soziologie, 43(5), 379–395.

References

79

Senff, O. (2008). Bewegung, Spiel und Sport in der Ganztagsschulentwicklung  – Rekonstruktion der konzeptionellen Bedingungen und praktischen Möglichkeiten mithilfe von Schulportraits ausgewählter Thüringer Ganztagsschulen. https://www.db-­ thueringen.de/receive/dbt_mods_00010809 Spencer-Cavaliere, N., & Watkinson, E. J. (2010). Inclusion understood from the perspectives of children with disability. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 27(4), 275–293. https://doi.org/10.1123/apaq.27.4.275 Trautmann, M., & Wischer, B. (2011). Heterogenität in der Schule. VS Verlag. UNESCO. (2009). Inklusion: Leitlinien für die Bildungspolitik. Deutsche UNESCO-­ Kommission e. V. Vogt, S., & Werner, M. (2014). Forschen mit Leitfadeninterviews und qualitativer Inhaltsanalyse. Unv. Script Fachhochschule Köln. Wiebke, A. (2011). Individuelle Förderung: Vergleichende Fallstudien zur Umsetzung der NRW-Schulgesetzerweiterung in der Sekundarstufe I. Universität Bielefeld.

4

Guidelines for Inclusive Schools: Case Studies from Finland

As already presented in Chap. 3, so-called “school portraits” were created with the help of the collected data. The school portraits represent a snapshot of the respective individual school, taking into account the handling of heterogeneity in the school and teaching culture. The collected data was first examined and evaluated separately from the different (actor) perspectives. This is to ensure that the research question is illuminated from different perspectives and that there is no overlap between the internal view of the actors and the external view of the researcher. Within the framework of the document analysis, the ideal image of the pedagogical designs of a school should be made clear. These ideal images have become visible in the self-designs of the actors of an institution (e.g. in school programmes, school-­ specific curricula). The observer perspective of the researcher was documented and evaluated within the framework of participant observation in the form of observation protocols of the school and classroom culture. The perspective of the respective school actors (pedagogues and pupils) was also methodically collected and analysed individually in the form of expert interviews. Before presenting the similarities and differences of the researched schools on the basis of the corresponding guidelines (cf. Reich, 2014), the profiles of the individual schools will be presented in more detail below. This will give the reader the opportunity to get a first impression of the respective schools and their conceptual orientation. As the following overview of the researched schools shows, each school has possibilities of influence in dealing with the different preconditions of its students (e.g. profile formation, development of a diversity-sensitive learning culture), which go beyond the scope of action of the individual teacher (cf. Trautmann & Wischer, 2011). The excerpts of the school portraits presented here merely depict the central aspects of the school’s conceptual orientation as they became clear on an “imaginary level” © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2023 C. Mihajlovic, Learning from Finland, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-40177-1_4

81

82

4  Guidelines for Inclusive Schools: Case Studies from Finland

(cf. Helsper, 2008) through the analysis of the accessible documents. Due to the volume of data in the school portraits, a reduction in content had to be made. School I Framework conditions in brief Designation School type School profile School carrier Catchment area Number of students

School I Regular school (primary school, grades 1–6) Without a specific school profile Municipal school authority District of a metropolitan region with a total of approx. 1.4 million inhabitants 550 (according to information from the school, school year 2016/2017)

The analysis of the school documents gives the impression of a school that is committed to the guiding principle of valuing and promoting diversity, sees differences as an opportunity, and is characterized by an understanding of learning that is in line with constructivist learning theory and didactics (Reich, 2014). Analysis of school documents also reveals that the theme of “Diversity & Equality” is prominently identified as a school principle and is addressed in multiple ways. The school’s mission statement identifies diversity as one of several areas of focus: In addition to environmental protection and student-centered and action-oriented teaching, the role of a sense of community and holistic wellness is mentioned. Characteristic of the school’s spatial concept is a close arrangement of general areas that are open for all students such as the cafeteria, library and exercise rooms, which ensure quick accessibility and support the rhythm of the learning day. Many classrooms are also connected to assigned outdoor spaces that can be used as additional classroom space. The organisation of lessons is determined by a mixture of years and a largely joint teaching of learners with and without special educational needs in class groups. On the imaginary level, these elements imply a movement-­ oriented teaching methodology that is shaped by reform pedagogical influences such as weekly planning work, action-oriented and holistic forms of learning with all the senses. The special pedagogical character of the school concept consists in the consistent consideration of heterogeneity in everyday school life. The pedagogical principles of the school concept offer clear pedagogical guidelines for the actions of the pedagogical actors, such as pupil-centred forms of teaching and the use of personal support plans, in order to do justice to the heterogeneity of the learning groups. Overall, it is also recognisable that the school, due to its conception as a school with a reform pedagogical orientation, provides the teachers with an orientation framework with regard to pedagogical action and specific values.

4  Guidelines for Inclusive Schools: Case Studies from Finland

83

Nevertheless, due to the openness of the guidelines, there is a great deal of room for manoeuvre for the individual actors with regard to the design of lessons and the co-design of the school culture. School II Framework conditions in brief Designation School type School profile

School II Regular school, secondary level I (grades 7–9) Sports focus, international branch (language of instruction completely in English), additionally: mathematical focus School carrier School in public sponsorship with special status (independent of the municipality) Catchment area District of a metropolitan region with a total of approx. 1.4 million inhabitants, as well as rural surrounding area Number of 350, of which 95 students in international classes (according to students information from the school, school year 2016/2017)

The school’s public image is that of a high-performing school. This is exemplified in the school programme, in which the school advertises that it performs particularly well in the final examinations of grade 9 compared to other schools in Helsinki. Although a special emphasis is placed on the school’s academic achievements in its external presentation, achievements in other areas are also recognised. The good performance of the students is openly presented in relation to individual events, such as regular and successful participation in regional sports competitions. One of the characteristic features of School II is the sport-related profiling with a performance- or competition-oriented orientation. The sports profiling at the examined school resulted from the establishment of sports classes (advanced courses), a third sports lesson and the option for the pupils to take sports as an examination subject. In addition to the representation of performance, the pedagogical principle of equality is prominently advertised in the public presentation of the school. Following the formulations of the national guidelines of the Finnish Ministry of Education (FNBE, 2016), it is about the fundamental appreciation of diversity, the sensitive perception of gender differences, the appreciation of linguistic plurality and the special needs of learners. In addition to taking into account the needs of students with “special needs”, particularly gifted students should also be supported appropriately. The ideal pedagogical objective of the school, which is represented to the outside world, consists of achieving a high “level of performance” in relation to normed standards (e.g. in the form of final examinations) while at the same time ensuring equal opportunities for all students and the promotion of both weaker and stronger students.

84

4  Guidelines for Inclusive Schools: Case Studies from Finland

Diversity-Sensitive Aspects in the School Programme While on the school homepage and the school flyers the consideration of “gender” and “diversity” appear as flagships, these topics are not mentioned further in the school programme. Under the aspect “teaching”, only the gender-segregated measures in physical education in lower secondary school, which are typical of Finland, are taken into account. The organisation of special educational support measures is only mentioned briefly in the school programme: for example, support for pupils with learning difficulties usually takes place in the form of small groups, and in “creative” subjects such as art, music and sport all pupils are usually taught together in a class. On the other hand, gender equality efforts are only visible on a superficial level (e.g. on the school homepage) and are not further addressed in the school programme. School III Framework conditions in brief Designation School type School profile School carrier Catchment area Number of students

School III (Sec1 language) Regular school, secondary level I (grades 7–9) Linguistic focus with bilingual classes (partly in English), additionally: musical focus Municipal school authority District of a metropolitan region with a total of approx. 1.4 million inhabitants, as well as rural surrounding area 327a (according to information from the school, school year 2016/2017)

At the time of the survey, the school had a total of 42 pupils with learning difficulties, behavioural problems or mental or physical disabilities a

As a pedagogical guiding principle, the school claims on the imaginary level to actively create a “welcoming culture”. These pedagogical ideals are reflected in the school documents through the requirement to take multilingualism comprenesively into account. Thus, Finnish (as the main language of communication), Swedish (as a language that is also widely spoken among the pupils) and English (in the form of a bilingual school branch) are anchored in the school programme and firmly established in everyday school life. In the school profile and on the homepage of School III, the bilingual school branch is highlighted as the “flagship” of the institution. Bilingual education (English/Finnish) is taught in two of the five classes per year group. In the school programme, the appreciation of multilingualism is emphasised not only in language teaching but also in (general) teaching and is regarded as a cross-cutting task (e.g. in interdisciplinary teaching or in teaching ­projects).

4  Guidelines for Inclusive Schools: Case Studies from Finland

85

Dealing with the Heterogeneity Dimensions “Special Educational Needs” and “Gender” According to the school concept, students with special needs in the second and third remedial levels are – at least temporarily – taught in small groups within the class. Most classrooms are divided into a main room and an adjoining differentiation room for such support measures in order to enable an appropriate organisation of lessons. The support of pupils with special needs is not only regarded as a task of the special needs teacher within the framework of the school concept, but can also be carried out by the responsible subject teacher: We have special education classes in our school in which pupils with learning difficulties are taught in smaller groups, or they are given remedial instruction by their own teachers. (Excerpt from the school concept, School III)

However, this formulation also makes clear that the organisational framework in the form of support measures in small groups is already specified and is aimed in particular at learners with learning difficulties. Thus, already on the imaginary level, a stigmatisation of a group of pupils takes place, to whom the support offer is primarily directed. In the school’s programme, the handling of the heterogenous dimension of “gender” is listed under the aspect of “equality”. Thus, girls and boys are basically taught together in their classes. Physical education is an exception: With regard to organisational aspects of physical education, both gender-­segregated and co-educational measures are mentioned. Overall, the topic of “gender” shows an inconsistent approach, with gender-differentiating and co-educational measures. In addition to the bilingual orientation, the school programme emphasises the importance of artistic and creative projects. These take place regularly throughout the school year, and are organized in mixed age groups in the form of projects across classes or grades and presented to the school community on specific dates. School IV Framework conditions in brief Designation School type School profile Carrier of the institution

School IV (BFZ) Nationwide special educational counselling and support centre (grades 1–9) Specialised in pupils with impairments in the areas of: “vision”, “hearing”, “mental development”, “physical and motor development”. School and boarding school in public sponsorship (continued)

86

4  Guidelines for Inclusive Schools: Case Studies from Finland

(continued) Designation Catchment area Number of students

School IV (BFZ) School/Boarding School: Regional Advisory centre: Central and Southern Finland 200, of which 80 are taught on site and 120 pupils are educated and cared for inclusively (according to information from the school, school year 2016/2017)

The investigated special educational support institution sees itself as a competence centre for the promotion and support of pupils with different special needs. On the imaginary level, the institution has set itself the goal of promoting the implementation of inclusive education for pupils with special needs by offering a comprehensive range of services. At the same time, the facility offers students with chronic illnesses and multiple disabilities a suitable place to learn and live. The versatility of the institution is made clear by its division into the areas of school, boarding school and counselling & support. In addition, the entire staff of the institution has access to the resources of the affiliated media centre. In the media centre there is a large selection of material and technical aids that can be used, for example, to support visually impaired pupils. The focus of the analysis is on the area of “school”, as this is particularly relevant for the reconstruction of the school and teaching culture at the location studied. Within the framework of the document analysis and the interviews with the school actors, however, areas of overlap with the other areas of the institution also become clear. According to the school programme of the support and counselling centre, the place of support should be chosen in such a way that it best corresponds to the special needs and personal development of the children, adolescents and adults: this can be the support facility at the location studied, but also the regular school close to the place of residence, in which the learners with special support needs are accompanied by appropriate support and counselling services. The school concept calls for a positive, cooperative relationship between all staff members, which is seen as the (trust) basis for interdisciplinary cooperation between the actors. The very heterogeneous student body with only learners with diverse support needs requires close cooperation between all professionals. The overall pedagogical concept, which conveys a climate of tolerance and equality, is evident both in the school-specific curriculum and in other school documents (e.g. information flyer, PowerPoint presentation of the school). The Finnish framework curriculum, which is kept very general, offers the institution a great deal of scope for developing its concept. In this way, the content of lessons and the organisation of everyday school life can be adapted as individually as possible to the needs of the pupils. The guidelines of an individualised and open learning and teaching concept anchored in the school concept serve as pedagogical orientation for the teaching staff.

4.1 Schools Based on Equal Opportunities

87

4.1 Schools Based on Equal Opportunities It was assumed that the organisation of the school system has a great influence on the handling of heterogeneity in the (individual) schools. The Finnish school system shows a different perspective on school compared to the German one: In Finland it is about a school for a heterogeneous student body, whereas in Germany there is a separating school system. This different orientation of the Finnish school system is particularly evident in the consideration of equal opportunities and the pedagogical approach of leaving no one behind (cf. Tomlinson, 2021). Finland’s fundamentally appreciative approach to diversity will be examined in more detail below.

4.1.1 A School System for All? Since the first PISA study in 2000, Finland has been regarded in the public and academic debate as a “prime example” of an education system that succeeds in achieving high performance, especially with regard to the reading competency of students, while at the same time there is only little influence of the socioeconomic background of the students. (cf. Rühle, 2015). As far as the PISA average scores are concerned, Finland achieved an above-average result in the area of reading competencmean in the last PISA studies with at the same time below-average inequalities between different socio-economic groups (cf. OECD, 2011, 2016, 2017). Finland also seems to be much further ahead than, for example, Germany in terms of the joint schooling of children with and without special educational needs. However, a look at the country-specific frameworks shows that Finland and Germany are difficult to compare. In order to characterise the special features of Finland, the following subchapter will briefly outline the social and educational policy framework conditions in Finland with regard to the development of a “School for All”. Social and Educational Framework Conditions Finland has been a member of the EU since 1995 and is the fifth largest country in Europe, covering an area of 338,000 square metres. However, only about 5.5 million people live in Finland, with the population concentrated mainly in the southern and south-western parts of Finland. Many regions of Finland are sparsely populated, with only the Helsinki metropolitan area being fairly densely populated. Finland has two official languages spoken by most of the population: Finnish and Swedish. The language of the absolute majority is Finnish (89.3% of the

88

4  Guidelines for Inclusive Schools: Case Studies from Finland

p­ opulation), 5.3% belong to the Swedish-speaking minority. Another language spoken in Finland is Sami (in Lapland). Overall, however, Sami is only spoken by a very small minority (0.04%) living in the northernmost part of Lapland (cf. Kansanen & Meri, 2006, p. 252). The proportion of inhabitants of Finland speaking a language of origin other than Finnish or Swedish has increased significantly in recent decades. While it was slightly less than 2% in 1999, the number has increased to almost 4% (3.9% in 2009) in the following 10 years (see OSF, 2014a). Most migrants in Finland have a European background (59%), but people from Asia (23%) and Africa (12%) also live in Finland. Migrants living in Finland are mainly people who immigrated to Finland from neighbouring countries or came to Finland as refugees (cf. Rühle, 2015). Finnish education policy aims to provide free access to education for all citizens of Finland, regardless of ethnicity, gender and financial situation (cf. Kansanen & Meri, 2006; Tomlinson, 2021). Education is considered a fundamental right for all citizens. From pre-school to higher education, all education in Finland is free of charge. During the so-called “basic education” (school year 1–9), educational materials, daily transportation to and from school, and daily lunch are free for all students. For children and young people who live further than five kilometres from school, transport to school is organised (ibid. 2006, p. 251). Adult education is the only form of education that is partially subject to fees (cf. Ministry of Education & Culture, 2012; OECD, 2013a). Emergence of the Finnish Comprehensive School System Uno Cygnaeus is considered the “founding father” of the Finnish school system. The year 1866, when the Finnish National Education Act came into force, can be regarded as a moment of origin in the development of Finnish elementary education (cf. Ihalainen, 2008). Historically, study trips abroad by Finnish educators had a great influence on the unique development of Finnish teacher education, on the systematic structure of elementary schools, and on the curricula and materials used there (ibid., 2008). The model for the Finnish primary school system came from Switzerland, but Germany also had a role model function, which can be seen, for example, in the orientation of the curricula. In Finland, a traditional parallel school system existed in the area of general basic education until the 1960s. The idea of a common basic education for all children in Finland originated in the late nineteenth century with Cygnaeus, but it took several decades before a comprehensive school system was introduced. The actual political discussion about the realisation of a comprehensive school did not come to life until the 1950s and 1960s, when the school systems in the Soviet Union and later in the GDR served as examples (ibid.,

4.1 Schools Based on Equal Opportunities

89

2008, p. 79). Parliament finally took the principled decision in 1965 to introduce an all-school, nine-year primary school (cf. Malinen, 2008). The inclusive nine-year school system was preceded by a long political process. The engine of change started with the emergence of the Finnish welfare state after the end of the Second World War (cf. Rühle, 2015). According to Ahonen (2002), the educational optimism of the reformers of the 1960s was shaped in an understanding of equal opportunities in education that was prevalent at that time. The different influences from abroad had a special significance on the development of the Finnish comprehensive school system in that it was necessary in this phase to form a new, own model of national basic education from the controversial political views and sporadic pedagogical thoughts (cf. Malinen, 2008). In the early seventies, the major school reform was carried out, which initially met with resistance, especially from the teachers of high schools. The reform started in the north of the country, where there were simply not enough children for the two-tier school system. From north to south, all grammar schools were dissolved and merged into comprehensive schools. Since then, these schools have provided education for all pupils from the first to the ninth grade. In the 1980s and 1990s, however, a neoliberal turn followed, according to Ahonen (2002): Processes of decentralisation and deregulation as well as market and competitive pressures entered Finnish education policy. Education was increasingly seen as human capital to be produced in an efficient way (cf. Ahonen, 2002; Rühle, 2015). The distribution of state funds was further linked to the number of students in a school, which triggered competition between schools for ‘good’ students (cf. Rühle, 2015). It took until the mid-1990s for a new reorientation to take place, and finally the principle of the ‘neighbourhood school’ was introduced. It is the duty of a municipality to provide nine years of basic education for the school-age children in its district (cf. Keski-Levijoki, 2008). The problem with the principle of the “neighbourhood school”, however, is that parents in Finland do not have a truly free right to choose a school. In general, schools are allowed to accept pupils from outside their catchment area, but only if there are still places available, after all children from their own catchment area have been allocated a school place (cf. Rühle, 2015). Although there are also structural challenges in Finland, it should be noted that the basic structure of the Finnish school system enjoys a good reputation at the societal level. In the following, it will be described how Finland aims to ensure “equal opportunity” education at the level of education policy and what challenges currently exist. The focus of interest is the question of how Finland takes into account (educational) inequalities in the education system with regard to socio-economic status, gender-specific factors and intercultural aspects.

90

4  Guidelines for Inclusive Schools: Case Studies from Finland

Consideration of Equal Opportunities in the School System Education in Finland, as in Germany, is largely publicly funded. According to the Federal Agency for Civic Education (2015), public spending on higher education in Finland accounts for 95.9% of total funding, whereas in Germany the figure is 84.6%. Moreover, 99.3% of general education and vocational training in Finland is financed by public funds, while in Germany this is only 87.9% (cf. Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung, 2015). The remaining funding comes from private sources. The financing of education in Finland is shared between the state and the municipalities. Public expenditure on education in the Nordic countries is particularly high in relation to gross domestic product (GDP) in a Europe-wide comparison. In Finland and Sweden, these were both 6.8% of GDP in 2011, higher than the EU average of 5.3% (see eurostat, 2017). Particularly noteworthy is the fact that Finland, in addition to school education, also seems to place a high degree of emphasis on equal opportunities in higher education. In Finland, more than a quarter of all students come from families without a university degree, a top figure in Europe (cf. Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung, 2015). One reason for this could be the state support for needy students provided by Kela, a Finnish welfare institution. State student support in Finland is centrally administered by Kela, with a general grant and a rent subsidy that does not have to be paid back to the state (unlike student loans). Socioeconomic Status When the influence of socio-economic factors is taken into account, it is surprising that social inequalities in Finland seem to have little influence on educational success. In the PISA year 2000, Germany and Finland had similar mean scores on the socioeconomic index of parental occupational status, and similar index scores on social and economic disparities (cf. OECD, 2001, 2014a, b). When considering the proportion of students from socioeconomically disadvantaged backgrounds who nevertheless achieve above-average results, this was significantly higher in the PISA studies in Finland than in Germany (cf. Rühle, 2015). In the 2009 PISA study, at 11.4–5.7%, it was even twice as high as in Germany (OECD, 2011, p. 175). This suggests that an inclusive school system like in Finland, where education is considered a basic right for all citizens, leads to high levels of social inclusion. Social inclusion, in the PISA sense, means that each school is attended by as many socio-economically advantaged as disadvantaged students. Also in the latest

4.1 Schools Based on Equal Opportunities

91

PISA study from 2015 (OECD, 2017), Finland is in the top group (4th place out of 68 countries) in terms of social inclusion index.1 Gender-Specific Factors Finland is considered a pioneer in gender equality in many respects. Finnish women have long been active participants in working life and political decision-­ making. The reasons for Finland’s pioneering role may have historical roots. Finland was the first European country to introduce universal female suffrage in 1906, when it was still an autonomous Grand Duchy in the Russian Tsarist Empire. Other Nordic countries, including Norway, Iceland and Denmark, followed Finland’s example a few years later (see Ministry of Education & Culture, 2012). Compared to other countries, Finland is now considered very progressive in terms of gender equality. For example, Finland has already introduced a quota of women and men in state bodies, which can be seen, for example, in the comparatively high proportion of women in the national parliament. However, in the Finnish discourse on equality, gender equality is far from reaching the level suggested by some international studies (Ministry of Education & Culture, 2012). Thus, there are still discrepancies between the laws and the social reality, which can be seen, for example, in the salary differences between men and women. This is also referred to as the paradox of gender equality (see Horelli & Saari, 2002; Julkunen, 2010). However, it remains to be noted that gender equality is considered one of the most important fundamental values at the educational policy level. Thus, dealing with gender issues is addressed under a separate chapter in the Finnish core curriculum for school levels 1–9 (cf. FNBE, 2016). Dealing with Linguistic and Intercultural Diversity Consideration of linguistic diversity is emphasised in the national core curriculum, and is reflected in many schools through the specific focus on language. Many schools in the Helsinki metropolitan area have a bilingual profile from grade 7 onwards. English is by far the language most commonly taught in bilingual schools according to the immersion principle (cf. Nuolijärvi, 2012). A positive and appreciative approach to linguistic and cultural diversity is formulated as a general educational goal at the curricular level. Consideration is also given to linguistic minorities (e.g. Sámi) who have a right to bilingual education (FNBE, 2016, Chap. 10). Moreover, Finland has two official languages, Finnish and Swedish, both of  The social inclusion index is calculated as the ratio of the variance of the PISA economic, social and cultural status (ESCS) index within schools and its total variance at the system level (between and within schools) (OECD, 2017). 1

92

4  Guidelines for Inclusive Schools: Case Studies from Finland

which are compulsory parts of the curriculum in community schools. For most Finns, Swedish is effectively a foreign language. Swedish-speaking pupils, on the other hand, grow up bilingually. However, both languages are relatively insignificant in terms of the number of native speakers worldwide (cf. Kansanen & Meri, 2006). Therefore, it is necessary for Finns to master a world language. English is chosen as the first foreign language by the majority of all Finns, but other foreign languages (German, French) also play a significant role in Finland. The language curriculum assumes a great importance due to the linguistic diversity, which, however, inevitably leaves less room for the content of other subjects (ibid., 2006, p. 259). In practice, however, migration-related linguistic diversity is increasingly challenging the Finnish school system. The Finnish teachers interviewed in Rühle’s (2015) qualitative findings rated a lack of linguistic knowledge and the challenging behaviour of many students as the main problem in dealing with heterogeneity in the classroom. Also in the study by Sahlgren (2015) regarding Finland’s school performance in PISA, the Finnish teachers and other pedagogical actors interviewed were critical of migration-related linguistic diversity and challenging student behaviour (cf. Sahlgren, 2015). In fact, the proportion of those speaking a language of origin other than Finnish or Swedish has increased rapidly over the last 30 years: While it was a little less than 2% by the end of the 1990s, the proportion has risen to almost 4 in the following 10 years (OSF, 2014a). However, it is important to note at this point that the proportion of people with an immigrant background in Finland is low by international standards (see OECD, 2013b). Finland is not a classic immigration country with a long tradition of labour migration, as is the case, for example, in Germany. The increasing pluralisation of the student body is a development that is also an important issue in Finland. The importance of dealing with social diversity and inequality is particularly evident in the current refugee policy. As this situation is a relatively new challenge for Finland, time is needed to develop new concepts and appropriate measures at the societal and educational level.

4.1.2 Permeability of the School System: Transitions and Interfaces The time after completion of the nine-year community school is considered a “critical” phase for many young people in Finland. Schroeder (2010) draws a comparison with Germany and critically notes that the Finnish education system merely shifts the point of “selection” from school to entry into working life: unlike in the German education system, social exclusion does not take place in general ­education,

4.1 Schools Based on Equal Opportunities

93

but in the transition to secondary school and the employment system. In this context, he refers to the relatively high youth unemployment in Finland, which – similar to Germany – is to a large extent socially inherited. Studies show that the early drop-out rate2 of young people is significantly related to the socio-economic status of the parental home. Accordingly, the sensitive phase of transition between school and working life has been neglected on the part of Finnish educational policy, and the focus over the last 30 years has been on quality assurance in pre-school education and in the area of nine-year primary school (cf. Sahlberg, 2007; Schroeder, 2010). The problem, according to Malinen (2008, p.  87), is the approximately 10–15% of a cohort who are at risk of being marginalised because of their undereducation (leaving school after grade 9). The Finnish school system is designed in such a way that after the compulsory 9th school year there is the possibility of taking a voluntary 10th school year. This is primarily intended for learners who need an extension of the school period due to their individual learning requirements. One interviewed teacher points out that some students accept a voluntary 10th school year in order to improve their grades. This is due to the fact that, according to the teacher, the “competition” for places in the gymnasiale Oberstufe begins after the 9th grade: Then there is an additional class after the 9th grade that is not compulsory. If you have not done so well in the 9th grade, which is the last one, you can have an extra year to improve your grades. But it is not compulsory. It is something that some students do. Most students leave school after the 9th grade and then they apply to further studies. And it is very important what grades you get in average in the 9th grade because the competition starts there. (Suvi)

Rühle (2015) also points out that the timing of school selection in Finland increasingly shifts after nine years of primary school or entry into working life. On the one hand, Finnish nine-year primary school is characterised by a very low drop-out rate and a low influence of socio-economic background on high school achievement. Despite these strong indicators of high levels of equity, male pupils from socially disadvantaged backgrounds and pupils* with an immigrant background are among a vulnerable risk group in Finland (cf. Rühle, 2015). The point in time after completion of the nine-year community school is thus definitely considered a “critical” phase in Finland. Although almost every Finnish young person leaves the nine-year community school with a leaving certificate, more than 8% of all Finnish pupils do not continue their school career directly at a secondary school (cf. OSF, 2014b).  Young people or young adults who are unemployed after leaving school or who enter the labour market as unskilled workers. 2

94

4  Guidelines for Inclusive Schools: Case Studies from Finland

4.1.3 Culture of Trust The education system in Finland today is to a large extent based on trust. The country’s educational institutions enjoy a high degree of autonomy  – at all levels. Although local authorities are formally responsible for the teaching objectives and content in  local educational institutions, they usually delegate these tasks to the respective schools or institutions (cf. Sahlberg, 2011). Local authorities decide how much autonomy they want to cede to schools, but most often schools are independently responsible for administrative tasks such as hiring school staff and managing the school budget. Teachers also experience a high degree of pedagogical autonomy; they can, for example, decide independently on textbooks and teaching materials and are sought-after experts in the development of internal school curricula (cf. Lähdemäki, 2019; Niemi, 2012). The high level of societal trust in the abilities of Finnish teachers in general is also reflected in the statements of one interviewed teacher: We do not have any inspections here. Nobody would ever come to your classroom to see how you are teaching. There is a culture of trust that you follow the national curriculum and the school curriculum. Teachers are trusted and this is the key to success in our schools. A lot of trust and a lot of independence for teachers. We organize our teaching on school level. And of course, the basis is the national curriculum. (Iina)

In addition, she emphasises that the “culture of trust”  – also due to the lack of school inspections – allows the teachers freedom and autonomy in their pedagogical actions. In this context, the teacher points out that the specifications of the national core curriculum are not questioned by the teachers. In her perception, the relationship of trust is therefore based on reciprocity. But the curriculum also gives autonomy to the teachers. They are very autonomous. Meaning that I talked about trust. There are no inspectors ever coming to the lessons. The teachers are trusted that they know what they are teaching. But everyone of course is committed to follow the national curriculum. But it is taken as something that is a fact, it is not questioned. (Iina)

These generalising statements on the part of the teacher point to a special feature of Finnish school culture, which is also reflected in the relevant specialist literature: on the part of Finnish education policy, teachers are granted a high degree of pedagogical autonomy overall, which is based on a mutual relationship of trust (cf. Sahlberg, 2011, 2013).

4.2 Inclusive Curricula and Subject Didactics

95

4.2 Inclusive Curricula and Subject Didactics3 Each country has its own cultural identity and value system, which is also reflected in the curricula (cf. Vitikka et al., 2012). The analysis of a curriculum cannot be seen as detached from the country-specific framework. Thus, the social and educational factors of the country must always be taken into account. In the document analysis of the Finnish core curriculum, theoretical references to educational theory were thus also made in order to be able to reconstruct, for example, the understanding of teaching and learning present in the curricula. However, in recent years, in the course of the competence orientation of curricula, a standardisation of educational goals can increasingly be seen in many countries. Vitikka et al. (2012) attribute this global development to international comparability in the form of school achievement tests, such as the PISA studies. In Finland, on the other hand, the current core curriculum shows a reverse trend: educational standards are not mentioned and the importance of implementing school-specific curricula at the local level is emphasised (cf. Lähdemäki, 2019). Current Developments at the Curricular Level In Finland, a comprehensive revision of the national curriculum takes place every 10 years, which consequently also affects the work in schools. The publication of the national curriculum last year was also eagerly awaited internationally, as media reports speculated in advance that Finland would abolish all school subjects and replace them with ‘phenomena’4 by the year 2020. Although Finland denied the abolition of subjects shortly after the first reports in the media, it was pointed out that the new curriculum would bring some changes: The new core curriculum for basic education that will be implemented in school in August 2016 contain some changes which might have given rise to the misunderstanding. In order to meet the challenges of the future, the focus is on transversal (generic) competences and work across school subjects. Collaborative classroom practices, where pupils may work with several teachers simultaneously during periods of phenomenon-based project studies are emphasised. (Finnish National Board of Education, press release,5 25.03.2015).

 An earlier, shorter version of  this chapter appeared as  a  contribution in: Swiss Journal of Special Education, 2018 (4), pp. 46–53. 4  http://www.focus.de/politik/ausland/reform-des-schulsystems-finnland-will-schulfaecherabschaffen_id_4566089.html 5  http://www.oph.fi/english/current_issues/101/0/subject_teaching_in_finnish_schools_is_ not_being_abolished 3

96

4  Guidelines for Inclusive Schools: Case Studies from Finland

In reality, the changes have not turned out to be quite as radical as assumed in advance. In addition to the stronger emphasis on generic competences, learning is to be as project-based as possible. This is not intended to devalue the importance of the classical subjects, but rather to combine subject-specific and supra-subject teaching and learning. The reform also focuses on a higher degree of cooperative teaching practice. In a multidisciplinary, phenomenon- and project-based teaching, several teachers as well as students* should work simultaneously (cf. Meri & Mihajlovic, 2019). The National Core Curriculum stipulates that at least one school project should be carried out per school year. These projects are to be thematically oriented towards “phenomena” that are linked to the lifeworld of children and adolescents. Another focus is on the assessment of individual learning progress. The assessment of performance or individual learning progress is carried out both subject-­related and at the level of the generic competence areas. The main task is to help students to analyse their own learning process and to make them continuously responsible for their own learning progress. The ability to learn is thus seen as a vital skill that needs to be systematically promoted and goes beyond school learning processes. The Importance of “Inclusive Values” in School Concepts and Internal School Curricula In order to anchor inclusive values in the school culture, it is important that all actors have a common philosophy of inclusion (cf. Boban & Hinz, 2003). If an orientation towards inclusive values takes place, the school programme or the school’s internal curricula should contain corresponding principles that guide the actions of the school actors. Shared values and visions must be reflected in the school programme as well as on the level of action, so that inclusive school development can succeed. This includes “the formulation of a common mission statement in the sense of an inclusive value orientation and clear objectives in the teaching staff, on the basis of which a conscious agreement can be reached on the appropriate forms and strategies of cooperation” (cf. Lütje-Klose & Urban, 2014). The Finnish core curriculum provides a corresponding framework and formulates binding guidelines regarding the basic values of education and dealing with heterogeneity (cf. FNBE, 2004, 2016). These guidelines must be followed – at least formally – by all Finnish schools. In Finland, at the curricular level, the principle of inclusive education is enshrined as a human right (FNBE, 2016, p. 31). This can mainly be traced back to the ratification of the UN CRPD, with a right to lifelong education and equal participation opportunities for people with disabilities in an inclusive education system. The National Curriculum explicitly holds schools responsible for the implementation of inclusive education:

4.2 Inclusive Curricula and Subject Didactics

97

The development of basic education is guided by the inclusion principle. The accessibility of education must be ensured. Each school providing basic education has an educational task. This means supporting the pupils’ learning, development and well-­ being in cooperation with the homes. (FNBE, 2016, P. 31)

School education in this context is considered a fundamental right for all, which explicitly includes children and young people with special needs (cf. Kansanen & Meri, 2006). This implies, in line with the UN CRPD (2006), equal access to quality education in mainstream schools for all learners. In line with the claim formulated by UNESCO (2009), the school level is also about teaching and defending these basic human rights values: “Basic education educates the pupils to know, respect and defend human rights.” (FNBE, 2016, P. 31). Following Dewey’s understanding, the school is conceived within the Finnish curriculum as an institutional place of education for democracy: The school can be understood as a space of democratic togetherness, which prepares for social coexistence by learning appropriate skills (cf. Bünger & Mayer, 2009; FNBE, 2016, p. 48). Dealing with Gender Differences In Chap. 3 of the National Curriculum, the “gender” aspect is taken up in the general guidelines on education (mission of basic education). There it says (translated from English): The mission of basic education is to prevent inequality and exclusion and to promote gender equality. Girls and boys should be encouraged to take an equal interest in and pursue different subjects. Each pupil should be supported in identifying personal areas of interest and potential, as well as in choosing an individual learning path, irrespective of gender role prescriptions (see FNBE, 2016). In the principles for the development of an inclusive school culture, the “gender” aspect is also taken up. Thus it states (loosely translated into German): Students’ perceptions of gender characteristics and their sexuality develop throughout their school career. A learning community promotes gender equality through its values and supports students in forming their gender identity (FNBE, 2016, p. 49). Intercultural Aspects At the curricular level, there is a separate chapter on “Special Questions of Language and Culture”. Here, the national curriculum provides guidance for the teaching of different language and cultural groups, such as Sami, Roma, and migrants. Thus, the cultural background and linguistic abilities of learners should be taken into account in the basic teaching of grades 1–9. An overarching goal is to educate students to deal with linguistic and cultural diversity in a positive and appreciative way:

98

4  Guidelines for Inclusive Schools: Case Studies from Finland The objective is to guide the pupils to appreciate different languages and cultures and to promote bilingualism and plurilingualism, thus reinforcing the pupils’ linguistic awareness and metalinguistic skills. (FNBE, 2016, P. 152)

This formulation is in line with UNESCO’s (2009) call for the curriculum to value diversity and tolerance. The subject Finnish or Swedish as a second language is curricularly anchored in the national curriculum. Pupils whose language skills are not yet sufficiently developed for participation in mainstream education receive instruction in Finnish or Swedish as a second language, either in whole or in part, instead of regular Finnish instruction (cf. FNBE, 2016). While the handling of diversity in general and the heterogeneity dimensions “gender”, “interculturality” and “special educational needs” are addressed in the guidelines of the Finnish core curriculum in many ways and in a very appreciative manner, they receive little attention in the subject-specific curricula. Although the general guidelines are also valid for the subject-specific curricula, it remains open overall how these dimensions of heterogeneity can be dealt with at the teaching level.

4.2.1 Demands on an Inclusive Curriculum In Finland, only one curriculum for nine-year primary school is valid nationally. This curriculum aims to meet the needs of all pupils. The curriculum of the comprehensive school has been revised in Finland approximately every 10 years since the 1970s. The first curriculum reform after the introduction of the “community school” was carried out in 1985. Subsequently, the next reforms took place in 1994, 2004 and most recently in 2016. In educational and living environments that follow the visionary core idea of inclusion, the aim is that all members are recognized as equal partners despite all differences. Inclusive education in this understanding should not exclude a single person as uneducated or even as non-educable (cf. Haeberlin, 2017). Such an understanding of education should also be anchored in an “inclusive school system” at the level of education policy within the framework of the national core curriculum and the corresponding school laws. According to the definitional basis of UNESCO (2009, p. 18), an inclusive curriculum addresses the cognitive, emotional, social and creative development of a child and is based on the four pillars of twenty-first century education: • • • •

Learning to acquire knowledge Learning to act Learning to live together and Learning for Life.

4.2 Inclusive Curricula and Subject Didactics

99

The OECD (2007) focuses on so-called “life skills”, which on the one hand emphasise multidisciplinarity, but on the other hand are also intended to prepare students for social challenges in a strongly situational manner. The current Finnish curriculum (2016) is also based on the OECD’s (2005) understanding of competences. A total of seven interdisciplinary key competences are emphasised, which, for example, deal with digitalisation (digital competence) and entrepreneurial competences (sense of initiative and entrepreneurship). These generic competency areas (cf. FNBE, 2016; OECD, 2007) play a key role in the new curriculum, as they are applied across subjects and years. The need for generic competences is legitimised by the social changes of the twenty-first century (in particular digitalisation) and the associated challenges in successfully coping with life.

4.2.2 Basis of the Present Understanding of Education The discussion about the concept of education seems to be of particular relevance in the course of the current discourse on inclusion. The concept of education is often used without reflection, especially in the context of inclusion. Anthropological assumptions that view human beings as fundamentally in need of education and capable of education appear to be particularly viable with regard to the inclusion discourse (Bernasconi, 2016). Under this understanding, educational and formative processes are always to be seen as indeterminate and open-ended, and at the same time, “formability” is assumed to be independent of people’s personal characteristics (cf. Bernasconi, 2016). From a pedagogical-ethical perspective, the image of the human being that has grown up in educational culture plays a supporting role (cf. Haeberlin, 2017). In a system that allows for individual differences, the diversity of learners will be consistently presupposed within the curriculum.. This also concerns, for example, people with comprehensive impairments. In the Finnish framework curriculum, a concept of education is described that credits and grants education to every individual: Each pupil is unique and valuable just as he or she is. Each pupil has the right to grow into his or her full potential as a human being and a member of society. To achieve this, the pupils need encouragement and individual support as well as experiences of being heard and valued in the school community. (FNBE, 2016, P. 25)

There is an understanding of education which defines education through social and cultural participation on the basis of individual access to education. In order to set this educational process in motion, support measures must always start from the

100

4  Guidelines for Inclusive Schools: Case Studies from Finland

individual. The sensitive perception of the individuality of the learner takes precedence over other considerations concerning the content and form of teaching (cf. Mero & Meri, 2017). In this understanding, lessons should always be planned taking the students’ experience and needs into account, rather than on standardised learning content and methods. Exclusion in this context is seen as a violation of everyone’s fundamental right to education. This is understood in the framework curriculum as a threat to the individual development of the child: Exclusion from learning means that a child’s educational rights are not implemented and is a threat to his or her healthy growth and development. (FNBE, 2016, P. 25)

Following the understanding of Mero and Meri (2017), the basic principle is that everyone has the right to be educated equally for as long as possible. Inclusive education is understood first and foremost as spatial integration, in that learners with special needs are assigned to a specific class in a school that offers general education (cf. Mero & Meri, 2017). However, this does not necessarily mean that students with special needs are exclusively taught together in one class. As a rule, pupils with special educational needs participate both in joint lessons with the whole group and in support measures in separate support groups (cf. Mero & Meri, 2017; OSF, 2016). Overall, however, it is clear at the curricular level that learners with special needs are also understood as full members of the school community, and individuality in the sense of a “pedagogy of diversity” is fundamentally seen as enrichment (cf. Mihajlovic, 2018b). Phenomenon-Based and Inquiry Learning Following on from the implementation of interdisciplinary learning modules in the curricula, a corresponding learning approach called “Phenomenon-based learning” (PhBL) is also being pursued. The cross-curricular learning modules are to be implemented in addition to regular subject teaching. According to Silander (2015), this phenomenon-based approach to teaching and learning is based on constructivist didactics. Elements of the sociocultural approach (cf. Vygotsky, 1987), inquiry learning or progressive inquiry learning (cf. Hakkarainen, 2003) and problem-­ based learning (cf. Hmelo-Silver, 2004; Schmidt, 1983) serve as a theoretical framework. The inquiry learning approach, coined by a Finnish research group (Hakkarainen, 2003) at the University of Helsinki, aims to make learning and acquiring knowledge purposeful in communities. Similar to problem-based learning, inquiry-based learning is first about understanding the basic structure of the problem at hand. The focus of inquiry-based learning is on the design of complex, group-dynamic processes that are guided by interconnected questions and explanations (Konrad, 2014, p. 174):

4.2 Inclusive Curricula and Subject Didactics

101

Inquiry-based learning engages members of a community in completing tasks incrementally and discovering new knowledge or learning on an ongoing basis

Symeonidis and Schwarz (2016, p. 37) further emphasize the role of working techniques-­or strategies-typical in scientific research groups: It emphasizes a cyclical learning process of engaging students with questions and explanation-driven inquiry, which reflects the practices of scientific research communities

One difference between inquiry-based learning and other problem-based approaches is that group members develop a shared expertise (Konrad, 2014; Symeonidis & Schwarz, 2016). The establishment of a shared knowledge base occurs as individual members support each other with their expertise and approach the problem-­solving process that follows from it through joint action. According to Konrad (2014), this process-oriented approach, which always keeps an eye on the learning processes in addition to the learning content, is characterized by two positive impact factors: On the one hand, this approach supports the active engagement of learners in the learning process. To monitor their own understanding, cognitive learning strategies and metacognitive strategies are stimulated. On the other hand, learners are motivated to work on problems in a scientifically accurate way. Konrad (2014) gives the example of modelling on the part of the teacher, which encourages learners to actively apply research strategies. The consensus is that inquiry-­based learning should be project-oriented and can be supported by cooperative forms of learning. In addition, similar to problem-based approaches in general, there must be an authentic problem or question for the group. The following quote from Silander (2015, p.  19) illustrates the learning theories behind the phenomenon-­based approach: The starting point of phenomenon-based teaching is constructivism, in which learners are seen as active knowledge builders and information is seen as being constructed as a result of problem-solving, constructed out of ‘little pieces’ into a whole that suits the situation in which it is used at the time. When phenomenon-based learning occurs in a collaborative setting (the learners work in teams, for example), it supports the socio-constructivist and sociocultural learning theories, in which information is not seen only as an internal element of an individual; instead, information is seen as being formed in a social context

In this context, Vygotsky (1987) emphasizes the importance of socially constructed knowledge as cultural and social heritage. This approach thus implies that knowledge is always constructed in social interactions with the immediate environment.

102

4  Guidelines for Inclusive Schools: Case Studies from Finland

Of particular importance for the school context is the selection of authentic subject areas in which content from several subject areas or perspectives is examined. The phenomena should have an important connection to the lifeworld and be developed in an interdisciplinary way in the sense of the transversal competence areas (FNBE, 2016, Sect. 4.4). For example, a phenomenon or a topic area can be oriented towards important societal or scientific challenges such as climate change or digitalisation (cf. Silander, 2015; Symeonidis & Schwarz, 2016). However, the basic principles of phenomenon-based learning are not new in the Finnish curriculum. Already in the 2004 curriculum, different forms of problem-based and inquiry-­ based learning were addressed. University teacher training in Finland is also characterised by research-based approaches, as exemplified in the so-called “Teacher Training Schools” (cf. Kricke, 2015). Consequences for Learners with Special Educational Needs On the curricular level, it remains open how, for example, children and young people with special educational needs are integrated into the phenomenon-based learning modules. In an interview with a special needs teacher it became clear that the developments are also perceived critically (at the level of educational policy). One special needs teacher was sceptical whether her pupils with special educational needs could benefit from the project-based learning modules at all: Many of my students need a very structured plan how to advance and to know what to do. I am not sure what happens with them if we only have project-based learning approaches. This is the other side of the coin. (Suvi)

For the development of more complex contents, a specific didactic preparation is necessary under certain circumstances, so that possibilities for the individual examination of learning phenomena are made possible. The didactic principle of elementarisation has become established in this context in order to make even demanding content tangible for people with complex impairments without the content losing its “core” (cf. Bernasconi, 2016; Melzer et al., 2016). However, people who do not have certain (cognitive) skills often run the risk of being increasingly excluded from educational opportunities due to an “economized concept of e­ ducation” (cf. Bernasconi, 2016; Fornefeld, 2007, 2010). This is especially true for people with severe mental and multiple impairments, who even until the late 1960s were excluded from school education in many countries due to their assumed “educational incapacity” (cf. Bernasconi & Böing, 2015). In the Finnish core curriculum, educational standards hardly play a role, but nevertheless an exclusive potential is evident in some places. For example, the importance of the ability to reflect is

4.2 Inclusive Curricula and Subject Didactics

103

closely linked to the students’ learning success. This can lead to disadvantages for some children and young people who do not have the necessary skills. The Finnish Core Curriculum emphasises the aspect that pupils are autonomous in their learning. The individual learning progress of the learners thus depends on their knowledge and experience background, motivation, and their learning and working strategies. The National Core Curriculum is based on a conception of learning that sees the pupils as active actors. They learn to set goals and to solve problems both independently and together with others. (FNBE, 2016, P. 289)

Furthermore, it is emphasized that learning should appeal to as many senses as possible. The focus is on learners also learning to reflect on their learning processes, experiences and emotions in the course of their acquisition of knowledge and individual skills: Language, physical elements and the use of different senses are essential for thinking and learning. While acquiring new knowledge and skills, the pupils learn to reflect on their learning, experiences and emotions. (FNBE, 2016, P. 289)

However, this understanding makes it clear that learners need to have a certain capacity for self-reflection in order to independently understand the meaning of their actions and learning experiences. Potentially, from an ableist perspective, this understanding of learning can lead to learners who do not possess such skills being excluded from learning (cf. Buchner et  al., 2015). Overall, however, it becomes clear in the context of the analysis of the Finnish core curriculum that exclusive potentials such as orientation towards a socially defined performance norm are not very present at the curricular level.

4.2.3 Perception of the Curriculum from the Teachers’ Perspective Pedagogical Room for Manoeuvre In Finland, decentralisation processes were particularly launched in the 1990s. The national Ministry of Education reduced the specifications in order to allow local authorities and schools more freedom in designing their own curricula and school profiles (cf. Vitikka et  al., 2012). The introduction of a flexible timetable also strengthens the autonomy of individual schools: this allows schools to set their own thematic and didactic priorities, such as specific school profiles. The school-­

104

4  Guidelines for Inclusive Schools: Case Studies from Finland

internal curriculum thus forms an important instrument for shaping state requirements at regional level. Due to the enormous room for manoeuvre of schools in shaping their school profile, it is assumed that school programmes in Finland play an important role in profile building at local level (cf. Niemi, 2012). The majority of the teachers interviewed report an openness with regard to the implementation of individual teaching methods or content. This freedom of action is evaluated positively overall and attributed to the curricular framework conditions of the school or the national core curriculum. This means that everyone has the opportunity to set content-related and methodological priorities. This is also underlined in this context by the interviewed class teacher: It guides us but is not restricting us. It is quite open so it leaves us teachers enough room to adapt the curriculum to the needs of the children in this school. As a teacher you have a lot of freedom in choosing teaching methods, content and activities. (Iina).

The teachers interviewed therefore experience a great deal of freedom of action and consider it positive that the pedagogical guidelines of the school programme and the national curriculum do not provide strict specifications to which the teachers must adhere. The pedagogical freedom of action is mentioned by several teachers as an important reason for the social attractiveness of the teaching profession. According to Sahlberg (2013), the professional satisfaction of teachers is also due, among other things, to their pedagogical freedom of action: on the one hand, there is the culture of trust on the part of the Finnish education policy, which guarantees teachers a high degree of pedagogical autonomy. On the other hand, many authors emphasize the high social esteem in which teachers are held (cf. Hakala, 2009; Niemi, 2012; Sahlberg, 2013). The public perception of the teaching profession and its academic training in Finland is generally very positive, and teachers are seen as playing a “key role” in quality education (cf. FNBE, 2016).

4.3 Teamwork and Multiprofessional Structures In inclusive settings, cooperation between pedagogical actors from different disciplines is a basic prerequisite for the development of an inclusive school and teaching culture. In their research review in German-speaking countries, Lütje-Klose and Miller (2017) were able to show that teachers only perceive the distribution of tasks and roles as positive and relieving if there is a joint responsibility of the teachers (regardless of their profession) for the entire class or all students. In addition, the tasks should be divided, for example, according to the responsibilities for cer-

4.3 Teamwork and Multiprofessional Structures

105

tain subjects and regular team times for lesson planning and case discussion should be established, so that the cooperation can have a positive effect on school and teaching development (cf. Lütje-Klose & Miller, 2017; Arndt & Werning, 2017). It was investigated whether the cooperation between the pedagogical actors in the classroom really takes place “at eye level”, or whether hierarchies between the different professions are recognizable. In this context, Lütje-Klose and Miller (2017) point out that cooperation should not only be understood as a process between two tandem partners, but is also directed at the entire teaching staff in the sense of inclusive school and teaching development. In order to develop inclusive structures, cultures and practices in the sense of the “Index for Inclusion” (Boban & Hinz, 2003), schools face the challenge of recognising mutual support and cooperation as a central value and a common task of school and teaching development. Apart from this, even an extensive allocation of personnel resources at macro level  – e.g., through double staffing in the classroom – does not necessarily lead to a high level of cooperation at the instructional level (cf. Lütje-Klose & Miller, 2017). Thus, in order to be able to analyze the individual actions of teachers at their schools, cooperation must always be considered in a systemic context (cf. Fend, 1998): In relation to the school system, this includes the macro level (educational administration), the meso level (local environment and intra-school relations) and the micro level (direct interaction in the classroom).

4.3.1 Cooperation in Teaching Practice At the level of teaching, different forms of pedagogical action by the actors could be identified, which result in the creation of difference. The following two case studies (at two different schools) show that the cooperation between teachers can be designed very differently: Case Study: School I (Extract from a “School Portrait”) The observed forms of co-teaching seem to be an established element of the school and teaching culture at School I. The pedagogical actors meet “at eye level” within lessons and in everyday school life. On the one hand, the respective expertise of the other is respected, on the other hand, the pedagogical actors share their responsibility for different tasks. However, it becomes clear that the responsibility for the entire learning group is always seen as a task of the class team. The cooperation at “eye level” in the pedagogical teams became apparent in various teaching situations. The learning group consisted of a total of 20 pupils in the observed lesson sequences of the subject lessons, whereby several learners had special educational

106

4  Guidelines for Inclusive Schools: Case Studies from Finland

needs. Most of the teaching took place in one room. However, there were also opportunities for spatial differentiation due to the openness and flexibility of the learning and movement spaces within the school building. Adjacent alcoves offered opportunities for quiet work and relaxation on the one hand, but also for movement and play (e.g. table tennis and table football). Within the framework of the participant observation, the appreciative and intensive exchange of all multiprofessional teams working at this school could be documented. Especially the cooperation between class teacher and special needs teacher in joint lessons in the form of “co-teaching” is to be emphasized positively. The cooperation at “eye level” in the pedagogical teams was evident in various teaching situations. It became clear in the course of the participant observation that the responsibility for the entire learning group is regarded as a task of the class team. In the lessons, implicit labelling on the part of the teachers was avoided by having the learners taught together by both teachers in one classroom. In doing so, the pedagogical practices of teaching show that both teachers care equally for all learners. On the level of social practice, therefore, no differences between the two teachers and between the learners became apparent: both teachers generally carried out the same activities with different students. Case Study II: School III (Extract from a “School Portrait”) Within the framework of the participant observation in School III, however, a different picture emerged in most cases: Both in the joint teaching phases and in the support situations, the different distribution of roles between the pedagogical actors becomes clear. While the subject teacher primarily takes care of the moderation of the lesson, the special needs teacher takes care of disruptions of the lesson on the part of the learners and assumes a supporting function. The division of tasks also became clear in the support situations, in which the special needs teacher mostly dealt exclusively with the learners with special needs. By dealing with heterogeneity in this way, individual pupils with special needs were marked as “in need of support”. Although there were also teaching phases (mostly at the beginning of the lesson) in which the whole class came together, these phases were usually initiated to discuss organisational matters. In several sequences in the general subject lessons, forms of ‘co-teaching’ (cf. Johnson, 2015) could be observed, whereby the team usually consisted of a class teacher and a special needs teacher, who was mainly dedicated to the learners with special educational needs. The class teacher usually leads the lessons for the whole group. The other teacher offered support to individual pupils, although she also looked after pupils without special educational needs who requested her help. This initial assisting role of the support teacher was mostly limited to the beginning of the lessons with the whole learning

4.3 Teamwork and Multiprofessional Structures

107

group. In the subsequent open and individualised teaching phases, both teachers were available as contact persons. There were always situations in which individual pupils with comprehensive motor and mental impairments were supported in the form of movement games and action-oriented activities in individual and partner work. In the pedagogical practices of teaching, however, actions of the two teachers are also discernible that indicate a hierarchy between the two, or at least an unequal distribution of roles. The following observation makes this clear: At the beginning of the lesson, the class teacher opens the lesson. The class teacher stands in front of the class, the special needs teacher sits a little apart from the lesson. The class teacher takes over the speaking part in this phase of the lesson and discusses the course of the lesson with the learners. The special needs teacher keeps a low profile during this phase of the lesson and only intervenes in the case of alleged disruptions of a pupil with special educational needs by verbally admonishing him. After the end of the opening phase, the special needs teacher goes to the differentiation room to hand out the worksheets without further communication with the class teacher. The corresponding pupils with special educational needs follow the special needs teacher one by one into the differentiation room. (Excerpt from an observation protocol, school III)

Also in the other teaching phases an unequal distribution of the work assignments between the two teachers becomes apparent. While the special needs teacher sees herself as responsible for the pupils with special needs, the class teacher seems to be primarily responsible for the learners without special needs. A cooperation between the two actors, in which teaching in the sense of co-teaching is seen as a common task, cannot be observed in this case. Despite the clear demarcations between the areas of responsibility of the different teachers, an appreciative interaction between the different actors could be observed in everyday school life.

4.3.2 Teachers in Multi-professional Teams In Finnish school life, the school staff consists of very different professions: It is mostly composed of class and subject teachers, special education teachers, learning and career counsellors (guidance counsellors), school support staff, school psychologists, social work, and sometimes also doctors, whose task is to promote “the psychological, physical and social well-being” (Kricke, 2015, p. 229) of the children and young people and thus assert the basic conditions for learning. The practical implementation of pupil welfare on an organisational and content level is determined individually at each school. At the analysed schools, the support team, which consists of people from the professional fields mentioned above, meets reg-

108

4  Guidelines for Inclusive Schools: Case Studies from Finland

ularly to discuss the progress and trajectories of supported children and young people. It is clear that the schools involved in this study have a wide range of options available to support their work by being able to resort to a wide range of different professionals. In Finland, school assistants have a similar function as integration assistants or school assistants6 as in Germany, but their training in Finland requires a pedagogical degree. A separate course of study was also established in the 1970s for the job profile of learning and career counsellor. The professional diversity is evaluated positively by the teachers on the whole, as the following excerpt from an interview with a special needs teacher shows: One thing that is very important in supporting this inclusion is the cooperation between different professionals. For example, teachers and social workers and this psychiatric care. When we really work together then it is very supportive for inclusion. I think that this is a very important part of it. Because teachers look in one way, and psychiatric doctors and nurses have a different point of view. And when we put all the wisdom together then something can actually happen. (Suvi)

The teacher considers the diverse composition of the team with actors from different professional backgrounds to be particularly important for the success of inclusion. This results in different professional perspectives that can be used productively. The positive attitude towards diversity does not only refer to the interaction with the students, but also explicitly to the cooperation within the pedagogical team.

4.3.3 What Attitude Should Teachers Have if They Want to Work Inclusively? In literature, teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion are considered one of the basic prerequisites for a positive approach towards heterogeneous learning groups (cf. Trautmann & Wischer, 2011; Trumpa et al., 2014). The separative orientation of an educational system, on the other hand, has a negative impact on teachers’ attitudes towards heterogeneity, fostering a “disposal mentality” (Fend, 2004, p. 23) and the desire for learning groups that are as homogeneous as possible (cf. Rühle, 2015). The relevant educational policy frameworks (cf. FNBE, 2004) emphasize that each  In Germany, school support staff and integration assistants are often not required to have any pedagogical qualifications. In addition, from the perspective of the school support staff, there are no sufficient further training opportunities or structures for induction. The profession is also affected by a lack of recognition due to poor pay. 6

4.3 Teamwork and Multiprofessional Structures

109

student is supported according to individual talent and valued as an equal individual and part of society. With regard to the Finnish school system, it can thus be assumed that teachers’ attitudes are rather open to heterogeneity and that a mentality of support is favoured. As is clear from educational policy documents, the formulated goals and pedagogical orientations of action lie in the individual promotion of all children, but also in community building in the classroom. During the participant observation, it became clear, for example, in the pedagogical practices of teaching that teachers care equally for all learners. Teamwork is seen as a crucial foundation by the actors interviewed. Overall, it is also clear from the teachers’ statements that the individual promotion and support of the learners is regarded as the task of all pedagogical actors. The multiprofessional staff plays an important role in this. At the researched schools, this staff consists of subject teachers and special education teachers, learning and career counsellors (“guidance counsellors”), school support staff, school psychologists and social workers. The ‘support team’ meets regularly to discuss the progress and trajectories of supported children and young people. The importance of multi-professional teams in supporting learners is also emphasised by several special needs teachers in the interviews (Julia; Suvi). The interviewed pedagogical actors also establish a close connection between a functioning multi-professional team and the well-being of the students. An important role is played by the willingness to cooperate between staff with different professional backgrounds. This is exemplarily reflected in the statements of the special needs teacher: So that is what I am working on is that we need to put all the fences down between the different professionals. Then we can actually look at all the pupils individually as humans and we can take care of their well-being. (Suvi)

Another special needs teacher also emphasises that the majority of teachers have a generally positive attitude towards diversity, but this attitude is strongly influenced by the type of impairment: For the majority of my colleagues it is fine for them, that we have diversity. But if I think about students with special needs it depends a lot on what kind of disability the have (…) let’s say nobody has something against those who have just some language problems. (Julia)

The interviewed teacher assumes that some of her colleagues have a deficit-­oriented view, whereby difficulties in the area of “language” are still tolerated, but other impairments are implicitly perceived rather negatively. On the other hand, the at-

110

4  Guidelines for Inclusive Schools: Case Studies from Finland

titude of the (specialist) teachers is also stated by the special needs teacher as the main reason for possible difficulties in inclusive teaching settings: But I think that the teachers are the most difficult people in this situation. The family is usually very cooperative because (…) they are willing to do everything because it is about their kid. But the teachers (…) sometimes they are not so easy. (Suvi)

The reason given by the interviewed special school teacher is the unwillingness of her colleagues to change their habits in the pedagogical work: “I think it is because the teachers are used to work in certain ways” (Suvi). It is different with the parents, who are happy to cooperate so that something positive changes in the interest of their child.

4.4 Democracy and Participation According to Reich (2014), an inclusive school largely decouples school success from social background and demonstrates the functioning of democratic goals and principles through its actions. These include the following guiding principles (cf. Reich, 2014): • Heterogeneity in schools should reflect the diversity in the community as representatively as possible and should not mean downward selection in inclusion. • Co-determination and participation of all, including learners, is essential in order to experience how democratic and participatory processes succeed in participation at school and in the classroom. • Gender equality is sought in a co-educational school through conscious curricular work, the development of gender competences and the reduction of discrimination, also through gender-sensitive language. • Migration and multilingualism are reflected in an intercultural approach and related back to the actual living environment in a solution-oriented way. • An inclusive school combats bullying and homophobia in particular, in all forms and even on minor occasions. It has a clear and binding concept for this. The participation of all actors is particularly important with regard to the establishment of an inclusive school culture. In the “Index for Inclusion”, for example, the dimension “Creating Inclusive Cultures” emphasizes the importance of the participation of all actors (teachers, students, parents) in school work. Dyson et al. (2002) have also shown in their systematic research review that cooperation between pu-

4.4 Democracy and Participation

111

pils and the constructive involvement of parents in school work is a core element of inclusive schools. The results of the qualitative study on quality criteria and school development processes by Arndt and Werning (2017) also emphasize the participation of all actors in school decision-making processes as a central condition for the success of an inclusive school culture. Thus, the schools investigated in this study are characterized by intensive cooperation in multiprofessional teams, as well as with the families of the respective students. Furthermore, the schools investigated show openness towards external specialists (e.g. therapists). Democracy and Participation in Finnish Schools The Finnish core curriculum takes into account gender, cultural identity and linguistic aspects of the students (FNBE, 2016). This is, in the spirit of UNESCO (2009), an effective tool to overcome cultural, religious and gender differences. A human rights framing of the curriculum is evident in that diversity is fundamentally understood as enrichment and individual (learning) prerequisites of the students are consistently taken into account in the content and objectives of the curriculum (cf. Mihajlovic, 2018b, 2019). It becomes clear that “inclusive values” are at least anchored in the educational policy framework guidelines. In Finland, these provide a binding framework for the development of school-specific curricula at the local level, as required by UNESCO (2009), among others. The school-specific curricula and school programmes of the schools studied show that democratic and participatory processes play an important role, at least at the conceptual level. For example, the school concepts of School I and School IV emphasise the importance of co-­ determination of all school stakeholders (including parents and learners) in school design processes. Also in the school curriculum of School III, democratic basic structures are explained, which should enable the learners to have a say in the ­shaping of school life. For example, this includes the election of a student council, as well as the election of class representatives to represent the interests of the individual classes in joint meetings. This also became apparent in everyday school life: the pupils are formally involved in the decision-making processes of School III by being able to express their interests and concerns in the pupil representation. These interests of the pupils are brought to the attention of the school conference within the framework of joint conferences of the pedagogical actors. At the class level, there are elected class representatives who present the interests of the individual classes to the outside world in order to communicate class-related concerns in dialogue with the responsible teachers. On the classroom level, the participation possibilities of the learners are strongly dependent on the respective teacher. In the course of the participant observation it became clear that at least some teachers granted the learners co-determination rights in the selection of topics, in the design

112

4  Guidelines for Inclusive Schools: Case Studies from Finland

of lessons and also in performance assessment (e.g. in the form of self-­assessments). The possibilities of participation of the students in class are therefore dependent on the discretion of the respective teacher. However, in almost all classes of the schools investigated there is a common lesson at least once a week, in which the concerns of the individual pupils can be discussed in consultation with the class representatives. In one class of school III, an in-class ritual consisted of a pupil being available every week as a contact person for in-class concerns and conflicts. In addition, the learners are involved in various “services” in the organization of the daily routine. Gender Equality The consideration of “gender” aspects can be found in all school-specific curricula of the four schools examined. Dealing with the heterogeneity dimension “gender” is mostly listed under the aspect of “equality”. Thus, girls and boys are basically taught co-educationally at all the schools studied. However, there are also gender-­ segregating measures: At the schools studied, physical education classes were generally coeducational from grades 1–4, and then gender-segregated from grade 5 onwards. Moreover, the girls’ groups were usually taught by female teachers, the boys’ groups by male teachers. The desire for separate physical activity programmes was partly supported by the teachers and pupils interviewed. The gender division of classes from lower secondary level onwards tended to be supported, as this allows gender-specific interests and differences to be better taken into account. However, at the curricular level, no distinctions are made with regard to gender-­ specific content (cf. FNBE, 2016). As a rule, physical education in Finland is not coeducational for organisational reasons, such as a lack of specialist staff, but because of gender differences that inevitably arise from a developmental p­ sychological perspective (cf. Yli-Piipari, 2014). Overall, a high sensitivity to dealing with gender issues was reflected in the remarks of the interviewed teachers in the schools. The majority of teachers consider gender-segregated groups in physical education as a productive way to deal with gender differences in the developmental age of adolescence. Multilingualism and Migration Overall, there are many schools with a language or bilingual profile, especially in the Helsinki area. At all schools, learners who do not speak Finnish as their mother tongue have the opportunity to learn the language in language support classes. According to the curricular requirements at national level, multilingualism is generally viewed positively in the school-specific curricula of the schools studied. At the level of the school programmes, the appreciation of multilingualism is empha-

4.4 Democracy and Participation

113

sised above all in the school concept of School III with a bilingual school profile. The specific profile of the school as a bilingual institution also affects the composition of the school’s stakeholders: Not only the pupils of the school, but also the teaching staff is characterised by great heterogeneity. A large part of the teaching staff originates from the USA and Australia. These teachers speak English exclusively, both with the students and with their colleagues and parents. Most of the students with an immigrant background come from neighbouring Sweden, as well as from Great Britain and the USA. Due to the bilingual orientation of the school, it is obvious that the school mainly attracts children and young people with a corresponding English-speaking background. The group of learners who do not speak Finnish or Swedish as their mother tongue have largely ended up in Finland because their parents immigrated to Finland in search of a job. Finland also has a low influx of refugees compared to other European countries. There are also hardly any refugee families in the area where School III is located. The student body consists mainly of children and young people from the middle class.

4.4.1 An Open School in the District According to Reich et al. (2015, p. 49), an open, democratic school should open from the inside out and from the outside in: Especially during secondary levels I and II, in the phase of puberty and adolescence, it should be possible to leave the boundaries of school, to open up fields of learning outside the school boundaries, so that young people can gain other experiences – first and foremost the experience of being needed and of proving themselves. However, such opening processes can also be practised in small steps from pre-school onwards. But it is just as important to bring people from the outside – including older people – from “real life” into the school. They can play a role there as experts, co-learners, critics of their own results, users of adult education services. At the same time, the school, as part of an educational landscape, can open up its spatial and equipment resources – at least in part – to the community environment (also during non-school hours and on weekends). This makes sense for the pupils as well as for the residents of the district, is cost-saving for the municipality and is also expressly desired by the citizens of Ehrenfeld

The schools studied in Finland are designed less as a “closed system” and more as part of an everyday context (cf. Reich et al., 2015). The connection with the regional environment is fundamental not only for the school but also for the city around it, as the following description of an exemplary school (School I) shows:

114

4  Guidelines for Inclusive Schools: Case Studies from Finland The comprehensive school surveyed opened its doors in the fall of 2012. At the time of the survey, the school is a community comprehensive school covering instruction for grades 1–6. The school building was set up as a multi-purpose building to serve the entire residential neighborhood, a district that is only a few years old. Many rooms can also be used as public spaces that are shared by residents of the newly developed district. The school library, for example, is open to the public after school hours. The composition of the student body corresponds to the social stratification of the district. There are pupils with a migration background and from socially disadvantaged families. In addition, there are many students who have been diagnosed with special educational needs.

Opportunities for Participation in Extracurricular Leisure and Physical Activity Activities from the Students’ Point of View As the evaluation of the interviews show, School VI is also perceived by many students as a place where they like to be and where they can meet their friends. Due to the structural framework conditions of the institution (there is a school area and a boarding school area), there is a special need on the part of the boarding school students for extracurricular movement offers. Thus, a large number of extracurricular activites and relatively open exercise programmes have developed in the afternoon at this institution, which are oriented towards the individual needs of the pupils. Thus, people from the outside – especially exercise instructors from (sports) clubs – are brought into the school as experts from “real life” to lead exercise programmes. Many pupils at this particular school take part in these leisure and exercise activities outside lessons in addition to their lessons. The results of the pupil survey indicate that target group-specific offers for pupils with an impairment lead to increased participation in the sports programmes offered by the school. The ­offered activities of School IV take place in the afternoon and are organised by the school. The offers seem to be very popular among the children and adolescents of the institution. The majority of the pupils take part in these offers. One pupil commented on the versatility of the specific movement offers as follows: We can do a lot of things after the lessons. There are a lot of indoor activities at this school, such as table tennis and other table games. (Ilona)

The pupils interviewed mentioned above all the sports and leisure activities on offer outside regular school hours, as this statement shows by way of example: It is great. We can play ‘show down’, go to our indoor playground, and now we will have an outdoor activity day [downhill skiing]. (Jenni)

4.5 Healthy and Active School

115

The investigated special educational institution tries to meet the different needs of the pupils by offering a variety of physical activities. This refers on the one hand to physical education, but also to extracurricular activities in the afternoon. For most of the pupils, the school’s sports and exercise offer is of great importance, as they hardly do any sports outside the school context. The open exercise programme in the afternoon is also perceived as particularly positive: The school offers a lot of activities in the afternoon. Sometimes I play ‘show down’ [blind table tennis]. I also like swimming and the sauna. (Jenni)

The school is perceived by many students as a place where they like to be and where they can meet their friends. The listing of the diverse exercise offers in the afternoon point to a school climate that is “conducive to exercise”. School is seen on the one hand as a learning space, but for many students also as a living space. Due to the school structures with an affiliated boarding school and the spatial framework conditions, the school is perceived by many learners as a place where one would like to stay and spend a productive time.

4.5 Healthy and Active School Bathed in sweat Juha just manages to lift his upper body one last time. Then it’s over. The 16-year-old has just completed the last part of the national fitness program “Schools on the Move” (Finnish: “Liikkuva Koulu”). The first curious classmates are already gathering around his sports teacher Petri to find out how they did in the tests. A fundamental part of Schools on the Move is a review and feedback system that focuses on the physical functioning of all students in Finland’s 5th and 8th grades. The development of the programme was the responsibility of the Faculty of Sports and Health Sciences at the University of Jyväskylä and was funded by the Finnish Ministry of Education and Culture. The Schools on the Move initiative aims to help students and their families understand the relationship between physical activity and its developmental impact and the well-being of children and young people. The goal of the program is to increase physical activity during school hours and beyond. In the long term, therefore, the programme should help to guide children and young people towards a healthy and physically active lifestyle in terms of sport and health education (cf. FNBE, 2016). The measures of the programme include, for example, increasing the physical activity of the pupils during break times, the use of active means of transport (e.g. the bicycle) to school, as well as methods of “moving learn-

116

4  Guidelines for Inclusive Schools: Case Studies from Finland

ing” in the classroom. In the following, the concept of “Bewegte Schule” (in Germany) and the Finnish physical activity programme are presented as two approaches to make the school day more friendly for physical activities. Afterwards, practical examples from everyday school life in Finland will be presented.

4.5.1 Excursus: Conceptual Foundations of the “Moving School” The current concepts of the Bewegte Schule (“physically active schools”) have a long tradition in the German-speaking countries: they emerged more than 25 years ago and have gradually found their way into schools, even if not evenly in all school types (cf. Laging, 2017): Thus, it is mainly primary schools, but also special needs schools, secondary modern schools and comprehensive schools, which tend to be more movement-oriented than secondary modern schools and grammar schools. The basic idea of the Bewegte Schule has become established in the form of mostly practice-oriented concepts in almost all German states, but also in Switzerland and Austria (cf. BASPO, 2013; Laging, 2017). However, not only in German-­speaking countries, but also in many other countries, corresponding initiatives for the implementation of physical activity in everyday school life have developed. McMullen et  al. (2015) have presented international approaches to a “movement-­friendly school” from Finland, Ireland, Poland and the USA. Due to the very different educational and cultural frameworks of these countries, a comparison of the concepts is not very meaningful. However, each country has developed ways to establish physical activity in everyday school life under different conditions. The international wealth of experience of successful strategies, research results and “good practice” models can therefore be shared and discussed across countries. Bewegte Schule: Overview of the Concepts in German-Speaking Countries The concept of the Bewegte Schule goes back to the Swiss Urs Illi and Lukas Zahner. At the beginning of the 1980s, they campaigned to bring more movement into the traditional “sitting school”. The initiative was legitimized by the concept of “compensatory health education”, a health education to prevent unhealthy physical stress caused by sitting (cf. Laging, 2017, p. 69ff.). Subsequently, different physical activity concepts developed in Germany and Austria. In the 1990s, criticism of the traditional “sitting school” also led to the legitimization of a Bewegte Schule in Germany, which was supposed to implement a moving classroom and a moving school life (cf. Laging, 2017). The Bewegte Schule originally legitimized itself in Switzerland as well as in Germany through a deficit health status. A broad discussion in the (sports)

4.5 Healthy and Active School

117

pedagogical literature about the Bewegte Schule led to the development of different conceptual focuses: For example, the importance of movement as a basic anthropological category was included in the discourse, with spatial aspects of movement (e.g., obstruction, enclosure) being the main focus of criticism (cf. Laging, 2017). In Saxony, Müller (2010) also developed a concept of the Bewegte Schule which focuses on the importance of movement for children’s development. For this purpose, supplementary movement occasions for break times, lessons and school life were developed. A developmentally theoretically oriented movement education, which emphasizes the life-world relevance of the learners, understands “moving” as a fundamental medium for mediating between people and the world (cf. among others Laging, 2017). This departure from a confining view of movement and sport has led to a broader perspective on movement: The importance of movement is not only still a topic of physical education, but also receives attention in the teaching of all school subjects as well as in school life in general. This is true at least for the primary level, although in recent years there have been increasing attempts to establish elements of a Bewegte Schule in the secondary level as well (see, among others, Müller & Petzold, 2006). In Switzerland, too, a lot has happened in the meantime: although the compensatory approach of health education still has a legitimating function in more recent education policy documents, the importance of physical activity as a fundamental contribution to the promotion of development and learning at schools is also explicitly emphasized (cf. BASPO, 2013). In addition, the concept focuses on more sustainability, in that initiatives to increase physical activity also have an impact in the areas of leisure and family (cf. Laging, 2017). Austria takes a different approach to the concept of the “Bewegte Schule”: Based on the approach of the World Health Organization (WHO), health orientation is not a compensatory measure in relation to physical inactivity, but is seen as a resilience of learners and pedagogical actors against school or occupational stress (cf. Laging, 2017; Leitner et al., 2015). It is based on Städtler’s (2015) “wheelwork concept” (see Fig. 4.1), which illustrates the interaction of all participants in the school system. Städtler (2015) highlights three fields of action into which all activities of the school can be classified and which interlock like a wheelwork: • “Learning and living space school” (How can the framework conditions of a school – indoor and outdoor spaces – contribute to allowing, challenging and promoting movement)? • “Quality of teaching” (How can learning be made more motivating and effective for pupils and teachers through movement and movement-related activities?) • “Steering and organising school” (How can conducive conditions for a moving school be integrated into the school organisation?)

118

4  Guidelines for Inclusive Schools: Case Studies from Finland

School organizaon

Schools as a Learning and Living space

Teaching quality

Fig. 4.1  “Wheelwork concept”. (Own representation according to Städtler, 2015)

(Sport Complementary) Physical Education The approach of movement education considers movement as a basic anthropological need. Under this understanding, children can experience, know and at the same time shape and form the world through movement (cf. Müller, 2010). Dinter has focused the concept of the moving school in her work on the special focus “mental development”. Based on preliminary work by Müller (2010), the meaning perspectives of the concept of movement education are summarized as follows (cf. Dinter, 2015, p. 41ff.): Movement Enables Differentiated Perceptions and Diverse Experiences: Following Grupe (2000); Müller (2010) refers to the importance of movement situations as opportunities for primary experiences. Through movement, one’s own body and its movement itself, or the environment, can become the object of experiential situations (cf. also Dinter, 2015). Movement Supports Cognitive Learning

4.5 Healthy and Active School

119

From a neurophysiological perspective, versatile movement and sensory activities are considered a stimulus for the formation, interconnection and maintenance of synapses as well as for other processes relevant to learning, and thus a significant basis for perceptual, memory and learning performance (cf. Dinter, 2015; Müller & Dinter, 2013; Zimmer, 2004). Movement Promotes Social Learning Movement leads to situations of “meeting each other” and thus facilitates contact and opportunities for verbal and non-verbal communication. Movement situations also require mutual consideration, acceptance of rules and agreements in groups. Movement Stimulates the Emotional Experience Through the stimulating effect of movement, positive mood changes can be achieved, whereby these in turn have an effect on motivation and the attention and thinking processes (cf. Müller, 2010). By satisfying the basic human need for movement, negative moods or aggressiveness can also be counteracted in everyday school life (cf. Dinter, 2015; Müller, 2010). The alternation between phases of tension and relaxation in the classroom can also lead to an increase in well-being in the school environment (cf. Müller & Petzold, 2006). Movement is an Essential Prerequisite for Motor and Healthy Physical Development With regard to the training of motor skills, a conceptual focus is on enabling diverse movement experiences, and thus an expansion of the movement repertoire and the training of coordinative skills (cf. Dinter, 2015; Müller, 2010). In addition, Müller (2010) sees motor deficits in children as a risk factor for social isolation in the classroom or school environment. In order to ensure the healthy physical and psychological development of learners with deficient movement biographies, targeted movement opportunities are one of the most important support options (cf. Dinter, 2015). Exercise Supports the Development of a Positive Self-Concept According to Müller (2010), the self-concept is directly related to experiences concerning physical abilities and movement actions. Thus, positive movement experiences can have positive effects on the self-concept, while negative movement experiences can have the opposite effect. Müller’s (2010) working group has developed very comprehensive exercise and play suggestions for the classroom, which offer teachers ideas for school practice. However, Laging (2017) critically points out that overall it remains open whether the movement ideas for subject-specific learning are actually subject-specific meaningful links. Thus, it should be questioned whether the learning object can be developed better in the proposed (movement-oriented) way than in non-moving lessons.

120

4  Guidelines for Inclusive Schools: Case Studies from Finland

Levels of Learning in Motion In order to systematize the diverse forms of teaching with movement, a model for classifying the connection between learning and movement was developed in the context of the discussion about moving schools. A distinction is made between two basic forms of learning through movement (cf. Laging, 2008): Learning with movement and learning through movement. Learning with movement has a function that accompanies learning, and can take place in the classroom, for example, in the form of movement breaks and open forms of teaching such as station learning, weekly plan work, as well as self-initiated movement phases (cf. Hildebrandt-­ Stramann, 2014). Learning through movement, on the other hand, has a learning-­ enabling form and is expressed in the fact that movement becomes a medium for the physical-sensory appropriation of learning content. Thus, actions of movement contribute to the development of a learning topic. In an action-oriented lesson, learning development takes place, for example, through movement experiments such as measuring distances or areas with foot length and stride length. Holtappels and Serwe (2009) use another form of systematization to locate the forms of sport and movement as a consistent structural feature – beyond physical education – in the learning culture of the school. A school that considers movement and sport to be a central element of the school and learning culture thus comprises the following levels (cf. Holtappels & Serwe, 2009, p. 71ff.): Level of Subject Teaching or Interdisciplinary Learning In the form of.... • Physical activity breaks and periods in the classroom, • moving learning in the classroom, • Development of extracurricular places of learning through excursions and exploratory walks with movement and action-oriented activities, • Rhythmisation of the school days and the weekly structure with a flexible alternation between movement and concentrated learning work, learning and play, • sport-related projects and knowledge in different subjects In the subject lessons of school sport: • comprehensive movement and theory components for the development of practical skills, knowledge and attitudes, experiencing and experiencing sporting activity,

4.5 Healthy and Active School

121

• Targeted sports support for all learners with regard to special gifts, talents and learning problems, • inter-grade and inter-school sports clubs and sports exercise groups Complementary learning and experience opportunities: • Working groups and courses (e.g. in various sports or in special functional areas such as health sports), • School projects (e.g. school circus, dance, musical) and school mission statements (e.g. good healthy school, violence-free school, moving school), • Active or moving break with opportunities for movement, spaces and equipment for movement (e.g. moving games, sensory paths to promote perception), • Sports days, rides, festivals and competitions. The spectrum of movement opportunities in the classroom and extracurricular context poses special challenges for a school. Therefore, a movement-oriented school development must focus on the school organizational prerequisites that are necessary for the realization of a moving school (cf. Holtappels & Serwe, 2009): This includes, on the one hand, the spatial and material equipment of the school (movement-­friendly designed indoor and outdoor spaces, materials), and, on the other hand, appropriate cooperation and networking opportunities (between school, sports clubs and other institutions).

4.5.2 Approaches and Concepts of a “Moving School” in Finland Similar concepts of the Moving School as in the German-speaking countries have also been established in Finland. Especially in the last two national core curricula, the role of movement in the learning and development process of children and adolescents is emphasized. In addition, the current core curriculum emphasizes the importance of student participation in school culture and the active role of the student in learning (constructivist learning theories) (cf. FNBE, 2004, 2016). In the history of Finnish physical education, a connection to physical activity as a means of health promotion was already established in the national core curriculum of 1843:

122

4  Guidelines for Inclusive Schools: Case Studies from Finland

From a historical perspective, the promotion of students’ well-being through PE and school-based physical activities is not a totally new phenomenon in Finland. PE was included in the school curriculum in 1843 in order to improve students’ poor health. (Haapala, 2017, p. 10)

The subject of physical education was implemented in the curriculum for the first time in 1843, and even then the movement was seen as a way of compensating for health impairments (cf. Haapala, 2017). Physical activity indeed played a role on the curricular level relatively early on, but concepts of Bewegte Schule – as they have existed in German-speaking countries for almost 25 years – have only come more into focus in Finland in recent years. In the following, the largest and most important initiative for movement-oriented school development to date will be presented: The national initiative “Finnish Schools on the Move!”. At the school level, the Schools on the Move! (Finnish: “Liikkuva Koulu”) plays an important role in making the school day more active: Schools on the Move! is a national initiative by the Finnish Ministry of Culture to support physical activity in the school day (as well as beyond). The Schools on the Move! programme started with a pilot phase in 2010–2012 with 45 schools. At the last survey date in May 2017, more than 90% of municipalities and 80% of comprehensive schools (2000 schools) in Finland had already participated (see Haapala, 2017). Background on the Legitimacy of the Programme The project was launched in response to results of health reviews that showed a sharp decline in physical activities of young people in their leisure time. In 2014, the questionnaire-based LIITU study concluded that only 20% of children and adolescents (aged 11–15  years) meet the WHO recommended minimum levels of physical activity, with more boys (23%) than girls (17%) being physically active (see Kokko et al., 2015). Many national research findings have shown that adolescence is a critical period when physical activity declines (cf. Kokko et al., 2015). The World Health Organization (WHO, 2010) recommends that adolescents should engage in moderate physical activities for at least one hour a day to have a positive impact on their health. This includes adolescents with long-term illnesses (LTID), who represent approximately one-sixth of adolescents in Finland (see Rintala et al., 2011). However, the argument for an active school day in Finland is not made exclusively from a health perspective. In particular, developmental and learning theory arguments are used to legitimise the importance of a moving school and learning culture (cf. Haapala, 2017; McMullen et al., 2015).

4.5 Healthy and Active School

123

Objectives and Levels of Action of the Programme The Schools on the Move! initiative is designed to help students and their families understand the connection between physical functioning and student health, daily well-being, coping with daily workloads, and learning. Program interventions include, for example, teaching strategies to increase physical activity during break times, using active public transportation (e.g., cycling) to school, and elements of “moving learning” in the classroom. As Fig. 4.2 shows, different fields of action are addressed within and beyond everyday school life that are to be designed in a movement-oriented way: This concerns physical education and physical activity lessons, forms of learning that involve movement as components of subject lessons, physical activity breaks, school recess times (“school recess”), the way to school, but also sports clubs. Similar to the Swiss model of the “Bewegte Schule” (BASPO, 2013), the Finnish initiative includes not only learning at school, but also the areas of family

School commute

School recess

Breaking up periods of excessive sing and increasing physical acvity during lessons

Sports clubs

Physically acve school days P.E. lessons

Physical acvity integrated in teaching

Fig. 4.2  Fields of action of “Finnish Schools on the Move”. (Own representation according to LIKES, 2017)

124

4  Guidelines for Inclusive Schools: Case Studies from Finland

and leisure time, and considers these three life worlds of children and adolescents as potential fields of action for schools. Furthermore, in addition to the possibilities of a moving school and classroom routine, the importance of reducing sitting time at school and leisure time is also emphasised (see Table 4.1). With regard to the leisure time area, it becomes clear that it is assumed that motor skills are deficient due to a lack of physical activity, which is caused by long periods of sitting in front of the television or computer, or even on the way to school. However, it is questionable whether media use correlates at all with the low levels of physical activity and obesity among children and adolescents found in many Finnish and international studies. An important feature of this programme is a “bottom-up approach” (cf. Haapala, 2017; McMullen et al., 2015): The responsibility for implementing physical activity in the school day lies with the schools at local level. Participating schools and communities apply for funding for the activities. Basically this includes all ideas that help to increase physical activities during the school day and reduce the time of sitting at that time. However, schools are not expected to provide specific measures. The Schools on the Move programme supports schools through training and concrete activities for practical implementation, such as best practice models, and offers advice from experienced mentors at local level (McMullen et al., 2015): Schools are not required to implement specific actions but they can access ideas on how to make the school day more physically active by participating in national seminars. Schools also have the opportunity to get help from a mentor who is trained to support and help with physical activity promotion at their school. (McMullen et al., 2015, p. 387) Table 4.1  Physical activity in the areas of school and leisure. (cf. LIKES, 2017) More physical activity At school Active school commutes physically active breaks P.E. lessons Physical activity during other lessons clubs Possibility for independent physical activity in the school area and premises In leisure Active school commutes time Active commutes to hobbies and friends’ houses Everyday physical activity Physically active hobbies and sports

Less sedentary time Active breaks outdoors Breaking up continuous sedentary periods during lessons Working in standing position during lessons Operational teaching More active sitting techniques Less time playing on the computer less time watching TV Fewer transports to school and hobbies or a part of the journey in a more active manner

4.5 Healthy and Active School

125

The first results of the accompanying study by Haapala (2017) show a positive development in the four Finnish pilot schools that have been part of the Schools on the Move programme from the beginning. All of the ones studied have responded at the school structural level, making the indoor and outdoor spaces of the schools more movement-friendly. This includes the school facilities (e.g. furniture), but also the design of the schoolyard with appropriate equipment such as climbing and sliding facilities. At all schools, the pupils were also involved in the planning and design of the indoor and outdoor spaces. Changes are also evident in the concept of time (cf. Haapala, 2017): Structural and organisational changes mainly concern the rhythmisation of the school day (allowing for significantly more flexible time concepts).

4.5.3 Case Studies: Elements of Active Learning in Everyday School Life The conceptual orientation and the framework conditions of the researched schools seem to have a considerable influence on whether movement activities are integrated more or less strongly into the whole school day. Due to its structural orientation, the special educational institution studied (School IV) has a particularly diverse range of extracurricular physical activity offers. In addition, the mainstream school with a sports profile should be mentioned, which, due to its subject-specific orientation, has specific sports offers (including a freely accessible fitness room) for a certain period of time. However, in the case of the school with a sports profile (School II), there is a clear separation between the various spaces that may be used for occasions of physical activity in everyday school life. The outdoor spaces are functionally divided into different sports facilities such as the gymnasium, athletics facilities and specific sport-related outdoor fields. Other spaces in the school are not meant for physical activity. The school day at School II is also governed by set time structures that are less flexible compared to the other schools. The teaching culture at the school with a sports profile is characterised by a high proportion of frontal teaching and low-movement forms of teaching in the subject lessons. Open opportunities for movement hardly play any role in the extra-curricular chool day either. School III, on the other hand, is characterised by an ambivalent school and teaching culture, which on the one hand is characterised by an opening towards reform pedagogical approaches (e.g. activity and project-oriented teaching, open forms of teaching), but on the other hand also by an adherence to a traditional time structure. The lessons are oriented towards the classical subjects – similar to School

126

4  Guidelines for Inclusive Schools: Case Studies from Finland

II. The teaching cycle in longer and more flexible time blocks, however, lead to a changed learning culture: this is evident at the School III studied in individualised forms of learning and longer group work phases. Movement is also used at this school in the form of “learning through movement” as a means to an end, for example to learn a language. Similar pedagogical objectives such as individualised forms of learning and elements of learning through movement appear as in Schools I and IV. From a spatial and temporal perspective, appropriate movement spaces and a flexible time structure (with longer breaks) play an important role for the pedagogical actors. These considerations aim at a self-determined use of the rooms by the learners. Overall, the impression is conveyed that the school is also regarded by the actors as a space for movement (cf. Hildebrandt-Stramann, 2014). Excerpt from the “School Portrait” of School IV The following excerpt from the “School Portrait” of School IV gives an insight into the “moving” everyday school life of the school studied: Movement plays an important role at school and is integrated into everyday school life in various ways. The spatial conditions of the school and the school environment have an important influence on the movement possibilities of the students. The playground is designed in such a way that it is divided into different functional areas. On the one hand, there are various movement areas (e.g. courts with baskets and goals for target shooting and throwing games), but on the other hand, there are also retreat and quiet areas that are used by the learners to withdraw. The clear division of the outdoor areas into the various functional areas is therefore of great importance, as there are a large number of learners who either have an increased need for movement or, on the contrary, prefer very quiet environments (e.g. the students with an autism spectrum disorder). For these learners, the “confusion” in the playground often represents an excessive challenge, so a division into quiet and movement areas also serves as an orientation aid for the respective students.

A Culture of Learning in Motion At School IV, a school and learning culture has developed that regards movement as an elementary component of everyday school life and as the basis for educational processes. This becomes especially clear in the context of participant observation, where the lessons, due to their temporal and spatial organization, allow for freedom of movement, which promotes an “individualization and socialization of learning and thus opposes learning in  lockstep for all students” (Hildebrandt-­ Stramann, 2014, p. 466). The special spatial concept of the school studied has a particular influence on the learners’ opportunities for movement. Often, the students were given action-oriented and experience-based access to the subject matter,

4.5 Healthy and Active School

127

in which movement implicitly or explicitly played an important role. In this way, it was possible to achieve that the learners engage with the subject matter on their own initiative. Due to the open organisational forms of the lessons, it was often possible to observe movement phases initiated by the learners themselves. These self-initiated movements are especially demanded by the action-oriented teaching and learning concept. This was favoured by the permeability of the premises. Thus, the classrooms are not to be understood in “classical form” as structured and spatially separated learning and teaching areas. Rather, the classroom is to be seen as a “learning landscape” in interaction with the other rooms of the school, whereby predominantly open forms of learning such as station work, as well as group work and free work play a role. From a movement pedagogical perspective, such open learning forms open up an individualisation of the movement needs of the learners. This aspect is particularly important with regard to the diversity of the student body at the school studied. The added value of movement in open forms of learning lies particularly in the fact that the focus is increasingly on the individual child, whereby social-emotional aspects are taken into account in addition to intellectual support, which always develops in the physical engagement with the world (cf. Hildebrandt-­ Stramann, 2014). In addition to the learning-accompanying form of movement in the form of station work and free work, the learning-enabling function of moving (“learning through movement”) also became apparent during the participatory observation. In “learning through movement”, the focus is on making a learning topic or an object of learning tangible and thus comprehensible through the action of movement (cf. Hildebrandt-Stramann, 2014; Laging, 2008). For example, in mathematics lessons, basic mathematical skills were developed through forms of “moving” that opened up learning. A movement-based approach to numbers became evident through the representation of numbers with one’s own body. A sensual approach to numbers was also achieved by counting individual limbs of the body (eyes, ears) or by counting breath and heartbeats. These methodical approaches were individualized and elementarized  – depending on the individual need for ­support – in such a way that all children were given access to the subject of learning. The individual learning opportunities of the individual students differed greatly in some cases, but the teacher still managed to create a common framework for the entire learning group with rituals and a common final round. Thematic forms of moving around became apparent in everyday school life, especially in interdisciplinary lessons. For example, a mathematics teacher used movement to playfully open up different number ranges. The pupils counted the steps by running up and down the steps of the school staircase. In this way, the students were able to playfully move through the number space that corresponds to their level of proficiency and internalize it. While one group of students practiced the number range 0–20 in

128

4  Guidelines for Inclusive Schools: Case Studies from Finland

Fig. 4.3  The “number staircase”

simple number steps, other students were able to orient themselves playfully in 5 steps in the number range up to 100. Even two blind pupils were able to gain meaningful access to the subject matter through this action-oriented approach. This example is only one of many in which the teacher succeeded in making a learning object tangible through movement action, and in which the entire learning group also engaged in a joint discussion (Fig. 4.3).

4.5 Healthy and Active School

129

Extracurricular Activities at School IV Movement Possibilities in Break Situations School IV has also responded to the needs of learners who require special support through targeted offers when playing when designing the movement offers during the breaks. There are many learners who find it difficult to initiate games with others. It is true that the schoolyard is designed in such a diverse and attractive way that it offers movement stimuli for all learners. However, there are also students who still need support in accessing these movement opportunities. For this reason, there is a teacher who implements a guided play offer during the breaks in order to address those students who do not succeed in joining in the movement games and other activities and tend to take on the role of loners. As a rule, the teacher takes up the wishes of the respective pupils and tries to integrate them into the movement offer. Participation in Working Groups Due to the structural framework conditions of the institution (there is a school area and a boarding school area), there is a special need on the part of the boarding school students for extracurricular exercise offers. Thus, a large number of workshops and relatively open movement offers have developed in the afternoon at this institution, which are oriented towards the individual needs of the pupils. A pedagogical focus, which is also anchored in the school programme, is the open and very diverse study group and care offer, which also include Motorpädagogik lessons. This requires the appropriate spatial and personnel conditions. Reliable care times are part of the concept of the school and the boarding area. These are also organised after lessons in the afternoon in cooperation with the boarding school staff. In addition to lunch, the care offer includes a large number of voluntary working groups and open, supervised leisure and exercise activities in the afternoon. In the extra-curricular area, there is a whole range of sporting activities which the pupils can take part in during the afternoon. The artistic AGs include “Theatre”, “Dance” and the “School Band”. The work groups are also oriented towards the seasons: For example, winter sports events take place every year, which are taken up in clubs. Open Offers The freely accessible spatial and material resources are also used for “open” offers in the afternoon: In addition to the very spacious school grounds, the school has several rooms that can also be used outside of class and are equipped accordingly to be movement-friendly. An example is a psychomotor room, as well as various recreational rooms with play and seating facilities (see Fig. 4.4). The

130

4  Guidelines for Inclusive Schools: Case Studies from Finland

Fig. 4.4  “Recreation room” with billiard table

equipment of the rooms and materials are strongly oriented towards the individual needs of the user groups, and also include specific play equipment such as so-called “showdown”7 boards.

4.6 Accessible and Well-Designed School In recent years, more publications have appeared on the relationship between school architecture and inclusion (see, among others, Imhäuser, 2014; Lelgemann, 2013). However, these contributions mainly focus on two aspects (cf. Zenke, 2017): Thus, inclusive school architecture largely focuses on “structural accessibility”, which in turn is closely linked to the aspect of physical disability. Consequently, the “barrierfree” planning of a school building focuses on structural c­ onditions that need to be taken into account in order to enable the inclusion of physically disabled students. However, if one does not reduce the claim of inclusion to the aspect of physical or motoric impairment alone, but rather takes all heterogeneity dimensions into consideration, an “inclusive didactics” inevitably comes to the fore in addition to a  Showdown is a blind-specific sport similar to air hockey. Two players play against each other on a table and try to get a ball into the opponent’s goal with a stick. 7

4.6 Accessible and Well-Designed School

131

barrier-free school architecture. A concept in terms of content and space is necessary in order for the building project to meet the individual needs of the school community. Basically, according to Reich (2014), an inclusive school should be conceived as a living and working area that offers learners as well as teachers not only instructional spaces, but spatial perspectives with different action, social and retreat areas in which very different needs can be met. This doesn’t apply not only to the school building itself, but also to school and break yards. The design of school and playgrounds (as well as playgrounds) must therefore inevitably take into account various impairment-specific needs (e.g. tactile guidelines for visually impaired pupils) with regard to barrier-free design (cf. Bükers et  al., 2020). In addition to a barrier-free design of the spatial conditions for people with various impairments, a “school for all” also involves special spatial concepts. For the realization of an inclusive didactics, spatial conditions are necessary that allow adaptive and differentiated teaching in co-teaching, as well as phases for the creation of commonality or “meeting each other” of all students (Kullmann et al., 2014). Pupils with special needs in the areas of intellectual and emotional or social development also often have a particularly pronounced need for movement (cf. Reich et al., 2015; Dinter, 2015). Rooms that are used for movement within the school building are just as available in the schools studied as rest and retreat areas. In many classrooms, there are also sofas or seating arrangements as a possibility for rest breaks and for a short retreat from the daily learning routine. Direct access from the break yard with corresponding cloakrooms in the entrance area contribute to structuring and calming the entire daily routine within the schools. These spatial organisation principles can be found in many Finnish school buildings today (cf. Altenmüller, 2008). In addition, the centrally located common areas such as the assembly hall and the cafeteria are often the focus of the schools studied (see Fig. 4.5). The interplay of the possible uses creates places of encounter, communication and shared learning (cf. Altenmüller, 2008, p. 235). The following excerpt from one of the prepared “school portraits” gives an insight into the typical spatial structures of the examined School IV. In this context, various “good practice examples” are shown with regard to needs-based school and break yard design, taking into account “material-­ spatial accessibility” (cf. Bükers et al., 2020).

4.6.1 Barrier-Free School Architecture with Flexible Room Structures The building of the examined School IV was structurally designed so that all entrances are equipped with a wheelchair ramp. In addition, the school building has wheelchair accessible lifts. Different places of learning and dwelling have been

132

4  Guidelines for Inclusive Schools: Case Studies from Finland

Fig. 4.5  Assembly hall of school I

taken into account, which are accessible “barrier-free”: “arrival areas”, places to dwell for individual, quiet work and learning, indoor and outdoor lounging areas, and sports and play areas. The school grounds and the school building have been designed in such a way that the pupils have a very attractive learning and living space at their disposal. Materials such as books, magazines and various computer programmes are available for independent work in the classrooms. Many children use the materials independently in open learning and free work phases. Pupils’ lockers as well as filing systems and material cupboards are available in the classrooms and are designed according to the specific needs of the learners. In many classrooms there are also “feel and touch posters” on the walls for visually ­impaired pupils. The corridor areas are also stimulatingly designed with the results of various pupils’ work and with tactilely perceptible materials. Through the new construction of the school building and the outdoor area, which was completed in 2015, an expansion of the spatial offer and thus also an improvement of the movement possibilities could be achieved. The plan for the new school building and the outdoor area was developed by a school working group consisting of the school

4.6 Accessible and Well-Designed School

133

management, teachers and architects in a work process lasting several years. In the everyday school life of the school under study, spaces for movement are not only limited to the obligatory gymnasiums and sports fields. Movement areas near the classrooms and flexible furniture in the classrooms are integrated into school life as an integral part of a “moving” school. In this way, the school responds to the particularly pronounced need for movement of pupils with emotional or social support needs. The modern, barrier-free school building has a special room concept, which is specifically designed for the needs of blind and visually impaired, hearing impaired and physically impaired students. The exceptional equipment (learning rooms, noise-reduced learning niches, materials) offer versatile learning and movement opportunities for the learners. All learners have the opportunity to use assistive technologies (e.g. screen reader, Braille display). Their workplaces are – according to their specific support needs – equipped for the disabled (Fig. 4.6). Overall, there are excellent opportunities for physical education, both inside and outside the school building (e.g. swimming pool with sauna, fitness room, sports hall with climbing wall, indoor and outdoor playground). The school building offers many retreats that allow for quiet activities and occupation on one’s own. There are niches and seating areas available for the students. There are seating and rocking elements in almost all classrooms and in many alcoves. These are used by pupils during group work phases and free work phases. In the classrooms there are height-adjustable swivel chairs, which were intentionally purchased so that the

Fig. 4.6  Typical classroom of the examined school IV

134

4  Guidelines for Inclusive Schools: Case Studies from Finland

children can change their sitting positions and also satisfy their “urge to move”. For playing, the pupils can use structurally fixed playground equipment arrangements as well as mobile playground equipment in the outdoor area. The schoolyard consists of different floor coverings, which offer different forms of play and movement. A large part of the area is asphalted, which allows the use of wheeled equipment and is therefore accessible for wheelchair users. However, there is also the opportunity to play football and other ball sports. In addition to the playground equipment, there are also trees and bushes in the vicinity which are also used by the pupils for playing. The outdoor playground and soccer field are also used for physical activity opportunities during class time and also during recess. The large natural area near the school is used for playing tag, hide and seek and other activities. Also “outdoor” sports like orienteering or cross-country skiing in winter are made possible by the forest and the natural landscape around the school (Fig. 4.7). In addition, the use of assembly facilities for different group sizes as well as everyday encounters in the common school room is possible in everyday life. ­Practically, these are used for common lunch breaks, school events and workshops, in which all students of the school meet. Thus, all learners of the school have the opportunity to find out about themselves as part of the (school) community, which promotes the emergence of a school community in the sense of a “polis” (von Hentig, 2006, p. 33). In the interviews and informal conversations it became clear that the school is perceived by many learners as an experiential space for living in

Fig. 4.7  The outdoor area of the examined school IV

4.6 Accessible and Well-Designed School

135

a community. The spatial framework conditions contribute to the fact that a feeling of belonging to a learning group and to the school as a whole is created although lessons are highly individualised. Permeable and Flexible Room Structures The rooms of School IV are characterized on the one hand by their flexibility, which allows different activities and social forms at the same time. Thus, in all classrooms there are tables and chairs for concentrated work, a play corner for playing, a sofa for resting, a whiteboard for joint practice and presentation, a group table for larger discussion rounds as well as a carpet for playing. In addition, the spatial conditions are characterised by a certain permeability, which easily allows access to other parts of the building and rooms such as learning niches in the corridor and movement activities (Fig. 4.8). In the researched schools, a pedagogical environment is available that flexibly adapts to the changing composition of its student body and is accordingly able, both situationally and conceptually, to react sensitively to individual students with their respective special abilities and needs (cf. Zenke, 2017). Due to the spatial framework conditions, it is possible to allow different social forms and activities at the same time. The independent transfer to adjacent rooms and areas is given by the room arrangement. The multifunctional use of the rooms and the furniture makes it possible in a special way to do justice to the individuality of the learners. Thus,

Fig. 4.8  Learning niches in the corridor of school IV

136

4  Guidelines for Inclusive Schools: Case Studies from Finland

within the framework of the participant observation, it was possible to document how several parallel activities of individual children were carried out over longer periods of time during the daily teaching routine: While Jenni and Mika build a house on the carpet, Jari, Paul and Tom play a card game together on the sofa. Martin, Otto and Selma are each working on individual worksheets at their desks. Meanwhile, Marku and Timo are playing “Showdown” together in the school hallway. Eva, a student with an autism spectrum disorder, works with her learning guide in one of the study niches outside the classroom. The activities observed were also frequently carried out in conjunction with movement, such as in the form of free work, station learning and forms of movement initiated by the learners themselves. The open space thus becomes a learning space in the sense of Städtler (2009), offering space for spontaneous movement activities. In the indoor and outdoor areas of the entire school, the children are offered many opportunities for action that encourage them to play and move again and again. For example, there are open-access spaces that invite children to play billiards, as well as opportunities for table football and showdown games in the school corridor. Aditionally, there are many study niches that provide an acoustic shelter for quiet work. On the one hand, the outdoor area offers permanently installed sports and play facilities such as football pitches and climbing frames. On the other hand, there are also natural hills to run up and down, areas to move on rollers and glide, but also places used for relaxation and conversation. Rooms and the corresponding equipment for therapeutic work, e.g. for physiotherapy and speech therapy, are integrated as part of the space programme at the school. For the physical care of pupils with complex impairments, in addition to the personnel framework conditions, appropriate rooms for personal hygiene are also important. Space for the Creation of Commonality The creation of commonality has a firm place in the school concept and also in the everyday school life of the school studied. Commonality is established in the individual learning groups through the change of instructional phases, from rather individualized work phases to deliberately designed gatherings of the entire group. Thus, depending on the class size, the classroom is usually rearranged to allow for a sitting circle. Within the sitting circle, the individual learning groups meet several times during the course of each school day for joint activities. In the morning there is a “morning circle” in which the daily routine is discussed. In the context of the sitting circle, however, presentations of individual work are also presented and honoured in front of the assembled group. In addition to these assemblies in the respective learning groups, there are assemblies in larger groups several times a week, in which the learning groups of the primary level (all classes of levels 1–6),

4.7 Supportive Learning Environment

137

for example, meet across classes. This is the case, for example, in the weekly choir, which is organised by a music teacher together with voluntary pupils. The assemblies in the large groups take place in the school’s assembly hall, which serves as a meeting and event location for the entire school community. The lunch of all pupils of the school is also taken in the assembly hall. The examples outlined clearly show how much the flexibility and permeability of the school spaces are used to create a feeling of community. Following on from the considerations of Zenke (2017), each learning group finds a suitable place for gathering and “meeting” that corresponds to their respective size and activity.

4.7 Supportive Learning Environment I love it here in this school that the students have a close relationship with each other, also with the teacher. There is an open school culture. This open culture is very good for the school community. It helps both, students and teachers, so we often know the problems before something happens. (Matti)

This quote from a teacher emphasises the importance of an “open school culture” for the development of a functioning school community. This statement also makes clear that an “open school culture” can have a preventive effect for possible school conflicts. The interviewed teacher points out that learners can confide in the teachers with their possible problems at an early stage. The potential for conflict can thus be recognised early enough and be solved together with all those involved.

4.7.1 A School for Well-Being The Finnish Curriculum (2016) emphasizes the importance of well-being and (positive) social climate as important components of an inclusive school culture. They are considered indicators for a positive design of the school learning and living space. Their implementation is the responsibility of each school at the local level (see FNBE, 2016; Lähdemäki, 2019). In the school context, well-being is closely linked to social climate, and is addressed in the UN Disability Convention under the aspect of social participation. The subject areas of these three concepts are closely intertwined, but each has its own specificity (cf. Hascher, 2017): While well-being is captured from the subjective perspective of the respective person and focuses on the individual experience, social climate maps the social-emotional di-

138

4  Guidelines for Inclusive Schools: Case Studies from Finland

mension of the institution school through collective perception and experience. Under the multidimensional construct of social participation fall aspects such as the quality of interactions, relationships and mutual acceptance, as well as explicitly the self-perception of students with special learning needs (cf. Hascher, 2017). From the students’ perspective, subjectively perceived well-being is based on a positive assessment of the school environment and of their own role as part of the school and class community. This also seems to be in line with the findings of the present study: Some of the interviewed students were particularly positive about the specific offers and conditions in their school environment and linked these to their subjectively perceived well-being. Perceived well-being is also closely correlated with willingness to learn and perform (cf. Hascher, 2017): Those who feel good are more willing to take on school challenges and the efforts involved. Calm and respectful interaction, positive social relationships and an attractively designed learning environment are identified in the framework of the national core curriculum as conditions for success for a harmonious and constructive working atmosphere: A calm and accepting mood, good social relationships and an attractive environment promote a harmonious and pleasant working atmosphere. (FNBE, 2016, p. 47)

On the other hand, negative experiences such as failures and conflicts are also part of the students’ world of experience. Well-being can have a protective effect in this respect: On the one hand, personal well-being can have a preventive effect against aggression and violence, and on the other hand, it can have a protective function in helping children and adolescents cope with negative experiences (cf. Hascher, 2017). Well-being and a positive social climate are based on a pedagogy of recognition by adults (Hafeneger et al., 2013) and a positive approach to the diversity of aspects of achievement (cf. Prengel, 2006). These aspects can be seen as a necessary foundation of all school interactions (cf. Hascher, 2017). An Inclusive School as a Culture of Relationships In the Finnish schools studied, hierarchies are hardly recognisable, adults and pupils address each other by their first names and are on first name terms. The same applies to communication between adults, regardless of their function in the school. Despite (or perhaps because of) the seemingly flat hierarchies, the interaction with each other is characterized by respect. Kricke (2015) made a similar experience in the context of her study: Being on first-name terms would already reduce one level of hierarchy and reinforce acting “at eye level” between all school actors. Overall, communication among each other is characterised by flat hierarchies. This is also reflected in the statements of an interviewed teacher, for example:

4.7 Supportive Learning Environment

139

Our school structure seems bureaucratic, but the basic principle of Finnish schools is that everyone is on the same level. Teachers and principals. I remember when I was in Germany and the teachers said that they had to call the principal there with the last name. Even the teachers (…) In our school, everyone is always called by the first name. Even teachers and students. Students call the teacher by the first name. And it creates a kind of nice equal system. But it doesn’t mean that the teacher wouldn’t be a teacher and the student not a student. Yes, there is still the difference. We know our roles. But it is easier for the students to approach you. (Tuomas)

Also in the interviews with the pedagogical staff at School III, a pleasant atmosphere is reported in the teaching staff and between the pupils. The contact between the teachers and the school management is described as open. The interviewed special needs teacher attributes the teacher-pupil relationship, which is characterised by mutual respect, to the inclusive school system and commented on this as follows: Because the school system has been very equal and already for decades there has been the idea that everyone has the same opportunities. We don’t have this kind of hierarchy. I do not think that this is a big problem here. (Suvi)

The special needs teacher emphasizes the importance of a climate conducive to learning and a culture of relationships that is not characterized by hierarchies. She also emphasises that a heterogeneity-affirming attitude is important for teachers to enable pupils to learn together – regardless of their personalities – and thus prevent separation. Another special needs teacher (Janika) sometimes finds it difficult to cooperate with parents, but considers it necessary for both sides  – parents and teachers – to cooperate in the best interest of the child: And it is a very small percentage of parents that are like that. They can get quite difficult sometimes. But I think that every time when the parents and the teachers are on the same side, we have the opportunity try to do the best for the child. So it seems like it is the best opportunity for the child. Even though we might have a problematic situation. I think it is really important that parents and teachers work together. (Janika)

She further comments that the cooperation depends strongly on the interest of the parents and that this has to be accepted: We invite parents every time when we have some special days at school. And some parents come and they really enjoy it. And some parents never show up even if we have prepared something special for the parents. But I think this is just how it is. (Janika)

140

4  Guidelines for Inclusive Schools: Case Studies from Finland

From the interview passages of the Finnish teachers, flat hierarchies in relation to communicative behaviour can be filtered out, which contribute to the well-being of all actors. During the participant observation, an “authentic relationship” (Stobbe, 2014, p. 275) between the different actors could often be observed at the researched schools, which was noticeable on the classroom and extracurricular level. In class, for example, students independently demanded explanations from the teacher or from classmates. Outside of class, many teachers were important contacts for the students regarding a wide variety of topics. These observations refer to the relationship level between students and the school staff as well as between the teachers themselves.

4.7.2 Culture of Promotion In the everyday teaching I experienced at different schools in Finland, a “culture of support” (cf. Kricke, 2015) could be observed. Since almost all students are taught according to the same curriculum, internal and external differentiation measures play an important role. Within the common lessons in the class group, these are primarily differentiation measures with regard to the teaching materials or the tasks. For example, in the subjects mathematics and German there are different textbook versions which deal with the same topics but differ in scope and level of difficulty. All learners receive individual support when needed, also from the special needs teachers. The individual support has the character of “tutoring” in the subjects in which the pupils have difficulties. A big challenge in dealing with heterogeneous pupils is also the concrete pedagogical action. Some special needs teachers emphasize that individual support is mainly about building on individual strengths: And it is important to focus on the good qualities and not to concentrate on the problems. This is the main challenge. (Janika)

On the other hand, the interviewed special needs teacher notes self-critically that the individual support of the “weaker” pupils is sometimes at the expense of the better-performing pupils: I could also help those children who are actually the top of the class. Those students often receive less attention. I would like to have more time and resources for them. Finally, we have to prioritize. (Janika)

4.7 Supportive Learning Environment

141

The teacher’s effort to do justice to all learners becomes clear in this statement. However, she links the possibilities of individual support to the lack of time resources, which leads to a prioritization of support for certain children and adolescents. It becomes clear that the interviewed teacher is rather oriented towards the “weaker” pupils and makes them the starting point of her didactic decisions. Another special needs teacher emphasises that the individual support of pupils with learning and behavioural difficulties is not only about content-related aspects, but also about supporting the learners in emotional situations: There is a lot of empowering work that I do with them to support their self-esteem. I think this is the most important thing, to find their strengths and then start to build on those. (Suvi)

These statements indicate a positive form of dealing with heterogeneity. The development of a positive self-image of the learners is in the foreground. However, the special needs teacher is also of the opinion that some colleagues find it difficult to change their deficit-oriented view: So that is the main thing that I am trying to change in schools. Please give them more positive feedback. If you focus on their strengths, they are going to be stronger. If you focus on the negative things, it is going to become worse. This is the main thing that I recommend to schools and teachers. They must focus on the good. But this is very difficult for some teachers. (Suvi)

The departure from a deficit-oriented perspective is seen by the interviewed teacher as a great challenge for teachers that needs to be overcome. It remains to be said that individual support measures are an important element at the mainstream schools researched. Open teaching settings contribute to the fact that individual support is also possible within the class group. Within the framework of the participant observation, the majority of lessons could be observed in which the learners received individual tasks tailored to them. The learners receive individual learning opportunities in the context of open teaching settings, both individually and in small groups (e.g. acquisition of basic mathematical skills). Open forms of teaching (e.g. in the form of daily and weekly planning work, free work) enable the learners to take responsibility for their own learning processes and to design them in an action-oriented way.

142

4  Guidelines for Inclusive Schools: Case Studies from Finland

Practical Example School I: Individual Support and Joint Learning Situations During the participant observation it became clear that the teaching and learning culture established at the school offers a suitable methodological framework for individualisation and differentiation. This basic “support mentality” was reflected in the actions of the special needs teachers as well as partly in the actions of the subject and class teachers. Due to the overall good staffing ratio and the comparatively small school classes, the school has created the basic conditions to enable individual support measures. Pupils with special needs for movement get their money’s worth in such open forms of teaching by being given free space, e.g. in the form of movement breaks, which they can use to “let off steam” in the school corridor or the outdoor area. Thus, within the framework of the participant observation, teaching phases were frequently documented in which the learners are granted a fundamental freedom to move individually in the school. Learning can take place at one’s own rhythm due to the individualisation of the lessons, whereby a physical engagement with the content is also made possible (cf. Stobbe, 2014). In addition, within the framework of the observed teaching sequences, phases could be observed again and again in which the “learning on a common object” coined by Feuser (1998) became visible. The sensitive perception of the needs of the pupils could be observed exemplarily when the special needs teacher offered the conspicuous pupil Mauri, who had previously interrupted the lesson several times by heckling and motoric restlessness, the choice to leave the classroom and take a “movement break”. Mauri accepted this offer and left the classroom in order to act out his urge to move in the school corridor. A few minutes later, when a change of teaching phase had already taken place and an open working phase was initiated by the class teacher, Mauri re-entered the room and took part in the teaching process. He first approached the special needs teacher and asked for a work assignment. In dialogue with the pupil, a learning task from the weekly plan was found, which Mauri dealt with in depth over a longer period of time. In doing so, the teacher obviously succeeded in achieving an approach to the topic that was individually meaningful for the pupil and which Mauri dealt with out of his own motivation. In the concrete lesson example, the class was supposed to deal with the planning of a project week. In doing so, the pupils were able to achieve an individual approach to the topic by collecting suggestions for topics together with the special needs teacher, which had an individual connection to life and could be integrated into the project week. In doing so, the connection to the lifeworld was not only established through the contents, but also through the interaction with the teacher, in that the inclusion of the pupil’s experiences with previous project weeks was taken up and discussed. In the collaboration between teacher and student it became clear that it

4.7 Supportive Learning Environment

143

was characterized by an “authentic relationship building” (Stobbe, 2014, p. 275) between teacher and student and that there was a genuine interest of the teacher in the topics of the student. Due to the individual orientation of learning in the daily classroom routine, it is of particular importance that the learners also repeatedly experience themselves in the community and develop a sense of belonging to the learning group. Within the framework of the participatory observation, this alternation between open, individualised forms of work and ritualised means of shaping the community (through a common initial and final meeting in the sitting circle) could be identified as a core element of everyday teaching. In the context of the final circle, all learners had the opportunity to contribute their ideas and favourite topics for the design of the project week. Due to the variety of topics, the first step was to agree on topics that seemed relevant to all or as many learners as possible. In this way it became clear that the individual needs of the learners were also “heard” and taken seriously by the whole class community. In this way, the learners experienced themselves in a democratic cooperation, in which a transparent vote on the desired topics was held at the end. Practical Example School II: Support of Pupils with Special Educational Needs During the participant observation at School II it became clear that the teaching in separate support groups is understood by the school actors as an everyday form of support. On the other hand, it is mainly aimed at learners with diagnosed special educational needs. The flexibility and permeability of the support measures demanded in the Finnish core curriculum (2016) is not given due to the school structures (spatial separation, segregative teaching organisation). At the school under study, exemplary teaching sequences were observed in physical education and subject lessons in different grades, which were characterised by a low level of heterogeneity. Only two pupils with a diagnosed autism spectrum disorder were taught together in subject lessons. Mostly, the lessons in the regular classes were conducted by a specialist teacher, the pupils with special educational needs were taught spatially separated in a support room. The participatory observed (subject) teaching in the core subjects often moves according to fixed criteria and follows fixed procedures and routines. Due to the relatively homogeneous learning groups, teaching in the classroom usually takes place in lockstep for all students. This becomes clear in the lessons, for example, by the fact that internal differentiation measures are hardly used. In learning phases, worksheets were often designed in a uniform form with regard to the content and the degree of difficulty of the tasks. Differences in performance between students are primarily dealt with as individual deficits compared to a “norm” set by the teacher. Individual differences are dealt

144

4  Guidelines for Inclusive Schools: Case Studies from Finland

with, if possible, by compensating for these temporary deficits, e.g. through supplementary support lessons for the lower-performing pupils. The subject teachers themselves seem to feel responsible for the group of pupils who permanently belong to their class. This also includes those pupils who fall behind the level of the class for a short period of time, but not the learners with long-term or permanent difficulties (in the form of special support). Differences thus become the essential starting point of instructional action, whereby teachers are oriented towards the goal of overcoming them (cf. Sturm, 2016). Individual support measures, as can be seen for example in separate support settings, are therefore carried out relatively detached from the lessons in the “regular classes”. Support takes place according to individual needs and on the basis of the learning plan, but is hardly oriented towards a common (learning) subject.

4.7.3 Concept of Performance and Performance Evaluation Basis for Assessing Performance In the context of achievement, many pedagogical approaches emphasize an orientation towards an individual benchmark, i.e.: individual development and personal learning progress (cf. Reich, 2014; Weigelt, 2015). This way of thinking meets resistance insofar as a standardized notion of achievement exists in many standardized frameworks, which cannot be met by all learners in the context of teaching in heterogeneous learning groups. Certain performance expectations cannot even be “achieved” by some learners due to their individual prerequisites. Standardised assessment standards, as they are still quite common in school practice, are unsuitable for performance assessment in heterogeneous learning groups. From a special educational perspective, the concept of performance is closely linked to the areas of “diagnostics” and “support planning” (cf. Weigelt, 2015). The determination of individual performance or learning progress is based on a support plan. This common practice in the special school sector has not yet been able to establish itself in mainstream schools in Germany. In Finland, the so called IEP (Förderplan) is a widespread and accepted instrument for personal performance determination in mainstream schools. The different support needs of a child are analysed in different areas (“key content areas”) and in consultation with the relevant actors (multi-­ professional team) support goals and appropriate support measures are defined. The performance evaluation is based on the support goals defined in the support plans, which are regularly reviewed and, if necessary, revised or reformulated. This procedure has also become established in common practice at German support ­institutions. In Germany, however, a prerequisite for drawing up a support plan is

4.7 Supportive Learning Environment

145

always a preceding diagnostic procedure, which in Finland is only necessary from the most comprehensive support level (“special support”) onwards. In Finland, the first step in determining the other support levels is an informal discussion and documentation, on the basis of which support measures are taken and goals are recorded together with the pupil in a personal learning plan. The Role of Grading The teaching guidelines in Finland are given in three steps for grades 1–2, 3–6 and 7–9. In each grade, the objectives and contents of the subject are listed, as well as the descriptions of good performance at the end of the sixth grade and the final assessment criteria at the end of the ninth grade. In the description of good performance at the end of the fifth grade and the final assessment criteria for a grade of 8, no concrete performance expectations are defined; the formulations are very open and leave room for individual modification at the school or classroom level. From the 8th grade at the latest, Finnish pupils receive a school evaluation in the form of a grade (cf. FNBE, 2004, p. 42). At the school level, the exact timing of the introduction of grades is decided in the college and in consultation with the families (cf. Kricke, 2015). In Finland, grades are given from 4–10, with 10 being the best and 4 the worst. Grades may be given from grade 5 onwards, but often grades are not given until grade 6 or later. Until then, written assessments are common. Under the aspect of “achievement”, it becomes clear that in the curricula examined, the experience of individual progress in achievement is fundamentally aimed at, while at the same time the importance of individual achievement for one’s own personality development (“personal growth”) is also emphasised. Consideration of Individual Requirements The assessment criteria indicate that the learner’s individual circumstances – special needs and state of health – must be taken into account in both assessment and instruction: The manner and timing of performance assessment should always be based on the learner’s individual abilities. In principle, however, assessment should be based on (classroom) observations: “The assessment is performed by observing the pupil’s actions and work” (FNBE, 2016, p. 452). In terms of performance assessment, different methods – comparable to ‘disadvantage compensation’ – can be used to enable the learner to perform at his or her best. The forms of disadvantage compensation are further elaborated in the curriculum and are usually carried out with the same subject requirements. The differentiation with regard to the type of performance also includes possible aids, which must be further specified depending on the support needs:

146

4  Guidelines for Inclusive Schools: Case Studies from Finland

The possibilities of using information and communication technology and giving oral demonstrations of knowledge and skills are also ensured where necessary. Additionally, the accessibility of any aids that the pupils may need is ensured, and the required assistant services are provided. Even mild learning difficulties and any shortcomings in the pupils’ skills in the language of instruction should be taken into account when planning and implementing assessment and demonstration situations. (FNBE, 2016, P. 84)

For the interviewed teachers, the specifications of the national curriculum play an important role in legitimising a transparent performance assessment with regard to the parents. Thus, it is also comprehensible for outsiders on the basis of which reference standards a performance is evaluated and how the grade is composed. One special needs teacher (Julia) also sees the new curriculum as an opportunity, as it offers a variety of possibilities for assessing the performance of pupils with special educational needs. In her statements, the special needs teacher refers specifically to the possibilities of performance assessment anchored in the new framework curriculum (2016), which are used in the form of different methods – comparable to the already mentioned “compensation for disadvantages”  – so that the learners can show their best possible performance. However, the teacher’s statements indicate that the possibilities of “disadvantage compensation” have not yet arrived in school practice in the form in which they are listed on the curricular level. At the special educational institution, the pedagogical actors link the concept of performance closely to the aspect of individual support. In this context, the binding individual support plan plays an important role with regard to performance assessment. Thus, the lessons should be adapted to the individual abilities and needs of the students, which goes hand in hand with a process-oriented performance assessment by the responsible class team. The interviewed teacher focuses on the importance of the individual support plan (IEP) for the process of performance assessment: Because in this document you also need to write down what kind of assistance you need, study aids, different materials and any special skills you are heading for. So those are included in the individual plan, so otherwise nobody would take care of them. (Janika)

The specific support goals and measures are recorded in consultation with the respective support team and regularly evaluated. According to the teacher, this is obligatory after the second school year and after the sixth school year, or whenever the special focus of the child changes:

4.7 Supportive Learning Environment

147

Actually, after second grade it is compulsory to evaluate it and then after 6th grade again (…) But, also each time when the child’s support changes you have to evaluate it. (Janika)

In addition to the description of short- and long-term learning competencies, the individual learning plan includes a regular evaluation of the student’s progress and a continuous assessment of this progress (cf. Mero & Meri, 2017). In doing so, learners should – within their individual possibilities – be involved in the assessment and reflection of their performance. Insight into the Practice of Performance Assessment in Finland In practice, the Finnish schools studied showed a diverse approach to performance assessment: the use of an individual reference standard was evident at both the primary and the remedial institution in the form of learning diaries and regular “round tables” of teachers with pupils and parents to discuss individual support and learning plans. The following observations from School IV can be cited as examples: At School IV, the individual pupils receive a very individualised learning offer, which is evaluated in the form of regular support plan discussions. This is shown in concrete terms, for example, in the work on the weekly work plan and the documentation of learning progress in the corresponding support plans. Within the framework of the weekly work plan, the focus is on the establishment of self-directed learning strategies. The learners can therefore decide for themselves which tasks they will work on, when and with whom, and how much time they will need for this. Due to the individual learning formats and diverse learning outcomes, very different forms of performance assessment are also implemented at School IV. In the form of “learning diaries”, the students independently enter their individual weekly goals and reflect at the end of the week on the extent to which they have achieved these goals. In regular “round tables” of the teachers with the pupils and parents, the different formats of performance feedback are included and used for the further development of the individual support goals in the support and learning plans.

At the two lower secondary schools studied, however, there was a tendency towards a more traditional approach to student performance. Thus, performance assessment was primarily oriented towards “standardised” performance requirements in classical examinations. The examination of the performance was carried out selectively in performance situations, which were characterised by the fact that at the moment of action it was important to perform as well as possible (e.g. in examination and competition situations). Overall, it also became clear that a combination of verbal assessment and numerical grades is the most common in Finnish

148

4  Guidelines for Inclusive Schools: Case Studies from Finland

everyday school life across all types of schools. While assessment in the form of grades plays a subordinate role in primary and special schools, it has a central function in the two lower secondary schools, also because it is more significant for secondary school (upper secondary school) and the later career prospects of the learners.

4.8 Learners with Special Needs 4.8.1 Support Needs in a School for All In an inclusive school, the term support needs – according to Reich (2014) – is not only reduced to people with a disability, but also applies to broad social groups with a disadvantage, people with a migration background, but also groups that fall out of the “mainstream”, such as highly gifted people. Thus, an inclusive school assumes in principle that all people have a certain need for support: The term support often has a bad reputation in Germany because it is associated with being sent to special education schools. In an inclusive school, the term immediately becomes a stigma if it is reserved only for certain groups or individuals. Therefore, in an inclusive school, it makes sense to determine the need for supports for all students in a site assessment. (Reich, 2014)

In Finland, the concept of support has become established in everyday pedagogical life and does not have a stigmatising effect. An important role is played by the educational policy guidelines, which consider individual support as a necessary strategy for success at school (cf. FNBE, 2004, 2016). Thereby, according to Grubb et al. (2005, p. 19) the “equity strategies” of the Finnish educational policy consist in essence of the following measures: • Early identification of learning difficulties • Provision of a multi-professional support system within the school to relieve the teachers and to ensure intensive support. • Prioritize common education to mitigate stigmatizing effects of specialization. In the school context, Finland does not link special needs education to a formal diagnosis of specific disabilities or special needs. Support is organised in three levels, depending on the type and intensity of the support measures (cf. FNBE, 2016). The first level of support (general support) is generally accepted as a support measure and is considered an integral part of everyday school life (cf. Kricke,

4.8 Learners with Special Needs

149

2015, p. 228). The strength of the Finnish support model therefore lies in the fact that (general) support is not necessarily linked to a formal diagnostic procedure, and the type and extent of support is always geared to the individual prerequisites of the child (cf. Jahnukainen & Itkonen, 2021). The fact that a reduction to the category of disability falls short shows the difficulty of assigning people only to a single characteristic and, moreover, often obstructs the view of existing potentials. In this context, the understanding of inclusion of the school actors plays an important role, which will be discussed in the following. Teachers’ Understanding of Inclusion From the perspective of the school actors interviewed, there was a different understanding of inclusion. This subjective understanding can be divided into different categories on the basis of the data collected. From the teachers’ point of view, two understandings of inclusion can be roughly observed (cf. Veber, 2013): First, this is a special education focus with a narrow view of heterogeneity, as is often found in German discourse (cf. Fischer, 2014). Under this special educational focus, it is specifically about how students with and without special educational needs can be taught together. Other dimensions of heterogeneity, such as gender, are hardly considered. This group thus understood inclusion primarily as a school (structural) issue, which is also closely linked to the heterogeneity category “disability”. On the other hand, there is a group of teachers who understand inclusion as a societal challenge in different areas of life, which also goes far beyond the integration of pupils with special educational needs. The understanding also has a political dimension and is oriented towards civil rights movements (cf. Hinz, 2009). This understanding of inclusion can be seen as an internationally common educational view on several levels of diversity (cf. Fischer, 2014). Under this extended understanding, inclusion goes beyond the life phase of school: the empowerment approach understands “inclusion” independently of the institution and the respective life phase, so the life phase after school (e.g. living and working arrangements) is explicitly meant as well. In the sense of the empowerment approach, inclusion is closely linked to the guiding principle of accessibility (cf. Theunissen, 2013). However, the guiding principle of accessibility in a broad understanding includes not only the given environment, but explicitly the adaptation of all social structures to the members of a society. Comprehensive Understanding of Inclusion Some of the interviewed actors showed a broader understanding of inclusion, which considers inclusion as a societal task. The school context is part of this social process. Moreover, some of these actors reduced the term inclusion not only to the

150

4  Guidelines for Inclusive Schools: Case Studies from Finland

heterogeneity dimension “handicap” or “disability”, but explicitly spoke of “individuals”. For me, inclusion means that everybody has the right to participate in society. Not only on the school level. Inclusion is often a topic in schools, but I think that we must also consider life outside of school. Sports clubs can play an important role. All those activities that can help people with different needs and individuals to be part in society. (Vilho)

The idea of living in inclusion is thus linked to the prerequisite that important social and cultural systems must be available and accessible to all people. Inclusion is explicitly seen as a systems issue by one special needs teacher interviewed: I think it is a human right. We need to change our system that everybody can be involved in this society. (Suvi)

Another important aspect of inclusion concerns a direct social belonging (cf. Bielefeldt, 2012). This interpretation is based on the understanding that every person has the right to be recognised as a full and equal member of society and explicitly goes beyond the heterogeneity category “disability” (cf. Theunissen, 2013). An interviewed special needs teacher also showed a broad understanding of inclusion, which considers inclusion as a societal task and a human right. The school context is part of this social process: Everybody should have the right to participate in this society and it is not depending on your background or your disabilities. Everybody has the same right to participate and we should make it possible. (Julia)

Inclusive pedagogy, under this understanding, addresses the specific needs of people and not the other way around. Accordingly, the social system must adapt to the needs of all people, as Suvi and Iina note. Moreover, inclusion is conceived as a human right. This indicates that for these actors the idea of inclusion is more than a continuation or further development of the integration approach. Rather, a qualitative change (cf. Bielefeldt, 2012) and reorientation of the term (cf. Hinz, 2009) becomes clear in these statements. However, the statements also make clear that living in an inclusive culture has a visionary character. It must therefore be questioned whether such a society can be achieved at all (cf. Theunissen, 2013). Inclusion as a Structural School Issue The other group of actors considered inclusion primarily as a school task or in the context of schools. On the one hand, these actors discuss inclusion at the level of

4.8 Learners with Special Needs

151

the place of support, i.e. the schooling of children and adolescents with special needs at regular schools vs. support institutions. On the other hand, the interviewees expressed their views on the teaching level regarding the joint teaching of children with and without special needs within the mainstream school, whereby several teachers emphasised the necessity of separate special needs classes. Thus, inclusion or integration is seen by one special needs teacher (Janika) primarily as a school organisational issue. This excerpt from an interview makes the attitude clear: In Finland, the future perspective is to achieve total inclusion or total integration. I am not into that, because I believe that there will always be students who need to be supported individually in their own class. (Janika).

Inclusion is primarily understood as joint teaching of learners with and without special educational needs in a class. The increasing organisation of lessons in joint teaching settings is viewed critically by some teachers, as the individual needs of their special needs pupils are not taken into account. The interviewed teacher also seems to understand the two terms “inclusion” and “integration” as synonymous. Difficulties in differentiating the terms integration and inclusion seem to be present among teachers in Finland according to a study by Meri (2010). According to the results of the study, the term integration is still much more established in Finnish school life (cf. Mero & Meri, 2017). The specific factors of the students that often influence the attitude of a teacher also include the type and severity of the impairment. One special needs teacher is of the opinion that the feasibility of inclusive teaching settings is also not possible due to specific impairments: Let us say that my child has some little learning problems or something such as a visual impairment, and no psychological problems. Of course, he or she should have the opportunity to go the same class with his mates. (…) But there will always be students who just cannot cope in a regular class. And this is my opinion about inclusion. (Satu)

Furthermore, successful inclusive education is linked by the interviewed special needs teacher to financial and human resources, as well as to the specific training of the teachers: The main challenges are (…) in general teacher education that they don’t have the special education training, they don’t know what to do. And this is ok. They don’t need to because they are not educated to do that. They are educated to teach children with normal standards. Second problem is money. They integrate students with special support in normal classes without any help. The group is still a big group, there are no assistants, there is no extra help, there is nothing. (Satu)

152

4  Guidelines for Inclusive Schools: Case Studies from Finland

The lack of personal and structural resources can be seen as an important influencing variable of perceived behavioural control, which is negatively influenced by this (cf. Saloviita, 2018). However, the interviewed teacher does not relate these influencing factors to her own school framework, but to possible challenges of school inclusion in general. This is made clear by the fact that the teacher speaks of “they” (“They integrate students...”), she thus speaks of external, structurally determined framework conditions that cannot be influenced in her perception. Interestingly, on the one hand she refers to the educational policy framework, on the other hand the reference to “they” in the first paragraph of her statement relates to a completely different group of people, namely the (specialist) teachers without special educational expertise (“they don’t have the special education training, they don’t know what to do”). Another special needs teacher also links successful inclusive education to financial and human resources: There is no reason that we should label children and send them to other schools or to put the children with problems in a separate classroom. I think that they can learn a lot from their peers that are better than they are. But sometimes I feel like it was not meant to be like that. Sometimes it feels like ‘Inclusion’ is just a fancy name for saving money. And I think that if we don’t have these special needs classes anymore, we should have more special education teachers to help out within the regular classes. Because if this is not the case, we cannot give enough support to these children as we should give. (Janika)

The interviewed teachers do not question inclusive education per se, but link successful inclusion to sufficient support by teachers with special education expertise. The specific training of teachers was seen by most teachers as a basic prerequisite for the success of inclusion. Students’ Understanding of Inclusion From the perspective of the interviewed pupils, a further understanding of inclusion emerged. From the “affected person’s perspective”, inclusion is primarily linked to the basic needs of recognition and belonging, whereby the children and young people interviewed emphasised the importance of friendships with their peers. International research has focused on the basic need for belonging from the perspective of students (e.g. Frederickson et al., 2007; Pesonen, 2016). The sense of belonging to others can be considered as a natural need of every human being in the context of lifelong development (Maslow, 1962). In the context of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, the concept of “sense of belonging” (German translation: Zugehörigkeitsgefühl; cf. BMAS, 2018) is not only linked to individual appreciation by others, but also depends on structural

4.8 Learners with Special Needs

153

c­ onditions (e.g. barrier-free access to public buildings). Following the understanding of Baumeister and Leary (1995), Pesonen (2016) defines the need for belonging as follows: Sense of belonging has been defined in the literature as the extent to which an individual feels socially connected, included, respected, accepted, and supported by others in different social contexts. (Pesonen, 2016, p. 6).

This definition suggests that a sense of belonging is a subjective experience that occurs through interaction with others. This feeling can be developed and fostered through active participation and social inclusion (cf. Spencer-Cavaliere & Watkinson, 2010). Inclusion is thus – from the perspective of those concerned – often conceived as a subjective need for belonging and social acceptance (cf. Holland & Haegele, 2021). Kaletta (2008) also focuses on the individual with regard to the integrative effect of the feeling of recognition. As criteria for whether a person feels integrated in relation to a group, “inner states” such as identification with the group under consideration or the subjective feeling of being accepted by a group can be added. The qualitative interview study by Vetoniemi and Kärnä (2019) was also able to show that the subjective feeling of social participation from the perspective of the Finnish students interviewed depends primarily on the school environment and the design of the learning environment. For example, some students commented negatively on the fact that their individual needs were not taken into account when adapting the learning environment and that they did not receive sufficient support from teachers and assistants (cf. Vetoniemi & Kärnä, 2019). In order to understand and analyse the perspective of the students interviewed, the concept of inclusion in the student interviews was based on a subjectively shaped understanding (cf. Spencer-Cavaliere & Watkinson, 2010). This is to a large extent shaped and influenced by the individual perceptual and interpretive capacity of the actors interviewed (Schwandt, 1997). The analysis of the interview data showed that two central aspects have a particular influence on the social inclusion of the learners: Friendships and the pedagogical actions of the teacher. The Role of Friendships The importance of friendly relationships with their peers was highlighted during the interviews by both learners with and without impairments. The participants agree that friendships play a key role in the sense of belonging to a group. Belonging to groups in online social networks was also mentioned by several interviewees. As an example, one student commented as follows:

154

4  Guidelines for Inclusive Schools: Case Studies from Finland

Being part of whatsapp groups is very important for me to feel included. I have several groups with my friends and there we usually discuss what we do after school and where to meet. (Tom)

Most students emphasized that social networks are primarily used to plan their free time and to exchange information about other people and topics. A particularly important meeting place for almost all of the students interviewed is the playground, which is primarily used during break times. This applies to both the pupils with and without special needs. The pupils of the special needs institution also emphasize the importance of being together with their friends during break times. While the interviewed pupils with extensive impairments attach less importance to the type of break time activity, the interviewed pupils without impairments also care about doing a certain activity together with their friends. This is exemplified by the statement of an interviewed pupil who emphasises the importance of playing football: I like recess the most, because then I can play football with my friends. (Tom)

The feeling of belonging to a group and being accepted as a person is reflected in the statements of two students without impairments. For them, it is not only about belonging to a team, but also about being included and “heard” by their teammates in conversations. For example, one student spoke about his sports team in this context: In hockey, I feel included when teammates talk and listen to me. (Henri)

The statements make it clear that friendships and social relationships with their peers are very important to the students surveyed. In the perception of the respondents, inclusion is closely linked to the basic need for belonging and recognition. This finding is consistent with previous study findings that have explored understandings of inclusion among students with special needs (including Spencer-­ Cavaliere & Watkinson, 2010). Although the importance of adults was also mentioned by some respondents, friendships with classmates seem to play a more important role in whether they feel accepted and valued in a group. Pedagogical Action of the Teacher From the students’ point of view, the pedagogical actions of the teachers in class also played a central role. Most of the teachers tried to make it possible for all learners – including those with special educational needs – to participate equally in the classroom through the pedagogical design of the lessons. Overall, a productive

4.8 Learners with Special Needs

155

handling of heterogeneity could be observed, which became apparent in the appreciative treatment of the students. This is made clear by the statement of a pupil who positively emphasises the teacher’s approach in class: Our teacher always tries to help us to participate in class. For example, she talks with us about the rules of the games and really cares about our own opinion (…). (Kaisa)

For example, competitive games were adapted to the needs of learners with disabilities by modifying the rules of the game. Particularly important for the interviewed students with special needs is the willingness of the teacher to take their individual concerns into account in the lesson design. In addition to the design of the learning environment, the personal commitment of the teachers plays a central role in whether the learners develop a subjective sense of social belonging.

4.8.2 The Finnish Support System: Special Needs Education in Three Levels Since the reform of the special education system in 2011, special needs education in Finland is organised in three levels: general support, intensified support and special support (see FNBE, 2016). Schools with 300 pupils or more have their own special needs teacher. Smaller schools usually share the services of a special needs teacher (cf. Graham & Jahnukainen, 2011). The support measures become more intensive and continuous per support level (cf. Mihajlovic, 2018a): While pupils in the first and second support levels do not receive a permanent but a very flexible form of special educational support, a written pedagogical statement is required for the third support level (special support). At first sight, the Finnish support model, due to its three-level structure, shows great similarities to the “Response-to-­ Invention” (RTI) model widely used in the US. However, in contrast to the RTI model, the Finnish model is mandatory at national level and aims primarily to identify and prevent possible learning difficulties at an early stage through a lowthreshold observation and intervention system (Fig.  4.9) (cf. Jahnukainen & Itkonen, 2021). The assessment of whether a child receives basic support is primarily the responsibility of the class or subject teacher. The first two support levels are not based on a diagnostic procedure. Based on the observations of teachers and parents, it is first determined whether additional support is necessary. The necessary support measures are always determined in consultation with the child’s parents and the child himself, and after consultation with the special needs teacher and the

156

4  Guidelines for Inclusive Schools: Case Studies from Finland

multi-professional support team. By refraining from a formal diagnosis or determination of a special educational need, stigmatisation is to be avoided (cf. Graham & Jahnukainen, 2011). General Support: General support is a frequently used form of everyday teaching and does not require any formal decisions. The support is mainly achieved by the responsible teachers in the form of pedagogical differentiation measures within the classroom. This includes the adaptation of teaching materials and the provision of supportive learning measures or aids (Ekstam et al., 2015, p. 78). If the support measures of the first stage are not sufficient, the child’s individual support needs are reassessed. This is documented in a pedagogical assessment report. The pedagogical assessment report contains information about which support measures have been taken so far and which additional support measures are needed so that the pupil can successfully participate in lessons or follow the contents of the curriculum. Intensified Support: The support measures of the second support level are implemented for a limited period of time and regularly evaluated to determine whether the type and scope of the measures are sufficient. Within the framework of this support measure, an individual learning plan (student plan) is developed together with the child before the start of the support measure, which contains learning goals that should be achieved by the end of the support measure. This learning plan is drawn up by all the pedagogical actors involved in cooperation. If the child is not able to reach the objectives of the learning plan, a pedagogical statement will determine whether the student should take third level special support measures. Special Support: The educational institution (normally the school management) makes the final decision as to whether a child receives special support to the

Fig. 4.9  The Finnish support system. (Own representation according to FNBE, 2016)

special support intensified support general support

4.8 Learners with Special Needs

157

extent of the third level. The third level of support requires, in addition to the determination of the support needs in the form of a written pedagogical statement, the preparation of an individual support plan (IEP): The education provider (usually the principal) makes the final decision regarding whether the student will receive special support. The special support requires an individual educational plan (IEP). The IEP is a target plan, done in collaboration with the teacher, the student and the student’s parents describing what will be done to support the student’s learning process. (Ekstam et al., 2015, p. 78)

This support plan is developed in cooperation with the school support team and the student’s parents and includes individual support goals and measures that can support the learning process (Table 4.2). A total of 15.7% of pupils received intensified support or special support in 2015 (OSF, 2016). Children with severe cognitive or multiple impairments usually receive the most intensive support level (special support). The instruction takes the form of individual or group special education, and is provided by special education teachers. Special needs education should – if possible – be provided in conjunction with mainstream education. However, it may also be provided partly or wholly in a special class or in another appropriate place (FNBE, 2016). The place of support can therefore also be a special school. The majority of pupils with special ­educational needs are actually taught in mainstream schools. However, a look at Table 4.2  Overview of the funding levels and forms of organisation of funding Funding level Special support

Intensified support (limited time) General support

Share in % (OSF, 2016) 7.3

8.4

No information availablea

Diagnostics/procedures Written pedagogical statement (diagnostic assessment of the need for support) as well as preparation of a Individual support plan

Pedagogical assessment and, where appropriate, an individual learning plan –

Possible forms of organisation (remedial) teaching in class, special needs teaching on a part-time basis, Full-time special needs education (possibly in a special needs facility) (remedial) teaching in class, special needs teaching part-time (remedial) teaching in class, special needs teaching part-time

It is estimated that about 30% of all students in Finland receive at least one of the three forms of support, but only the two more intensive forms of support (intensified and special support) are formally recorded (cf. Jahnukainen & Itkonen, 2021; Tomlinson, 2021) a

158

4  Guidelines for Inclusive Schools: Case Studies from Finland

the statistics shows an uneven distribution when the heterogeneity dimension “gender” is added: While 65% of boys and 35% of girls receive remedial measures at the second remedial level, the figure for the third remedial level is as high as 70% of boys and 30% of girls (cf. OSF, 2018a). For all pupils who receive special educational support, a personal support plan (IEP) is drawn up to support the learning process in the long term. The pupil’s guardians, the students’ welfare team and the teachers draw up the support plan together (cf. Kricke, 2015). In this support plan, the developmental status, support measures and teaching procedures (including the use of aids) are documented. The regular evaluation of the support plan is measured against the individually defined learning goals. The learning goals are usually based on the different “activity areas”: The pupil’s individual objectives, key contents of instruction, and the assessment of the pupil’s progress are described in the IEP for each activity area. Objectives set should be achievable and meaningful for the pupil. (FNBE, 2016, P. 126)

The selection of relevant learning content is based on the individual experience of the learner and should be meaningful. With regard to children and adolescents with comprehensive support needs (special support), for example, certain actions and rituals such as a common greeting, or also procedures in the context of personal hygiene or food intake can be used as educational occasions, provided they are pedagogically focused (cf. Bernasconi, 2016; FNBE, 2016). In practice, the organisation of support in the form of “activity areas” is mainly envisaged in lessons with comprehensively impaired pupils: The instruction of the pupils with the most severe developmental disabilities may be arranged by activity areas rather than by subjects. It may also be justified to organise the education of a pupil with other disabilities or a serious illness by activity areas. The arrangement of instruction by activity areas rather than by subjects is prescribed in a decision of special support. (FNBE, 2016, p. 126).

The so-called “activity areas” consist on the content level of the areas of motor skills, language and communication, as well as cognitive, social and practical life skills. These are explained in a differentiated way in the Finnish core curriculum (see, FNBE, 2016, Sect. 7.4.6). While the support plan is aimed at pupils with special needs (special support), there is the possibility of an individual learning plan (learning plan) for all pupils. This is especially used for pupils with a migration background and learners who need temporary support (cf. Kricke, 2015). In addition, all students can request guidance from so-called learning and career counsellors.

4.8 Learners with Special Needs

159

4.8.3 Organisation of Special Needs Education at School Level As far as the aspect of joint education of pupils with special educational needs is concerned, Finland is much further ahead than Germany. A practice of joint teaching has only been developed in many Länder in Germany in basic outlines. In Germany, there are considerable regional differences with regard to the implementation of inclusion, although a few federal states can point to relatively high “inclusion rates” (cf. Hollenbach-Biele & Klemm, 2020). On average, the inclusion rate of children and young people with special needs in general schools in Germany is 43.1% (cf. Hollenbach-Biele & Klemm, 2020). Compared to 10 years ago, when only about one third (28%) of pupils with special educational needs received inclusive education (cf. Klemm, 2013), this can at least be seen as progress towards the UN target. In Finland, special needs education is largely integrated into mainstream schools, but there are also special needs institutions in Finland (cf. Mihajlovic, 2018a). However, with 0.9% of all Finnish pupils (as of 2015), these represent a very small proportion (OSF, 2016). In 2004, 1.7% of Finnish pupils still attended special needs institutions, so a decline can be observed here. According to OSF (2016), 89% of all students with special needs in Finland attend mainstream schools, either in joint classes or in separate groups within the school. Only 11% of all pupils with special needs are educated in special schools or special institutions (Fig. 4.10). A major advantage of the Finnish school system is that school support is understood as a public task and is thus offered in the schools themselves and financed by the state. In contrast, in Germany and many other countries individual school support is privatised and commercialised to a high degree (cf. Schroeder, 2010). A quarter of all pupils in Germany take additional lessons in the course of their school career, mostly in the form of extra tuition, for which families spend more than EUR 2 billion annually (cf. Rackwitz, 2005). In Germany, this has created a parallel system of support that is socially selective and disadvantages financially weak families. The percentage of students receiving private tutoring in Finland is very low (2.4% in OECD, 2004). The integrated support system in Finnish schools thus takes on a compensatory function for the extracurricular tutoring system established in other countries (cf. Klemm, 2010; Schroeder, 2010). Implementation in Practice In school practice, the support measures were implemented very differently, as the following observation examples show.

160

4  Guidelines for Inclusive Schools: Case Studies from Finland

11%

19%

29%

Teaching fully in a general educaon group

41%

Joint teaching on a part-me basis Teaching fully in a special group special school

Fig. 4.10  Comprehensive school pupils having received special support by place of provision of teaching (2015)

Example 1: Flexible Support Structures (School I) The Finnish support system offers many parameters that can be adjusted differently from school to school. At School I this is reflected in the flexible support structures, which are perceived by the actors as an everyday and flexible form of support, which is basically directed at all learners. This flexible form of special needs education is also demanded by Finnish education policy (cf. FNBE, 2016). The specific school architecture with glass doors between the individual classrooms and the spacious corridors supports community building between the school actors. This spatial concept also facilitates and shortens communication paths. On the school organisational level it becomes clear that the special needs teachers are mostly linked to the year group. This ensures that the work with the respective pupils takes place over a longer period of time and that a continuous cooperation in the multi-professional team is possible. Fixed dates for team meetings and the evaluation of support and learning plans have become established as part of the school’s daily routine. The special needs teachers are also involved in lesson planning and implementation. Example 2: Fixed Support Structures (School II) At School II, pupils are grouped according to performance levels, contrary to the curricular guidelines of the Finnish National Board of Education. These are mech-

4.8 Learners with Special Needs

161

anisms of ‘latent’ differentiation (cf. Rühle, 2015; Trautmann & Wischer, 2011). Different forms of latent differentiation could be observed in everyday school life. The school under study has a special curricular focus in its school profile. The special school profile functions as a “selection process” at the school (Trautmann & Wischer, 2011, p. 85). In addition, special needs education has become established at the school under study as a form of permanent external differentiation measure in everyday school life. The special needs teacher in grades 7–9 has ‘specialised’ in pupils with special educational needs and is responsible for them. Such a ‘division of tasks’ became clear during the participant observation, whereby learners with special learning problems were predominantly taught by the special needs teacher in spatially separated settings from the rest of the learning group. Due to this organisational implementation of support measures, there is a risk that mechanisms of institutional discrimination (Gomolla & Radtke, 2009) are fostered. The pupils in question experience a permanent segregation, as on the one hand they are spatially separated from the pupils of the regular classes and on the other hand they are primarily taught by a teacher who is responsible for them. In pedagogical practice it becomes clear that the learners with special educational needs are granted an exclusive status, which is underpinned by material and personnel resources. A pedagogical order is evident in which fixed divisions prevail: Learners with special educational needs are initially marked as a “special group” by the support measures in separate support rooms. Due to the organisational separation between lessons in class and separate support lessons, pupils with special needs are spatially separated from the rest of the learning group from the very beginning. This applies at least to core subjects such as mathematics, Finnish and foreign languages such as English. Permanent teaching settings in which children with and without special needs are taught together in a class could hardly be observed. Opportunities for pupils with and without special needs to “meet each other” are most likely to be found in extracurricular time, e.g. during breaks and at lunch. Example 3: Fixed Support Structures with High Permeability (School III) At the investigated School III, support structures have been established, which are usually integrated within the common lessons in the class group. As a rule, both subject teachers and special needs teachers work in double occupation in the classes. However, the double staffing does not cover the whole school day, but takes place on an hourly basis. In these teaching settings, pupils with and without special needs are for the most part taught together in class. Measures of external differentiation could be observed again and again within the framework of the subject lessons. As a rule, the differentiation room adjacent to the classrooms was used

162

4  Guidelines for Inclusive Schools: Case Studies from Finland

to support pupils with special educational needs in small groups. This shows a pedagogical order in which, at first glance, fixed divisions are present: Learners with special educational needs are marked as a special group in the class group through targeted extraction by the special needs teachers (cf. Blasse et al., 2015). This is particularly visible through forms of external differentiation, e.g. when the special needs teacher moves into the differentiation room with some of the pupils with special educational needs and separates the group spatially from the rest of the learning group. Due to the spatial and personnel division, an exclusive potential becomes clear that gives the learners the status of “special”. However, it becomes evident in the further course that the teaching is characterised by a high degree of permeability. In the free work phases it is quite possible and desirable that learners without special educational needs request the support of the special needs teacher. The subject teacher also sought contact with the learners with special needs in these open teaching phases. In the observed teaching practice this “role change” could be observed frequently. The change of responsibilities can be interpreted as an expression of the communitarisation of all class members in order not to assign a special role to learners with support needs (cf. Blasse et al., 2015). Despite the rather spontaneous classroom participation in the open teaching phases, however, a clear distribution of responsibilities and tasks of the subject teacher and the support teacher could be established. The design of the lesson (e.g. the moderation of the lesson, the announcement of social form changes) was mostly controlled by the subject teacher. The design of the working materials was within the scope of action of both teachers. However, a clear role allocation became apparent in the lesson sequences: While the subject teacher primarily took care of the learners without special educational needs, the special needs teacher felt responsible for the learners with special needs. The subject teacher and the special needs teacher work in the free work phases – often spatially separated – with the respective pupils. While the special needs teacher takes care of the students with special needs in the adjacent differentiation room, the specialist teacher is present in the classroom as the contact person for the rest of the class. Thus, a clear and divided responsibility of the pedagogical actors for individual pupils can be observed. The Voices of the Teachers Several interviewed special needs teachers consider teaching in homogeneous small groups as necessary to meet the needs of their pupils. As an example, one teacher (Julia) makes sure that the learning groups are composed in such a way that the pupils can be supported according to their individual needs and are provided with a suitable learning environment:

4.8 Learners with Special Needs

163

I try to choose students that could do the same kind of things, who have the same kind of problems. We have many students who really need to have a very quiet and peaceful environment. And then there are others who are quite noisy. It makes no sense to mix them. (Julia)

The teacher shows the desire for groups that are as homogeneous as possible, which she divides according to their individual needs. She categorically excludes teaching together and legitimizes these external differentiation measures with the special learning environments that “her” students need. It becomes clear that the deficits of the individual children guide the planning of the corresponding didactic decisions. Here, a contradiction between the compatibility of individualised and common learning situations becomes apparent. The individualisation of support measures must – in the perception of the special needs teacher – necessarily take place in co-existing learning situations and at best spatially separated from the other learners. Learners with special needs are categorised on the basis of their deficits, and then they are looked after individually with reference to their special features and categories that make them different form other pupils. (cf. Leineweber, 2015). In the sense of Wenning (2007), a “reduction” takes place in dealing with heterogeneity: The different needs of the learners are perceived, but a reduction to their particularities takes place, which automatically leads to a discrimination of the corresponding students, who in their difference are not accepted as “egalitarian” in the sense of a pedagogy of diversity (Prengel, 2006) (cf. Leineweber, 2015; Wenning, 2007). In the statements of another teacher (Janika), on the other hand, it becomes clear that at her school there is an initial attempt to support all pupils with rather general support measures. This is based on the understanding that all learners are supported within the “general supports”. This general form of support is seen as an integral part of everyday school life. This understanding of support is also reflected in the following statement of the special needs teacher: We started this school year with many new students who may receive special support. We can observe that some are slow in naming and they don’t know the letters. This may give us the idea that these children may have some problems in reading. We realize that this child may have some reading problems and give them general support. After some time, we can check if these children have not started reading, for example, we are going to make that support more intense. This is the second level. But first we give them support, and we think about the children first and after that we do the paperwork. (Janika)

Thus, general support measures are started and the students are allowed a certain period of acclimatisation. In addition, formal measures (such as diagnostic reports) are not taken at the beginning. If it becomes apparent that the child is not able to

164

4  Guidelines for Inclusive Schools: Case Studies from Finland

follow the lessons despite intensified support and, if necessary, a learning plan, then an individual support plan (IEP) with individually tailored learning areas is formulated (in the form of so-called “activity areas”). A prerequisite for this, however, is the identification of the third level support needs (special support) in the form of a pedagogical report. This three-stage approach is in accordance with the legal requirements of the Finnish Ministry of Education. As a proactive prevention model, the Finnish approach to support avoids the formal labelling of “disabilities”. Support is provided as early as possible at the preventive level. In the staging of (remedial) teaching, it becomes clear that the pedagogical actors strive to meet the needs of as many pupils as possible and avoid formal labelling – in the form of a third level of support (special support).

4.9 Teacher Training Schools “Every teacher must be a researcher,” Matti Meri describes the function of Finnish teachers in an interview with Time magazine, “who understands children’s learning and analyzes school work.”8 This quote by Matti Meri, former professor of education at the Institute of Teacher Education in Helsinki, describes the core element of university teacher education quite concretely. For decades it has been considered important in Finland that teacher education takes place entirely at the university and that a dialogue between theory and practice is established there (cf. Hakala, 2009). Instead of one-­ dimensional knowledge transfer, teachers should learn competences that stimulate students to question and research in practice: In addition to the role of instructor, motivator and learning guide, in the future the teacher will have to be seen even more as a researcher, as a confidant of the student, who strives to interpret and understand the educational and living environment of the child holistically. In order for teacher training to succeed in achieving these goals, such content and learning methods should be even better anchored in the course of study that follow the concept of the researching teacher by stimulating the process of questioning and investigating and thus promoting becoming a teacher in the sense described. These skills learned in undergraduate education should then extend beyond teacher education into the classroom. (Hakala, 2009, p. 211).

Characteristic for the Finnish teacher training, regardless of the field of study, is the high proportion of educational science and practical school contents. Prospective  http://www.zeit.de/2004/51/C-Pisa-Finnland/seite-3, accessed on: 12.09.16.

8

4.9 Teacher Training Schools

165

teachers complete the practical part of their training during their university studies at the so-called Teacher Training Schools (practice schools). According to Sahlberg (2013), students spend about 10–15% of their studies gaining practical experience at the practice schools themselves. From the first year onwards, the study programme includes pedagogical studies, and both the Bachelor’s and Master’s degrees include teaching practice. Whereas teacher training in Germany is divided into two phases, a university education and a preparatory school service (“Referendariat”), the entire teacher training in Finland is in the hands of the universities. Hakala (2009) evaluates the decision in the 1970s to integrate teacher education in Finland into the university as a very important step, as the education was placed on a stable scientific and research-based foundation. This development, as well as the close cooperation between the universities and the teacher training schools, enables students to prepare themselves early enough for the professional life. All teacher training courses usually last five years and end with a Master’s degree. The Master’s degree is considered a compulsory qualification to take up teaching in schools. A Bachelor’s degree is also required to work in kindergartens or preschools. This can be followed by a two-year Master’s degree, for example, to qualify as a primary school teacher. The integrative orientation of the school system in Finland means that the school is a place of multi-professional cooperation. This requires a constructive cooperation of teachers with different actors on a professional basis, e.g. cooperation with special education teachers, learning counsellors or school psychologists. The training content is therefore already designed in the course of study to ensure that as far as possible all prospective teachers (irrespective of the field of study) achieve a broad educational science basis that enables insights into the respective professional fields. For example, all class and subject teachers must also cover a certain amount of special needs education during their studies.

4.9.1 Excursus: Teacher Education in Finland “The Most Difficult Test in the Country”: The Selective Selection Procedure of the Universities Anyone wishing to become a teacher in Finland must undergo a highly selective selection process at Finnish universities. Overall, only 10% of all applicants are admitted to the teacher training programme and receive a place (cf. Sahlberg, 2013). First, a national written examination, called Vakava, must be passed. The exam is written simultaneously by all teacher applicants throughout the country. To prepare for the test, candidates are provided with relevant literature online about six weeks before the exam date. This includes scholarly texts from the fields of

166

4  Guidelines for Inclusive Schools: Case Studies from Finland

schooling, education, and parenting. The test itself then consists of multiple-choice questions on the various scholarly texts (cf. Sahlberg, 2013). The aim of the Vakava test is to check the basic scientific aptitude for a teacher training course. Provided that the candidate has achieved sufficient points in the written test, selection interviews at the respective university follow in the second application step. At most Finnish universities, the selection interviews consist of individual interviews and group discussions (cf. Kricke, 2016). During these selection interviews, personal aptitude and motivation for the teaching profession are assessed. The focus is less on testing professional competencies, but rather on the question of why someone decides to become a teacher. Access to teacher training in Finland is thus highly atypical of the other educational structures in Finland, which are in principle based on the principle of ‘education for all’. In Finland, however, the selective structure of teacher education is considered by many Finnish education experts to be one of the main reasons for the functioning school system and thus for Finland’s successful performance in the PISA studies (cf. Meri, 2010; Niemi, 2012; Sahlberg, 2013). In addition to the national entrance test, which tests subject-related aspects, the multi-stage selection procedure also consists of elements of relational didactics: for example, applicants’ communicative and interactive skills and a research-­ oriented perspective are also expected during the selection interviews (cf. Kricke, 2015). As a rule, the interviews are conducted by a person from the university teacher training and a practical teacher from the affiliated University Teacher Training School (cf. Kricke, 2016). The selection interviews are not about assessing the personality of the applicants. The intention is explicitly to consider diverse biographies and personalities of prospective teachers, with the above-mentioned competencies and attitudes as selection criteria. These include, for example, a fundamentally positive attitude towards the promotion of every child, as well as a willingness to engage in lifelong development in the sense of professionalising prospective teachers (cf. Kricke, 2016). Structure of the Study Programmes Every university that offers a teacher training programme has a University Teacher Training School (normaalikoulu in Finnish). These practical schools are part of the university and the students complete a large part of their practical phases there. Experienced teachers are appointed as mentors for the student teachers. The mentors have an additional counselling qualification and cooperate intensively with the teachers at the university (cf. Kricke, 2016; Niemi & Jakku-Sihvonen, 2006). The practical experiences during the study are linked to the theoretical content at the university. Thus, there is no separation between a first theoretical phase and a second practical phase. The practical teacher training is integrated in the university

4.9 Teacher Training Schools

167

teacher training. Working in kindergartens or pre-school facilities also requires a course of study that concludes with a Bachelor’s degree. Building on this, a two-­ year Master’s programme can be chosen, for example, in order to achieve a teaching qualification for primary school. A distinction is made between the following teachers at different school levels: • Kindergarten teachers (Kindergarten teachers): give pre-school lessons in pre-­ school classes and in kindergartens. • Class teachers: are mainly employed in classes 1–6, where they teach all subjects. • Subject teachers: teach one or more subjects mainly in grades 7–9 and in the upper secondary school (grades 10–12), as well as at vocational schools and in adult education (depending on the focus). • Special education teachers (special class teachers) usually provide special education for children with special needs in all types of schools (community schools or special schools). • Student counsellors are responsible for pedagogical counselling in grades 1–9 and in the upper secondary school (Sekundarstufe II). In the following, the training structures for class teachers, subject teachers and special needs teachers are presented in more detail. All courses of study lead to a Master’s degree and take an average of 5–6 years (Table 4.3). The study structure for classroom teachers is characterised by a large proportion of educational science content (140 ECTS in total). Students are given freedom in the choice of all study contents and focal points, apart from the educational science and subject-specific basics (amounting to 60 ECTS). The subject-specific basic studies contain content with a subject-didactic focus from the areas of initial teaching (mathematics, German and other subjects of the respective faculties). In this way, the aim is to acquire the broadest possible basic knowledge in different teaching subjects. This can be explained by the fact that the class teachers are primarily deployed in grades 1–6, and practically have to cover almost all school subjects (Table 4.4). The subject teacher training comprises a total of at least 300 ECTS. The proportion of educational science content, at 60 credits, accounts for “only” about one fifth of the training. Compared to classroom teacher training, in which the ­educational science content takes up 140 ECTS, the focus of study is on the subject-­ specific content of the chosen teaching subject. The teaching subject is also the student’s main subject at school (Table 4.5).

168

4  Guidelines for Inclusive Schools: Case Studies from Finland

Table 4.3  Class teacher education (cf. Niemi, 2012; Niemi & Jakku-Sihvonen, 2006) Class teacher training Educational-scientific basics (as part of the main subject)

Bachelor 180 ECTS 25 (incl. practical school studies) 35 (incl. BA thesis, 6–10) 60 25

Selectable study contents in the main subject (educational science) Subject-specific and didactic basics Study content from another discipline (freely selectable minor subject) Study content from the areas of language, 35 communication and ICT (information and communication technologies)

Master 120 ECTS 35 (incl. practical school studies of at least 15 ETCS) 45 (incl. MA thesis, 20–40) 0–35 5–40

Total: 60

80 60 25– 60 40– 75

Table 4.4  Subject teacher education (cf. Niemi, 2012; Niemi & Jakku-Sihvonen, 2006) Subject teacher training Educational science content (minor subject)

Teaching subject (major) Study contents from other disciplines (1–2 freely selectable minor subjects) Study content from the areas of language, communication and ICT (information and communication technologies)

Bachelor 180 ECTS 25–30 (incl. practical school studies)

Total:

60 (incl. BA thesis, 6–10) 25–60

Master 120 ECTS 30–35 (incl. practical school studies of at least 15 ETCS) 60–90 (incl. MA thesis, 20–40) 0–30

35–40

0–30

35–75

60

120– 150 25–90

ECTS European Credit Transfer System, 1 ECTS 28 hours of work including attendance of courses, preparation and follow-up etc., BA 180 ECTS, MA 120 ECTS

Special education content takes up the main focus of the study programme (160 ECTS). During the Bachelor’s programme, a large part of the study programme also consists of the first minor subject (85 ECTS), which primarily comprises subject didactic content (e.g. cultural techniques and initial teaching in heterogeneous learning groups). The second minor subject of 30 ECTS (in the Master’s ­programme) can then be chosen freely. The content of special needs education studies differs fundamentally from the content of studies in Germany in that there is no specific training in the form of subject areas in Finland. Another difference to

4.9 Teacher Training Schools

169

the studies in Germany is that in Finland no single teaching subject is studied, but basic subject didactic study contents from different teaching subjects (especially reading and writing, as well as mathematics) are completed. In the Master’s programme, students may – at least at the University of Helsinki – attend individual courses on specific support needs (e.g. learning visual and hearing impairments), but these are rather to be seen as an opportunity to “raise awareness” of different needs. In Finland, special needs teachers receive a relatively broad training that focuses on dealing with possible learning difficulties and behavioural problems or their causes from a special needs perspective. The University of Helsinki (2008) provides for the Bachelor’s degree programme in Special Education the following main areas of study (modules), among others: Challenges of learning, Challenges in behaviour, Dyslexia and Mathematics, Communication, Expertise in special education or Teaching practice I + II. A sound theoretical education in the specific special needs areas “mental development”, “vision”, “hearing” does not take place at university level. This is also due to the fact that there is no national research area at university level in this respect in Finland. The responsibility for teaching special needs education competences in the different special needs areas lies rather in the special needs education counselling and support centres themselves. In addition, the training content in the Master’s programme differs primarily in that in Finland there is an emphasis on research-related study content. In addition to the Master’s thesis and the accompanying research seminar (40 ECTS), a total of 10 ECTS must be demonstrated in the area of research methods when writing the Master’s thesis. In addition to the Bachelor’s thesis, 10 ECTS must also be earned in the area of quantitative and qualitative research methods in the Bachelor’s programme. Table 4.5  Curriculum structure “Special Education Teacher” (University of Helsinki, 2008, Curriculum for special teacher education) Bachelor 180 ECTS Special education course content 75 (incl. practical (as part of the major). school studies amounting to 5 ETCS and BA thesis, 10 ECTS) Study content from other 85 disciplines (two minor subjects) Study content from the areas of 20 language, communication and ICT (information and communication technologies) Special education teacher

Master Total 120 ECTS 85 (incl. practical 160 school studies amounting to 10 ETCS and MA thesis, 40 ECTS) 30 115 5

25

170

4  Guidelines for Inclusive Schools: Case Studies from Finland

Social Attractiveness of the Teaching Profession Many Finnish authors (Hakala, 2009; Sahlberg, 2013) emphasize that the teaching profession in Finland has maintained its position as one of the most popular professions in recent years. The result of a survey of 2500 working Finns by the EPSI research institute (2012) also seems to confirm that job satisfaction among teachers is high compared to other occupational groups in Finland. This is surprising because teachers in Finland are not among the top earners. Compared to teachers in Germany, Finnish teachers earn about 20–30% less. In an OECD study from 2013, Finland is only slightly above the OECD average in terms of average salaries. In most of the countries studied, the salary level depends on the type of school the teacher teaches at and their professional experience. In terms of the type of school, this usually means that the older the students, the higher the teachers’ pay (cf. OECD, 2015). In Finland, however, there are only major salary differences between teachers in pre-school institutions, who are paid less overall, and other teachers in primary or secondary education. Teachers’ pay is thus relatively uniform and independent of the type of school or age group of the children (except for pre-school institutions). According to Sahlberg (2013), professional satisfaction is mainly due to two factors: on the one hand, there is the culture of trust from the Finnish education policy, already explained, which guarantees teachers a high degree of pedagogical autonomy. On the other hand, many authors emphasise the high social esteem in which teachers are held (cf. Hakala, 2009; Niemi, 2012; Sahlberg, 2013). Teachers in Finland are considered academically on the same professional level as, for example, engineers or doctors, mainly because of their long university education of at least five years (Master’s degree): Teachers are highly respected as professionals because their basic education and training compare with that of other professionals-doctors, lawyers, architects, and engineers. (Sahlberg, 2013, p. 38).

The public perception of the teaching profession and its academic training in Finland is generally very positive, and teachers are considered to play a “key role” in quality education (cf. FNBE, 2016).

4.9.2 The Teachers’ Perspective Role of Self-Efficacy Teachers’ perceived own competence regarding the design of inclusive teaching has been researched under the theoretical model of self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997) in many international studies. Self-efficacy expectancy seems to be – as many study

4.9 Teacher Training Schools

171

results suggest – a relevant factor influencing the staging of inclusive learning settings. A positive self-efficacy expectancy is considered conducive to coping with challenges, as well as dealing with heterogeneous learning groups (Malinen et al., 2013; Saloviita, 2018). However, low self-efficacy expectancy does not necessarily make a teacher less successful (Wheatley, 2002). In fact, according to Wheatley (2002), self-efficacy doubts can be helpful in stimulating individual reflective processes and promoting personal growth. Variables identified as influencing teachers’ self-efficacy expectations in several studies include age, gender, and prior experience with people with disabilities (see Harper, 2017; Saloviita, 2018, among others). Self-efficacy expectations in relation to previous professional practice are often higher among teachers with longer professional experience than among novices (cf. Keefe & Moore, 2004, among others) Novice teachers often face a “theory-­ practice shock” at the beginning and feel unprepared and inexperienced (Keefe & Moore, 2004). Dealing with heterogeneity is perceived as a challenge, especially by early career teachers. Correlations could be found with regard to self-efficacy expectations and the different professions. Specific training and opportunities for professional development, as well as sufficient (human and material) resources at the respective schools also seem to play an important role (cf. Harper, 2017; Yada & Savolainen, 2017). Assessment of the Training from the Teachers’ Point of View In the present study, no conspicuous features were found with regard to the gender of the respective actors. However, the specific training and resources played an important role in the perception of the interviewed actors. Professional experience also seems to have an influence on teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion. Thus, teachers with more professional experience have more negative attitudes towards joint teaching than those who are new to the profession. This is reflected in the current study especially in the statements of special education teachers who have been working professionally for more than 10 years. The perceived quality of teacher education had a positive influence on perceived self-efficacy for several (physical education) teachers interviewed in the present study. Especially the physical ­education teachers (Matti, Vilho, Tuomas) felt that their education adequately prepared them to take appropriate action in inclusive physical education. On the one hand, this is attributed to the corresponding specialization in the field of “Adapted Physical Activity”, on the other hand, they feel competent to meet the needs of all learners in the classroom due to their previous experience in dealing with people with disabilities. During the participatory observation, it was possible to document various forms of adaptive lesson design in the lessons observed. These refer, for example, to the adaptation of the learning material and the learning environment.

172

4  Guidelines for Inclusive Schools: Case Studies from Finland

The majority of the special needs teachers considered themselves to be very competent in supporting learners with learning difficulties in small groups. In contrast, several teachers acknowledged a lack of special educational expertise when dealing with learners with sensory impairments (e.g. blindness). During the participant observation, special needs teachers were mostly responsible for supporting learners with special educational needs, either in co-curricular or in segregative teaching settings. This traditional area of responsibility of special needs teachers in Finland has been in flux since the reform of the special needs education system (2011), with increased demands – at least at the level of education policy – for inclusive structures and practices in the respective schools. The structural framework conditions (especially personnel and material resources) also have an influence on the self-­ efficacy expectations of the actors interviewed. At the two lower secondary schools (School II and III), a lack of resources (e.g. lack of support staff, too large learning groups) has a negative impact on the possibilities of designing inclusive learning settings from the perspective of the actors interviewed. Lack of resources and too large classes were also mentioned by two special needs teachers in the present study (Julia, Satu). Overall, however, the teachers interviewed were positive about the framework conditions at their schools. Dealing with heterogeneity in everyday teaching is associated with a high demand on the teacher. One special needs teacher (Julia) notes that it requires special expertise to respond individually to the needs of the learners. However, the interviewed special needs teacher does not feel prepared by her university education to meet the specific needs of blind and visually impaired pupils, for example: In theory I can do that but, of course, special education was just one year (...) and there is a little bit of everything. To really work with blind persons, for example, I would need to have much more [courses]. (Julia)

The statement of the special needs teacher shows that the study of special needs education and the specialist or classroom teacher lacks a certain foundation with regard to the different special needs areas. For example, the subject teacher’s course does not contain enough courses in the support area “learning”: I think for the subject teachers there should be more about learning difficulties and coping with problems in a general way. Because there was only one course in the university studies. I remember that. And I think it has not changed. (Julia)

In Finland, special education teachers receive a relatively broad education, which is not oriented towards specific special needs as it is the case in Germany. The special education teachers interviewed referred to their university training and

4.9 Teacher Training Schools

173

noted that there are few courses relating to specific special needs areas such as “hearing” or “vision”. However, there is the possibility for teachers who are already working in professional practice to get advice or to attend a further training on a specific topic: When you are already a teacher and you know that you are going to have a kid in your class with a certain disability you can take a course on that. There are a lot of in-­ service training courses where teachers can learn more about specific things. (Suvi)

Children with sensory impairments – e.g. eye diseases – are usually supported by supra-regional support and counselling centres. The special needs teachers and other (pedagogical) staff in the BFZs there have the relevant expertise to temporarily support the pupils and to advise the actors involved with the respective pupil at the school location. However, a lack of trained staff with the relevant expertise is becoming apparent, which is viewed with concern by one teacher: Because in Finland the trend is to educate only general special educators and after that you need to get your further specialization in the centres for learning and consulting like this one here. We are now a bit in trouble because no one takes care of the training except us. So what happens in the future?. (Janika)

The teaching of specific special educational competences in the different special needs areas is thus less the responsibility of the universities, but is carried out on a practical level in the special educational training and counselling centres. This takes place in the form of further education and training measures in the counselling centres, or on an outpatient basis in the mainstream schools, which request a corresponding counselling measure. The lack of practical experience during the course of study was also mentioned critically by individual teachers. Especially the concept of the university practice school was questioned, because in the perception of some teachers these schools are exemplary schools with excellent conditions, which have little to do with reality. One special needs teacher, for example, ­believes that the practice requirements at university schools should be more closely aligned with actual conditions in “normal” schools. She speaks of a kind of pedagogical sanctuary at the training schools that does not really prepare students for everyday working life and leads to a “practical shock” for many graduates: I believe that practical teacher training is too limited because they do their practical studies in schools that are excellent ones, the best in Helsinki. They don’t go to the normal schools, the real ones. They only go to the training schools. This is not the real world. (Satu)

174

4  Guidelines for Inclusive Schools: Case Studies from Finland

On the other hand, several teachers rated the practical training at their university as very positive. In particular, the culture of reflection and feedback during the practical phases of the teacher training course was emphasised, as well as the generally high demands of the course. This culture of reflection and feedback is an integral part of the training at the practical schools, which cooperate closely with the universities. These practical phases are intended to support an inquiring attitude on the part of the teachers (cf. Kricke, 2015).

References Ahonen, S. (2002). From an industrial to a post-industrial society: Changing conceptions of equality in education. Educational Review, 54(2), 173–181. Altenmüller, U. (2008). Koulu  – Schule auf Finnisch. Funktions-, Raum- und Gestaltungskonzepte für neue Schulen in Finnland. Dissertation zur Erlangung des akademischen Grades Doktor-Ingenieur, Weimar. https://e-­pub.uni-­weimar.de/opus4/ files/1300/Altenmueller_Dissertation_pdfa.pdf Arndt, A.-K. & Werning, R. (2017). Inklusive Schul- und Unterrichtsentwicklung. In M. K. W. Schweer (Hrsg.), Lehrer-Schüler-Interaktion. Inhaltsfelder, Forschungsperspektiven und methodische Zugänge (S. 607–624). Springer. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W. H. Freeman. Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497–529. Bernasconi, T. (2016). Bildung bei schwerer und mehrfacher Behinderung. Teilhabe, 55(4), 168–172. Bernasconi, T., & Böing, U. (2015). Pädagogik bei schwerer und mehrfacher Behinderung. Kohlhammer. Bielefeldt, H. (2012). Inklusion als Menschenrechtsprinzip: Perspektiven der UN-­ Behindertenrechtskonvention. In V.  Moser & D.  Horster (Hrsg.), Ethik der Behindertenpädagogik (S. 149–166). Kohlhammer. Blasse, N., Budde, J., Hinrichsen, M., Hummrich, M., Niemeyer-Jensen, B., & Thon, C. (2015). Die Exklusivität des Inklusiven. In C.  Siedenbiedel & C.  Theurer (Hrsg.), ­Grundlagen inklusiver Bildung. 1. Inklusive Unterrichtspraxis und -entwicklung (S. 137– 161). Prolog-Verl (Theorie und Praxis der Schulpädagogik). Boban, I., & Hinz, A. (Hrsg.). (2003). Index für Inklusion. Lernen und Teilhabe in der Schule der Vielfalt entwickeln. Martin-Luther-Universität. http://www.eenet.org.uk/resources/ docs/Index%20German.pdf. Accessed 2020, Juni 12. Buchner, T., Pfahl, L., & Traue, B. (2015). Zur Kritik der Fähigkeiten: Ableism als neue Forschungsperspektive der Disability Studies und ihrer Partner_innen. Zeitschrift für Inklusion, 2. https://www.inklusion-­online.net/index.php/inklusion-­online/article/ view/273 Bükers, F., Wibowo, J., & Henriksen, C. (2020). Inklusive Schul- und Pausenhöfe. Eine Frage der Barrierefreiheit und eine Aufgabe für die Schulentwicklung. Playground@ landscape, 12(1), 18–29.

References

175

Bundesamt für Sport [BASPO]. (2013). Die Bewegte Schule. Erläuterungen zum Schweizer Modell. https://www.baspo.admin.ch/content/baspo-­internet/de/sportfoerderung/sport-­ in-­derschule/_jcr_content/contentPar/downloadlist/downloadItems/81_1458309363229. download/die_schule_bewegt_schweizer_modell_d_03_20130312.pdf. Accessed 2017, Juli 20. Bundesministerium für Arbeit und Soziales (BMAS). (2018). Übereinkommen über die Rechte von Menschen mit Behinderung. https://www.bmas.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/ DE/PDF-­Publikationen/a729-­un-­konvention.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=1 Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung. (2015). Öffentliche und private Ausgaben bei der Finanzierung von Bildungseinrichtungen. http://www.bpb.de/gesellschaft/kultur/ zukunft-­b ildung/207939/finanzierung-­von-­b ildungseinrichtungen-­f ruehkindliche-­ bildung-­schule-­und-­berufliche-­bildung-­hochschulbildung. Accessed 2016, September 22. Bünger, C., & Mayer, R. (2009). Erfahrung – Wachstum – Demokratie? Bildungstheoretische Anfragen an Deweys Demokratiebegriff und dessen programmatische Rezeption. Zeitschrift Für Pädagogik, 55(6), 837–848. Dinter, A. (2015). Didaktische Aspekte und Modifikationen eines Konzeptes der bewegten Schule für Schülerinnen und Schüler mit dem Förderschwerpunkt geistige Entwicklung (Unveröffentlichte Dissertation). Universität Leipzig. Dyson A., Howes, A., & Roberts, B. (2002). A systematic review of the effectiveness of school-level actions for promoting participation by all student. In Research evidence in education library. EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education, University of London. 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 Eurostat. (2017). Educational expenditure. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-­explained/ index.php/Educational_expenditure_statistics#Overall_educational_expenditure. Accessed 2020, September 12. Federal Agency for Civic Education [Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung]. (2015). Öffentliche und private Ausgaben bei der Finanzierung von Bildungseinrichtungen. http://www.bpb.de/gesellschaft/kultur/zukunftbildung/207939/finanzierung-von-bildungseinrichtungen-fruehkindliche-bildung3474schule-und-berufliche-bildung-hochschulbildung. Accessed 22 July 2022. Fend, H. (1998). Qualität im Bildungswesen. Schulforschung zu Systembedingungen, Schulprofilen und Lehrerleistung. Juventa. Fend, H. (2004). Was stimmt mit den deutschen Bildungssystemen nicht? Wege zur Erklärung von Leistungsunterschieden zwischen Bildungssystemen. In G.  Schümer (Hrsg.), Die Institution Schule und die Lebenswelt der Schüler Vertiefende Analysen der PISA2000-­ Daten zum Kontext von Schülerleistungen (S. 15–38). VS Verlag. Feuser, G. (1998). Gemeinsames Lernen am gemeinsamen Gegenstand. Didaktisches Fundament einer allgemeinen (integrativen) Pädagogik. In A. Hildeschmidt & I. Schnell (Hrsg.), Integrationspädagogik. Auf dem Weg zu einer Schule für alle (S. 19–35). Juventa.

176

4  Guidelines for Inclusive Schools: Case Studies from Finland

Finnish National Board of Education (FNBE). (2004). National Core Curriculum for basic education 2004. National core curriculum for basic education intended for pupils in compulsory education. Finnish National Board of Education. Finnish National Board of Education (FNBE). (2016). National Core Curriculum for basic education 2014. National core curriculum for basic education intended for pupils in compulsory education. Finnish National Board of Education. Fischer, C. (2014). Individuelle Förderung als schulische Herausforderung. Schriftenreihe des Netzwerk Bildung. Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung. Fornefeld, B. (2007). Was geschieht mit dem ‘Rest’? Anfragen an die Behindertenpolitik – Teil 1. In M.  Dederich & K.  Grüber (Hrsg.), Herausforderungen. Mit schwerer Behinderung leben (S. 39–54). Mabuse. Fornefeld, B. (2010). Alle reden von Bildung für alle  – Sind alle noch gemeint? Bildungsanspruch für Menschen mit Komplexer Behinderung. In O.  Musenberg & J. Riegert (Hrsg.), Bildung und geistige Behinderung. Bildungstheoretische Reflexionen und aktuelle Fragestellungen (S. 260–281). Athena. Frederickson, N., Simmonds, E., Evans, L., & Soulsby, C. (2007). Assessing the social and affective outcomes of inclusion. British Journal of Special Education, 34(2), 105–115. Gomolla, M., & Radtke, F.-O. (2009). Institutionelle Diskriminierung Die Herstellung ethnischer Differenz in der Schule (3. Aufl.). VS Verlag. 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 Grubb, N., Jahr, H., Neumülle, J., & Field, S. (2005). Equity in education: Thematic review – Finland. OECD. http://www.oecd.org/education/school/36376641.pdf Grupe, O. (2000). Vom Sinn des Sports. Hofmann. Haapala, H. (2017). Finnish schools on the move: Students’ physical activity and school-­ related social factors (Academic dissertation). LIKES Research Centre for Physical Activity and Health. Haeberlin, U. (2017). Inklusive Bildung – Ein kritischer Diskurs aus ethischer Perspektive. Schweizerische Zeitschrift Für Heilpädagogik, 23(4), 13–20. Hafeneger, B., Henkenborg, P., & Scherr, A. (Hrsg.). (2013). Pädagogik der Anerkennung. Grundlagen, Konzepte, Praxisfelder. Debus Pädagogik Verlag. Hakala, J. (2009). Die Ausbildung der Klassenlehrer für die neunjährige Grundschule. In A.-L.  Matthies & E.  Skiera (Hrsg.), Das Bildungswesen in Finnland (S. 201–213). Klinkhardt. Hakkarainen, K. (2003). Emergence of progressive-inquiry culture in computer-supported collaborative learning. Learning Environments Research, 6, 199–220. Harper, D. L. (2017). The peripheral factors of inclusive education and teacher self-efficacy (Thesis, Concordia University, St. Paul). https://digitalcommons.csp.edu/cup_commons_ grad_edd/98 Hascher, T. (2017). Die Bedeutung von Wohlbefinden und Sozialklima für Inklusion. In B.  Lütje-Klose, S.  Miller, S.  Schwab, & B.  Streese (Hrsg.), Inklusion: Profile für die Schul- und Unterrichtsentwicklung in Deutschland, Österreich und der Schweiz Theoretische Grundlagen – Empirische Befunde – Praxisbeispiele (S. 69–79). Waxmann. Helsinki, U. (2008). Curriculum for special teacher education. Department of Teacher Education, University of Helsinki.

References

177

Helsper, W. (2008). Schulkulturen - die Schule als symbolische Sinnordnung. Zeitschrift für Pädagogik, 54(1), 63–80. Hildebrandt-Stramann, R. (2014). Zeit- und Raumkonzepte – Interpretationen zu Bewegung und körperlicher Aufführungspraxis in Ganztagsschulen. In R.  HildebrandtStramann, R. Laging, & J. Teubner (Hrsg.), Bewegung und Sport in der Ganztagsschule. StuBBS: Ergebnisse der qualitativen Studie (S. 422–463). SchneiderVerlag. Hinz, A. (2009). Inklusive Pädagogik in der Schule– veränderter Orientierungsrahmen für die schulische Sonderpädagogik!? Oder doch deren Ende?? Zeitschrift Für Heilpädagogik, 60, 171–179. Hmelo-Silver, C.  E. (2004). Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn? Educational Psychology Review, 16, 235–266. Holland, K., & Haegele, J. A. (2021). Perspectives of students with disabilities toward physical education: A review update 2014–2019, Kinesiology Review, 1–10. Retrieved 2021, January 11. https://journals.humankinetics.com/view/journals/krj/aop/article-­10.1123-­ kr.2020-­0002/article-­10.1123-­kr.2020-­0002.xml Hollenbach-Biele, N., & Klemm, K. (2020). Inklusive Bildung zwischen Licht und Schatten: Eine Bilanz nach zehn Jahren inklusiven Unterrichts. Bertelsmann Stiftung. Holtappels, H.  G., & Serwe, E. (2009). Bewegung und Sport  – Ein Förderbereich in Ganztagsschulen? In S. Appel, H. Ludwig, & U. Rother (Hrsg.), Jahrbuch Ganztagsschule 2010 – Vielseitig Fördern (S. 67–78). Wochenschau. Horelli, L., & Saari, M. (2002). Tasa-arvoa valtavirtaan. Tasa-arvon valtavirtaistamisen menetelmiäja käytäntöjä. Sosiaalija terveysministeriön selvityksiä 11. Ihalainen, T. (2008). Vertiefender Exkurs I: “Vom Ausland lernen” – Zur Reisetätigkeit finnischer Pädagoginnen und Pädagogen und deren Einfluss auf die Entwicklung des finnischen Bildungswesen. In A.-L. Matthies & E. Skiera (Hrsg.), Studien zum Bildungswesen und Schulsystem in Finnland (S. 75–80). Imhäuser, K.-H. (2014). Welche Räume braucht eine inklusive Schule? Rahmenbedingungen und Grundstrukturen für neue Lernumgebungen. Pädagogik, 66(11), 46–49. Jahnukainen, M., & Itkonen, T. (2021). Steps to inclusion? In A. Köpfer, J. J. W. Powell, & R. Zahnd (Hrsg.), Handbuch Inklusion international (S. 345–356). Budrich. Johnson, M. (2015). Co-Teaching: Voraussetzung und Garant für eine Schule für Alle  – Erfahrungen aus den USA. Zeitschrift für Inklusion. http://www.inklusion-­online.net/ index.php/inklusion-­online/article/view/262. Accessed 2017, März 15. Julkunen, R. (2010). Sukupuolen järjestykset ja tasa-arvon paradoksit (orders of gender and paradoxes of equality). Vastapaino. Kaletta, B. (2008). Anerkennung oder Abwertung. Über die Verarbeitung sozialer Desintegration. VS Verlag. Kansanen, P., & Meri, M. (2006). Finland. In W. Hörner, H. Döbert, L. R. Reuter, & B. von Kopp (Eds.), The education systems of Europe (pp. 251–262). Springer. Keefe, E. B., & Moore, V. (2004). The challenge of co-teaching in inclusive classrooms at the high school level: What the teacher told us. American Secondary Education, 32(3), 77–88. Keski-Levijoki, J. (2008). Gehörlose Kinder und Jugendliche – Ausbildung und Kultur in der Gebärdensprache. In A.-L. Matthies & E. Skiera (Hrsg.), Studien zum Bildungswesen und Schulsystem in Finnland (S. 285–289).

178

4  Guidelines for Inclusive Schools: Case Studies from Finland

Klemm, K. (2010). Gemeinsam lernen. Inklusion leben. Status Quo und Herausforderungen inklusiver Bildung in Deutschland. Bertelsmann Stiftung. http://www. bertelsmann-­­s tiftung.de/cps/rde/xbcr/SID-­3 86A35D7–651750FE/bst/xcms_bst_ dms_32811_32812_2.pdf. Accessed 2016, September 20. Klemm, K. (2013). Inklusion in Deutschland – Eine bildungsstatistische Analyse. Bertelsmann Stiftung. http://www.bertelsmann-­stiftung.de/cps/rde/xbcr/SID-­B8248BAD870248E4/ bst/xcms_bst_dms_37485_37486_2.pdf. Accessed 2016, September 20. Kokko, K., Rantanen, J., & Pulkkinen, L. (2015). Associations between mental well-being and personality from a life span perspective. In M. Blatný (Ed.), Personality and well-­ being across the life-span (pp. 134–159). Palgrave. Konrad, K. (2014). Lernen lernen – allein und mit anderen: Konzepte, Lösungen, Beispiele. Springer. Kricke, M. (2015). Lernen und Lehren in Deutschland und Finnland: eine empirische Studie zu Schulsystem und LehrerInnenbildung im Ländervergleich (Unv. Dissertation). Universität zu Köln. Kricke, M. (2016). Die Auswahl von Lehramtsstudierenden: Ein Beispiel aus Finnland. In A. Boeger (Hrsg.), Eignung für den Lehrer*innenberuf. Auswahl und Förderung (S. 305–332). Springer. Kullmann, H., Lütje-Klose, B., & Textor, A. (2014). Eine Allgemeine Didaktik für inklusive Lerngruppen  – Fünf Leitprinzipien als Grundlage eines Bielefelder Ansatzes der Inklusiven Didaktik. In B. Amrhein & M. Dziak-Mahler (Hrsg.), Fachdidaktik inklusiv – Auf der Suche nach didaktischen Leitlinien für den Umgang mit Vielfalt in der Schule (S. 89–107). Waxmann. Laging, R. (2008). Bewegung und Sport. Zur integrativen Bedeutung von Bewegungsaktivitäten im Ganztag. In T.  Coelen & H.  Otto (Hrsg.), Grundbegriffe Ganztagsbildung  – Das Handbuch (S. 253–262). VS. Laging, R. (2017). Bewegung in Schule und Unterricht. Anregungen für eine bewegungsorientierte Schulentwicklung. Kohlhammer. Lähdemäki, J. (2019). Case study: The Finnish national curriculum 2016—A co-created National Education Policy. In J. Cook (Ed.), Sustainability, human well-being, and the future of education. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-­3-­319-­78580-­6_13 Leineweber, H. (2015). “Ich unterrichte die Kids und nehme sie so, wie sie sind”  – Zur Bedeutung subjektiver Theorien von Lehrkräften für die Entwicklung inklusiven Sportunterrichts. In S. Meier & S. Ruin (Hrsg.), Inklusion als Herausforderung, Aufgabe und Chance für den Schulsport (S. 163–183). Logos. Leitner, M., Oebelsberger, W., Städtler, H., Thuma, M., & Wimmer, M. (2015). Schulen in Bewegung bringen. Grundsatzpapier für Bewegte Schule Österreich. Bewegung & Sport in Kindergärten, Schulen Und Vereinen, 69(1), 10–12. Lelgemann, R. (2013). Schulen und Klassen barrierefrei gestalten  – oder: niemand muss perfekt sein. In J.  Kahlert, K.  Nitsche & K.  Zierer (Hrsg.), Räume zum Lernen und ­Lehren. Perspektiven einer zeitgemäßen Schulraumgestaltung (S. 238–248). Klinkhardt. Inklusion für Kinder und Jugendliche mit dem Förderschwerpunkt Körperliche und Motorische Entwicklung. Zeitschrift für Heilpädagogik, 63(11), 465–473. LIKES. (2017). Towards more active and pleasant school days. Interim report on the Finnish Schools on the Move programme 2015–2016. https://liikkuvakoulu.fi/sites/default/files/ liikkuvakoulu_yleisesite_en_web.pdf

References

179

Lütje-Klose, B. & Miller, S. (2017). Kooperation von Lehrkräften mit allgemeinem und sonderpädagogischem Lehramt in inklusiven Settings. Forschungsergebnisse aus Deutschland, Österreich und der Schweiz. In B.  Lütje-Klose, S.  Miller, S.  Schwab, & B.  Streese (Hrsg.), Inklusion: Profile für die Schul- und Unterrichtsentwicklung in Deutschland, Österreich und der Schweiz (S. 203–214). Waxmann. Lütje-Klose, B., & Urban, M. (2014). Kooperation als wesentliche Bedingung inklusiver Schul- und Unterrichtsentwicklung. Teil 1: Grundlagen und Modelle inklusiver Kooperation. Vierteljahrsschrift Für Heilpädagogik Und Ihre Nachbargebiete VHN, 83(2), 112–123. Malinen, P. (2008). Vertiefender Exkurs II: Ausländische Einflüsse bei der Gestaltung der finnischen Grundschule. In A.-L.  Matthies & E.  Skiera (Hrsg.), Studien zum Bildungswesen und Schulsystem in Finnland (S. 81–89). Malinen, O.-P., Savolainen, H., Engelbrecht, P., Xu, J., Nel, M., Nel, N., & Tlale, D. (2013). Exploring teacher self-efficacy for inclusive practices in three diverse countries. Teaching and Teacher Education, 33, 34–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2013.02.004 Maslow, A. (1962). Toward psychology of being. Van Nostrand. McMullen, J., Ní Chróinín, D., Tammelin, T., Pogorzelska, M., & van der Mars, H. (2015). International approaches to whole-of-school physical activity promotion. Quest, 67(4), 384–399. Melzer, C., Meyer, M., Ehlscheid, M., & Schlicht, S. (2016). Inklusive Bildung braucht ein allgemeines inklusives Kerncurriculum – Denkwege und Umsetzungsmöglichkeiten. Teilhabe, 55(4), 192–197. Meri, M. (2010). Finnland. In H. Döbert, W. Hörner, B. von Kopp, & L. R. Reuter (Hrsg.), Die Bildungssysteme Europas (3. Aufl., S. 226–238). Schneider Verlag. Meri, M., & Mihajlovic, C. (2019). Phänomene statt Schulfächer? Aktuelle Entwicklungen im finnischen Kerncurriculum unter einer “inklusiven Brille”. Gemeinsam Lernen, 2, 50–54. Mero, M., & Meri, M. (2017). Inklusive Schule – Einblicke in das finnische Bildungssystem und seine Lehramtsausbildung. Ein Bericht. In S. Barsch, N. Glutsch, & M. Massumi (Hrsg.), Diversity in der LehrerInnenbildung. Internationale Dimensionen der Vielfalt in Forschung und Praxis (S. 121–129). Waxmann Verlag. Mihajlovic, C. (2018a). Zwischen PISA und Inklusion: Die Rolle des sonderpädagogischen Fördersystems in Finnland. Zeitschrift Für Inklusion, 1. https://www.inklusion-­online. net/index.php/inklusion-­online/article/view/412 Mihajlovic, C. (2018b). Ansprüche an ein inklusives Kerncurriculum: Umsetzungsmöglichkeiten am Beispiel Finnlands. Schweizerische Zeitschrift Für Heilpädagogik, 2018(4), 46–53. Mihajlovic, C. (2019). Towards inclusive education? An analysis of the current physical education curriculum in Finland from the perspective of ableism. International Journal of Physical Education, 2019(4), 29–40. Ministry of Education and Culture. (2012). Finnish education in a nutshell. http://www.oph. fi/download/146428_Finnish_Education_in_a_Nutshell.pdf. Accessed 2016, Okt 20. Müller, C. (2010). Bewegte Grundschule. Aspekte einer Didaktik der Bewegungserziehung als umfassende Aufgabe der Grundschule (3. Aufl.). Academia. Müller, C., & Dinter, A. (2013). Bewegte Schule für ALLE. Modifizierungen eines Konzeptes der bewegten Schule für die Förderschwerpunkte Lernen, geistige Entwicklung, körperli-

180

4  Guidelines for Inclusive Schools: Case Studies from Finland

che und motorische Entwicklung, emotionale und soziale Entwicklung sowie Sprache. Unfallkasse Sachsen. Müller, C., & Petzold, R. (2006). Bewegte Schule. Aspekte einer Didaktik der Bewegungserziehung in den Klassen 5 bis 10/12. Academia. Niemi, H. (2012). The societal factors contributing to education and schooling in Finland. In H. Niemi, A. Toom, & A. Kallioniemi (Hrsg.), Miracle of education: The principles and practices of teaching and learning in Finnish schools (S. 19–38). SensePublishers. Niemi, H., & Jakku-Sihvonen, R. (2006). Research-based teacher education in Finland. In R.  Sihvonen & H.  Niemi (Eds.), Research-based teacher education in Finland  – Reflections by Finnish teacher educators (pp.  31–51). Finnish Educational Research Association. Nuolijärvi, P. (2012). Language education policy and practice in Finland. In G. Stickel & M. Carrier (Eds.), Language education in creating a multilingual Europe. Contributions to the annual conference 2011 of EFNIL in London (pp. 111–120). Lang. OECD. (2001). Lernen für das Leben Erste Ergebnisse der internationalen Schulleistungsstudie PISA 2000. Organisation für wirtschaftliche Zusammenarbeit und Entwicklung. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264595903-­de OECD. (2004). Lernen für die Welt von morgen. Erste Ergebnisse von PISA 2003. Paris: Organisation für wirtschaftliche Zusammenarbeit und Entwicklung (OECD). http:// dx.doi.org/10.3718 1787/9789264063556-de. OECD. (2005). The definition and selection of key competencies. Executive summary. https://www.oecd.org/pisa/35693281.pdf. Accessed 2016, September 20. OECD. (2007). PISA 2006. Naturwissenschaftliche Kompetenzen für die Welt von morgen. Organisation für wirtschaftliche Zusammenarbeit und Entwicklung. https://doi. org/10.1787/9789264041257-­de. Accessed 2017, März 26. OECD. (2011). PISA 2009 Ergebnisse: Potenziale nutzen und Chancengerechtigkeit sichern. Sozialer Hintergrund und Schülerleistungen (Bd. 2). Organisation für wirtschaftliche Zusammenarbeit und Entwicklung. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264095359-­de. Accessed 2016, September 26. OECD. (2013a). Bildung auf einen Blick 2013. http://www.oecd-­ilibrary.org/education/bildung-­auf-­einen-­blick-­2013-­oecd-­indikatoren_eag-­2013-­de. Accessed 2016, September 10. OECD (2013b). International migration outlook 2013. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. https://doi.org/10.1787/migr_outlook-­2013-­en. Accessed 2016, September 26. OECD. (2014a). Bildung auf einen Blick 2014: OECD-Indikatoren. Bertelsmann Verlag. https://doi.org/10.1787/eag-­2014-­de. Accessed 2016, September 26. OECD. (2014b). PISA 2012 Ergebnisse: Exzellenz durch Chancengerechtigkeit (Band 2). Allen Schülerinnen und Schülern die Voraussetzungen zum Erfolg sichern. Organisation für wirtschaftliche Zusammenarbeit und Entwicklung. https://doi. org/10.1787/9789264207486-­de. Accessed 2016, September 26. OECD. (2015). “Indicator D3 how much are teachers paid?”, in education at a glance 2015: OECD indicators. OECD Publishing. OECD. (2016). PISA 2015 results (volume I): Excellence and equity in education. Organisation für wirtschaftliche Zusammenarbeit und Entwicklung. https://doi. org/10.1787/9789264266490-­en

References

181

OECD. (2017). Finland. Student performance (PISA 2015) – Index of social inclusion (indicator). https://doi.org/10.1787/888933433214. Official Statistics of Finland (OSF). (2014a). Births [e-publication]. ISSN=1798–2413. 2013. Statistics Finland. http://www.stat.fi/til/synt/2013/synt_2013_2014–04–08_ tie_001_en.html Official Statistics of Finland (OSF). (2014b). Discontinuation of education [e-­publication]. ISSN=1798–9302. Helsinki: Statistics Finland. http://www.stat.fi/til/kkesk/2012/ kkesk_2012_2014-­03-­20_tie_001_en.html. Accessed 2016, September 22. Official Statistics of Finland (OSF). (2016). Special education. Appendix table 1. Comprehensive school pupils having received intensified or special support in 2015. Statistics Finland. http://www.stat.fi/til/erop/2015/erop_2015_2016-­06-­13_tau_001_ en.html. Accessed 2016, Okt 22. Official Statistics of Finland (OSF). (2018a). Special education [e-publication]. Statistics Finland [referred: 11.1.2021]. http://www.stat.fi/til/erop/2016/erop_2016_2017-­06-­13_ tie_001_en.html Pesonen, H. (2016). Sense of belonging for students with intensive special education needs. An exploration of students’ belonging and teachers’ role in implementing support. Research report 380, Helsinki University Press. Prengel, A. (2006). Pädagogik der Vielfalt. Verschiedenheit und Gleichberechtigung in Interkultureller, Feministischer und Integrativer Pädagogik (3. Aufl.). VS Verlag. Rackwitz, R.-P. (2005). Bildungsfaktor Nachhilfe. Pädagogik, 57(12), 36–41. Reich, K. (2014). Herausforderungen an eine inklusive Didaktik. Schulpädagogik Heute, 10, 40–58. Reich, K., Asselhoven, D., & Kargl, S. (2015). Eine inklusive Schule für alle: Das Modell der inklusiven Universitätsschule Köln. Beltz Verlag. Rintala, P., Välimaa, R. S., Tynjälä, J. A., Boyce, W. F., King, M., Villberg, J., & Kannas, L. K. (2011). Physical activity of children with and without long-term illness or disability. Journal of Physical Activity & Health, 8(8), 1066–1073. Rühle, S. (2015). Diversität, Curriculum und Bildungsstrukturen Eine vergleichende Untersuchung in Deutschland und Finnland. Waxmann. Sahlberg, P. (2007). Education policies for raising student learning: The Finnish approach. Journal of Educational Policy, 22(2), 147–171. Sahlberg, P. (2011). Finnish lessons: What can the world learn from educational change in Finland? Teachers College Press. Sahlberg, P. (2013). Teachers as leaders in Finland. Educational Leadership, 71, 36–40. Sahlgren, G. H. (2015). Real Finnish lessons. The true story of an education superpower. Centre for Policy Studies. Saloviita, T. (2018). How common are inclusive educational practices among Finnish teachers? International Journal of Inclusive Education, 22(5), 560–575. Schmidt, H.  G. (1983). Problem-based learning: Rationale and description. Medical Education, 17, 11–16. Schroeder, J. (2010). Lernen von Finnland? Im Ernst? Probleme der Herstellung von Bildungsgerechtigkeit im Schulsystem. In N.  Wenning, M.  Spetsmann-Kunkel, & S.  Winnerling (Hrsg.), Strategien der Ausgrenzung. Exkludierende Effekte staatlicher Politik und alltäglicher Praktiken in Bildung und Gesellschaft (S. 171–183). Waxmann. Schwandt, T. A. (1997). Qualitative inquiry: A dictionary of terms. Sage Publications.

182

4  Guidelines for Inclusive Schools: Case Studies from Finland

Silander, P. (2015). Digital pedagogy. In P.  Mattila & P.  Silander (Hrsg.), How to create the school of the future: Revolutionary thinking and design from Finland (S. 9–26). University of Oulu, Center for Internet Excellence. Spencer-Cavaliere, N., & Watkinson, E. J. (2010). Inclusion understood from the perspectives of children with disability. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 27(4), 275–293. https://doi.org/10.1123/apaq.27.4.275 Städtler, H. (2009). Qualitätsentwicklung in bewegten Schulen: Bewegte, gesunde Schule Niedersachsen– eine Bilanz. Leipziger Sportwissenschaftliche Beiträge, 50(2), 134–142. Städtler, H. (2015). Bewegung macht Schule Warum brauchen wir die bewegte Schule? Bewegung & Sport, 69(1), 6–9. Stobbe, C. (2014). Bewegung an einer inklusiven Ganztagsschule. In R.  Hildebrandt-­ Stramann, R. Laging, & J. Teubner (Hrsg.), Bewegung und Sport in der Ganztagsschule. StuBBS: Ergebnisse der qualitativen Studie (S. 250–287). Schneider. Sturm, T. (2016). Rekonstruktiv-praxeologische Schul- und Unterrichtsforschung im Kontext von Inklusion. Zeitschrift für Inklusion, 4. https://www.inklusion-­online.net/index.php/ inklusion-­online/article/view/321 Symeonidis, V., & Schwarz, J. F. (2016). Phenomenon-based teaching and learning through the pedagogical lenses of phenomenology: The recent curriculum reform in Finland. Forum Oświatowe, 28(2), 31–47. http://forumoswiatowe.pl/index.php/czasopismo/article/view/458 Theunissen, G. (2013). Empowerment und Inklusion behinderter Menschen. Eine Einführung in Heilpädagogik und Soziale Arbeit (3. Aufl.). Lambertus Verlag. Tomlinson, S. (2021). Sociology of special and inclusive education. In A.  Köpfer, J.  J. W. Powell, & R. Zahnd (Eds.), Handbuch Inklusion international (pp. 59–73). Budrich. Trautmann, M., & Wischer, B. (2011). Heterogenität in der Schule. Eine kritische Einführung. VS Verlag. Trumpa, S., Janz, F., Heyl, V., & Seifried, S. (2014). Einstellungen zu Inklusion bei Lehrkräften und Eltern – Eine schulartspezifische Analyse. Zeitschrift für Bildungsforschung, 4(3), 241–256. https://doi.org/10.1007/s35834-­014-­0103-­y UNESCO. (2009). Inklusion: Leitlinien für die Bildungspolitik. Deutsche UNESCO-­ Kommission e.V. Veber, M. (2013). Studentische Professionalisierung in Inklusion für Inklusion – Anregungen aus der ersten Phase der Lehrer*innenbildung. Seminar, 19(1), 66–78. Vetoniemi, J., & Kärnä, E. (2019). Being included  – Experiences of social participation of pupils with special education needs in mainstream schools. International Journal of Inclusive Education., 25, 1190–1204. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2019.1603329 Vitikka, E., Krokfors, L., & Hurmerinta, E. (2012). The Finnish national core curriculum: Structure and development. In H.  Niemi, A.  Toom, & A.  Kallioniemi (Eds.), Miracle of education: The principles and practices of teaching and learning in finnish schools (pp. 83–96). Sense Publishers. von Hentig, H. (2006). Die Bielefelder Laborschule. Aufgaben, Prinzipien, Einrichtungen. IMPULS (Publikationsreihe der Laborschule) (Bd. 7). Laborschule Bielefeld. Vygotsky, L. S. (1987). Thinking and speech. In R. W. Rieber & A. S. Carton (Eds.), The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky (Vol. 1), problems of general psychology (pp. 39–285). Plenum Press.

References

183

Weigelt, L. (2015). Herausforderungen für den inklusiven Sportunterricht mit Blick auf Leistungssituationen. In M.  Giese & L.  Weigelt (Hrsg.), Inklusiver Sportunterricht in Theorie und Praxis (S. 80–91). Meyer & Meyer Verlag. Wenning, N. (2007). Heterogenität als Dilemma für Bildungseinrichtungen. In S.  Boller, E.  Rosowski, & T.  Stroot (Hrsg.), Heterogenität in Schule und Unterricht. Handlungsansätze zum pädagogischen Umgang mit Vielfalt (S. 21–32). Beltz-Verlag. Wheatley, K.  F. (2002). The potential benefits of teacher efficacy doubts for educational reform. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18(1), 5–22. World Health Organization (WHO). (2010). Global recommendations on physical activity for health. WHO Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data. Yada, A., & Savolainen, H. (2017). Japanese in-service teachers’ attitudes towards inclusive education and self-efficacy for inclusive practices. Teaching and Teacher Education, 64, 222–229. Yli-Piipari, S. (2014). Physical education curriculum reform in Finland. Quest (grand Rapids, Mich), 66(4), 468–484. Zenke, C. (2017). Schule als inklusiver Raum? Zeitschrift Für Inklusion, 1(4) https://www. inklusion-­online.net/index.php/inklusion-­online/article/view/441 Zimmer, R. (2004). Handbuch der Bewegungserziehung. Grundlagen für Ausbildung und pädagogische Praxis (17. Aufl.). Herder.

5

Conclusion: Learning from Finland?

The question of what Germany or other countries can learn from Finland has been discussed again and again in the public and academic debate (cf. Dose et al., 2007; Sahlberg, 2011). In this context, Rühle (2015) points to two extremes: On the one hand, Finland is almost idealized, on the other hand, positions can sometimes be found that seriously question the idea of learning from Finland. It should be noted that the framework conditions in Finland are different from those in Germany. This refers not only to the social status of school education and teachers, but also to the national educational conditions with a comparatively long tradition of an integrative (comprehensive) school system. In addition, social differences in Finnish society are less pronounced than in Germany. Although dealing with societal diversity and social inequality is also becoming increasingly important in Finland, the country has a low proportion of migrants and socioeconomically disadvantaged population groups compared to other countries (cf. OECD, 2013, 2016). It is obvious that school systems of successful countries cannot simply be transferred to another country. The aim of the present study was not to compare the two school systems in Finland and Germany. Rather, the aim was to take an in-depth and differentiated look at country-specific and school form-specific aspects of Finland, taking diversity in everyday school life into account. The analysis of the (inclusive) school culture in four Finnish schools revealed that all schools deal with the diversity of their student body in very different ways. Although these schools are not representative for the Finnish education system – this cannot be fulfilled by an individual case study – conclusions can be drawn from the specific design of the school culture about the generally applicable conditions for the students in the country studied (cf. Lange, 2006). The design of the school culture of an individual school must therefore always be considered in connection with the social and political patterns © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2023 C. Mihajlovic, Learning from Finland, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-40177-1_5

185

186

5  Conclusion: Learning from Finland?

of interpretation and decision-making processes, which have an impact on the concrete actions in the school (cf. Lange, 2006, p. 151). Overall, the case analyses allowed us to identify several structural principles across schools, some of which are characteristic of the Finnish school system and can also be found in the relevant literature. These structural principles will be explained below and placed in the current discourse on inclusion.

5.1 Structural and Educational Policy Framework of the Finnish Education System The Finnish Core Curriculum In Finland, only one curriculum for nine-year primary school is valid nationally. This curriculum aims to meet the needs of all pupils. In the sense of an „inclusive core curriculum“ (Melzer et al., 2016), teaching in Finland takes place in a target-­ oriented manner and is based on the guidelines and assessment criteria of the national framework curricula. It provides a basic framework for the development of school-specific curricula comprising the local level, as required by UNESCO (2009) and Reich (2014), among others. The Finnish core curriculum takes into account gender, cultural identity and linguistic background. In terms of UNESCO (2009), it is an effective tool to overcome cultural, religious and gender differences. A human rights framing is evident insofar as access to general (school) education is explicitly emphasized as a human right. Furthermore, the promotion of tolerance and human rights among learners also plays a crucial role, which is evident in the “inclusive values” of the framework curriculum. The national core curriculum in Finland is fundamentally aimed at enabling all students to participate fully in a free society with unequal conditions. In terms of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UN, 2006), this implies equal access to quality education in mainstream schools regardless of individual conditions. On the content and objective level, the subject-specific specifications are flexible and can be adapted to different needs of the learners. On the methodological level, too, the curriculum offers teachers freedom to choose appropriate working methods. Exceptions to the generally formulated educational goals and content are learners with comprehensive support needs, who are supported within the framework of an individual support plan (IEP)1 according to individually defined support goals and measures. The

 IEP = Individualized Education Plan.

1

5.1 Structural and Educational Policy Framework of the Finnish Education…

187

IEP is usually not based on the curricular requirements of the subjects, but on so-­ called “activity areas” (cf. FNBE, 2016). Demands on an Understanding of Education in an Inclusive Core Curricu lum The understanding of education in the Finnish core curriculum shows parallels to Klafki’s explanations of critical-constructive didactics (cf. Klafki, 2007). In the Finnish core curriculum, a concept of education is described that basically believes in education for everyone (cf. Bernasconi, 2016; Fornefeld, 2010). The present understanding of education considers education as social and cultural participation, and is characterized by individual growth (“personal growth”). Education thus describes a process that takes place in the individual and must start from the individual, and is thus transformational in nature (Bernasconi, 2016). Bernasconi (2016, p. 171) points out in the context of inclusion that people with severe and multiple disabilities thus do not need a “special” concept of education, but rather rely on the recognition of their individual access to education and the corresponding support in their educational process. Education under this understanding should therefore not be oriented towards fixed content and the learning of certain skills and abilities, but should primarily be seen as a process of individual development of the person (cf. Bernasconi, 2016). The analysis of the Finnish core curriculum also makes it clear that the experiential space of school is seen as an instance of socialization, and should be designed under structures that promote cooperation and the common good (Bünger & Mayer, 2009, p. 845). In this context, the importance of well-being and social climate are also emphasized on a curricular level as important components of an inclusive school culture. The Finnish core curriculum fundamentally assumes the diversity of all teachers, and emphasizes the appreciation of diversity. The Finnish curriculum is designed to be flexible enough to allow for adaptation to individual needs, in line with UNESCO (2009, p. 19), and to encourage teachers to seek solutions that meet the needs, abilities and learning styles of each individual child.

5.1.1 Decision-Making at Local Level The current Finnish core curriculum was implemented throughout Finland in the 2016/2017 school year. It provides a basic framework for the development of a school-specific curriculum in each individual school. The existence of an “inclusive” attitude that prioritises the advancement of all learners in order to achieve the highest possible participation for all has become widely evident in the interviews

188

5  Conclusion: Learning from Finland?

with teachers and is also in line with Kricke’s (2015) study. Based on the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which came into force in Finland on 23 December 2010, the positive approach to diversity is emphasised even more in the new curriculum (FNBE, 2016). The new curriculum emphasises valuing the diversity of all learners and the importance of an inclusive school community. This aims to provide all children and young people not only with learning under one roof, but also with an inclusive learning environment on a didactic and spatial level (cf. Kricke, 2017). The specifications of the national curriculum are overall open and flexible. The determination of certain hourly quotas for subjects and support measures are set in the respective municipality, but the schools usually have a say in the decisions at municipal level. Schools in Finland enjoy a high degree of autonomy overall. This is reflected, for example, in the fact that many schools are increasingly specialising in certain (subject) areas and tailoring their school-specific curriculum accordingly. In the Helsinki area, there are schools with very diverse school profiles in the linguistic, artistic and scientific fields. Several stakeholders emphasise the pedagogical freedom that the implementation of school-specific curricula offers to teachers. It is emphasised that the school-­specific curriculum is based on the guidelines of the national curriculum and thus gives all (Finnish) schools a uniform quality. Taking into account the role of market-­oriented school policies, hardly any neoliberal tendencies could be identified in practice. Several Finnish authors (Graham & Jahnukainen, 2011; Sahlberg, 2011) consider that there are no major differences in quality between public community schools. Increased privatization of schooling seems to be unpopular in Finland. However, segregative tendencies can be reinforced in practice by school profiling. For example, in the researched school with a sports profile (School II), the choice of a school with a focus on sports is only possible if a corresponding entrance examination is successfully passed. The same applies to secondary schools at upper secondary level, which have their main focus on mathematics or foreign languages and require corresponding grades. One student interviewed (Elias) was critical of this, stressing the importance of good grades for secondary school. The transition phase between lower secondary school and upper secondary school is considered a critical time of school selection in Finland (cf. Malinen, 2008; Rühle, 2015; Schroeder, 2010).

5.1.2 The Role of the Inclusive School System The joint education of pupils with and without special educational needs is already structurally very advanced in the Finnish school system. However, this does not

5.1 Structural and Educational Policy Framework of the Finnish Education…

189

necessarily mean that teachers identify with this ‘support mentality’ (cf. Rühle, 2015). In contrast, the joint schooling of people with and without special educational needs is still at the outset in Germany. Although a decrease in the absolute number of pupils in special schools can be observed, according to Wocken (2014) this decrease is exclusively due to demographic factors and the general decrease of pupils at all schools. Despite all inclusion efforts, the rate of exclusion remained constant for a long time while the number of pupils with a diagnosed special educational need increased (cf. Klemm, 2013). However, current data from the school year 2018/2019 show that inclusive education in Germany is progressing slowly but steadily (cf. Hollenbach-Biele & Klemm, 2020): While in the school year 2008/2009, 4.8% of all children in grades 1–9 or 10 were still taught in special schools, 10 years later it is still “only” 4.2%. A look at the individual federal states, however, reveals major regional differences in inclusive schooling:in federal states such as Baden-Württemberg, Bavaria or Rhineland-Palatinate, the proportion of children and adolescents attending special schools still increased after 2008/2009 (cf. Hollenbach-Biele & Klemm, 2020). On the other hand, there are Länder in which this proportion has fallen significantly. According to the study by Klemm (2013), it is mainly the Hauptschulen that have to serve for the so-called ‘inclusion’: Nationwide, slightly more than one third (34.1%) of pupils with special educational needs in lower secondary education are taught at Hauptschulen. Only 4.3% and 5.5% are taught inclusively in Realschulen and Gymnasien respectively (cf. Klemm, 2013, p. 22). So far, primary schools in Germany are the closest to a “school for all”, which is also reflected in the high inclusion rate compared to secondary school types. The challenges associated with the diversity of pupils are thus multiplied at the ‘lower end’ of a structured school system (cf. also Rühle, 2015). This presents the Hauptschulen with particularly difficult financial, personnel and spatial conditions. The use of special needs teachers at mainstream schools, limited to a few hours, cannot be a far-reaching solution. According to the study by Hollenbach-­Biele and Klemm (2020), however, the rate of exclusion in Germany will not decrease in the future: the plans of the federal states indicate that, on average, the proportion of children taught in special schools will remain at the level of 4.2% reached in 2018/2019 until 2030/2031 (cf. Hollenbach-Biele & Klemm, 2020). Moreover, due to the large shortage of teachers, in particular teachers with special educational needs qualifications, school development processes of the Länder towards inclusive schools are severely limited. However, inclusive school systems cannot be considered per sé as a solution in the context of inclusion efforts. However, they can – under the appropriate social framework conditions – certainly favour the handling of heterogeneity in the school context. Regardless of the structural issue, inclusive school systems face similar challenges in dealing with diver-

190

5  Conclusion: Learning from Finland?

sity as segregative school systems. In the context of this analysis, it thus seems more appropriate to review which system-specific and school form-specific aspects – independent of the school system issue – are relevant in the German inclusion discourse.

5.1.3 The Role of the Three-Tier Support System The results of the study have shown that the integrated support system in Finland plays an important role in dealing with heterogeneity in everyday school life. Some Finnish authors see a connection between special needs education and Finland’s successful performance in international school performance studies (cf. Kivirauma & Ruoho, 2007). A variety of support and differentiation measures were observed in everyday teaching. Since all students are taught according to the same curriculum, internal and external differentiation measures play an important role. Support measures are understood as an everyday and flexible form of support, which is basically directed at all learners. At Finnish schools it compensates for the extracurricular tutoring system established in other countries (cf. Schroeder, 2010; Klemm & Klemm, 2010). It should be noted that joint teaching in heterogeneous learning groups is also always a question of personnel resources. In Finnish everyday school life, the school staff is composed of multi-professional teams: In addition to teachers, the staff in schools consists of a professional network of different disciplines, such as health care nurses, school psychologists, learning and career counsellors and school social workers who take care of learners’ private or social concerns./problems. Multi-professional cooperation in the so-called “student welfare teams” plays an important role in early and preventive support. The support team decides together on the necessity of support measures. The parental home also plays a special role, being involved in the child’s support process as early as possible (cf. Mero & Meri, 2017). Through this general form of support, possible learning difficulties should be identified and treated at an early stage in order to avoid serious consequences later. Together with the integrated system of special needs education, the support provided by the ‘welfare teams’ at the individual schools is considered to explain the low class repetition and drop-out rates in Finland (cf. Rühle, 2015; Sahlberg, 2011). In Finland, as it is common in other European countries, each individual school is provided with general l educational support on classroom level. This general support is organised as part of a comprehensive in-school support system. In addition to special needs education, the system also includes offers of socio-educational support and health care, which are adapted to the circumstances of the respective individual school. General educa-

5.1 Structural and Educational Policy Framework of the Finnish Education…

191

tional support in Finland is provided through ‘throughput funding’ (cf. Katzenbach & Schnell, 2012). The extent of support is measured by the total number of pupils, i.e. there is a flat-rate allocation of resources. The first level of support (general support) is generally accepted as a support measure and is considered an integral part of everyday school life (cf. Kricke, 2015). Compared to other countries, an above-average number of students receive at least one of the three forms of support, but only the two more intensive forms of support (intensified and special support) are formally recorded. A total of 15.7% of all Finnish pupils received intensified support or special support in the 2015/2016 school year (OSF, 2016). However, the third support level (special support) only applies if the individual development and learning goals cannot be achieved even within intensive support. This support level is linked to the preparation of a special educational assessment and an individual support plan (Finnish: “HOJKS”), but is not fundamentally tied to a specific support location (cf. FNBE, 2016; Mero & Meri, 2017). The Finnish support system also offers many adjusting screws that can be set differently from school to school. The different organisational ways of implementing support were also reflected in the schools researched. At School I, this is reflected in the flexible support structures, which are perceived by the actors as an everyday and flexible form of support that is basically directed at all learners. This flexible form of special needs education is also demanded by the Finnish educational policy. At School II, on the other hand, special needs education has become established as a form of permanent external differentiation in everyday school life. Here, a pedagogical order in which fixed divisions prevail became apparent: Learners with special educational needs are initially marked as a “special group” by the support measures in separate support rooms. Due to the organisational separation between lessons in class and separate support lessons, pupils with special needs are spatially separated from the rest of the learning group from the very beginning. Due to this organisational implementation of support measures, there is a risk that mechanisms of institutional discrimination (Gomolla & Radtke, 2009) are promoted. The pupils in question experience a permanent segregation, since they are on the one hand spatially separated from the pupils of the regular classes and on the other hand primarily taught by a teacher responsible for them. The support teachers at this school are therefore primarily responsible for the support of pupils in separate support classes. In addition, there are also other activities such as diagnostics, or also the hourly assignment in double occupation with a class or subject teacher in joint lessons in the form of “team teaching measures. The (remedial) teaching is given in small groups, whereby no subdivision into different special focuses takes place. At first sight, School III also showed a pedagogical order in which fixed divisions are present: Learners with special e­ ducational

192

5  Conclusion: Learning from Finland?

needs are marked as a special group in the class because they are individually sorted out by the special education teachers (cf. Blasse et al., 2015). This is particularly visible through forms of external differentiation, e.g. when the special needs teacher moves into the ressource room with some of the pupils with special educational needs and spatially separates the group from the rest of the learning group. Due to the spatial and personnel division, an exclusive potential becomes clear that gives the learners the status of “special”. However, during the participant observation of various teaching sequences it became clear that the teaching is characterised by a high degree of permeability compared to School II. In open teaching phases (e.g. free work phases) it is quite possible and desirable that also learners without special educational needs request the support of the special needs teacher. The subject teacher also sought contact with the learners with special needs in these open teaching phases. Despite the rather spontaneous participation in the open teaching phases, a clear distribution of responsibilities and tasks of the subject teacher and the special needs teacher could be established. At the support and counselling centre (School IV) that was studied there are on the one hand special needs teachers working in the classroom and in outpatient counselling, and on the other hand subject teachers with a special additional qualification (e.g. a sports teacher with a Master’s degree in “Adapted Physical Activity”). In the classes, mostly special needs teachers work in the function of a responsible class teacher (“special class teachers”) as well as specialist teachers in the specific subjects (e.g. sport). In addition, there are school assistants who are responsible for individual pupils. Supplementary support measures are also coordinated in cooperation with therapists and other actors. A fundamental “support mentality” is reflected both in the actions of the special needs teachers and in the actions of the subject teachers. Due to the overall good staffing ratio and the comparatively small school classes, appropriate basic conditions have been created at the school to enable individual support measures to this extent. It remains to be said that the common spatial schooling of people with and without special needs is a conducive, but not a sufficient condition for inclusive teaching. However, some previous studies show that the spatial integration of children and adolescents with comprehensive disabilities does have a positive influence on social coexistence: pupils with comprehensive disabilities participated more often in joint school activities and made more social contacts with other classmates than their peer group in special schools (cf. Hunt et  al., 1994; Kennedy et  al., 1997). In the study conducted by Jahnukainen and Korhonen (2003), the results were similar: according to the interviewed teachers, students with extensive special needs who received inclusive education were comparably more likely to participate in school and extracurricular activities with ‘regular’ students than students with special educational needs. The support system in

5.1 Structural and Educational Policy Framework of the Finnish Education…

193

Finland is certainly a special element, which – given suitable framework conditions – can certainly also serve as a model in other countries. The strength of the Finnish support model lies in the fact that support is not necessarily linked to a diagnostic procedure, and the type and scope of support is always geared to the individual requirements of the child. The fact that a reduction to the category of disability (or a specific focus of support) // is not sufficient enough shows the difficulty of assigning people only to a single characteristic and, moreover, often obstructs the view of existing potentials. An orientation towards the Finnish model of support can certainly be profitable, as this offers the chance of a possible overcoming of the concept of inclusion associated with the diversity dimension of disability. From a perspective, discriminatory “pigeonholing” (cf. also Hinz, 2009; Wocken, 2012) could thus be avoided. In Finland, however, the support system reformed in 2011 is also viewed critically: Although the number of pupils in separate support settings has decreased throughout the country,many pupils are taught temporarily or full-time in separate settings, i.e. in separate classes within a school. Furthermore, even after the reform of the special needs education system, the overall rate of support is very high in international comparison. While there has been a slight decrease in the number of pupils with “special support” in recent years, the number of learners in the second level of support, “intensified support”, is steadily increasing (OSF, 2017). Statistically, male learners are overrepresented in special needs education in Finland and Germany and are more likely to drop out of school. In Finland, of learners with ‘special support’, 70% are currently male and 30% female, and for ‘intensified support’ the distribution is similarly lopsided at 65–35% (OSF, 2017, for the reference year, 2016). The first level of support (“general support”) is not statistically recorded. Another point of criticism is that the special needs education system is also associated with social selection: pupils from families with a low socio-economic status are over-represented in special needs education (cf. Rühle, 2015).

5.1.4 Multi-professional Structures Studies on multiprofessional cooperation of school actors in inclusive schools are sporadic in the German-speaking world, whereby the importance of a common value orientation (Lütje-Klose & Urban, 2014) is emphasized for successful cooperation. This basic orientation results in clear pedagogical action guidelines for everyday school life, which are necessary for joint teaching as well as teamwork (cf. Stobbe, 2014). The results of the present study indicate that at least one network of multi-professional structures is present at all schools. The type of

194

5  Conclusion: Learning from Finland?

c­ ooperation differs significantly at the respective schools and depends on the respective type of school and the corresponding student body, as well as the staff. On the level of school organisation, it became clear across all cases that the special needs teachers at the mainstream schools are usually linked to the year group. This ensures that the work with the respective pupils takes place over a longer period of time and that a continuous cooperation in the multi-professional team is possible. Fixed appointments for team meetings and the evaluation of support and learning plans have established themselves as components of everyday school life. The special needs teachers are also involved in the planning and implementation of lessons. In the primary level this concerns almost all school subjects. In the two secondary schools studied, however, exchange of colleagues takes place less frequently.

5.2 Challenges for Inclusive School and Classroom Development 5.2.1 A Question of (De-)Categorisation? In Finland, the use of superordinate categories (disability, special educational needs) is abandoned; instead, individual support is based on the intensity of the individual need (cf. FNBE, 2016). The use of categories is also questioned in German-­speaking countries, as they represent people with or without disabilities as homogeneous groups of people in each case (cf. Wocken, 2012). Moreover, Tiemann (2015) critically points out that categories always overlap, and thus people cannot be attributed to only one social category (for example, people can have one but also several impairments). The structure of the German school system, which is designed for homogeneity, does not seem to be compatible with a possible “decategorisation”, or at least it slows down the process of dissolving already existing categories. Basically, a social rethinking has to take place first: Not the uniformity of pupils is the norm, but their diversity. In Finland, this way of thinking seems to have prevailed with the majority of people, which becomes clear in the qualitative interviews of this thesis on the one hand, and is also in line with findings of previous surveys (cf. Kricke, 2015; Rühle, 2015). The diversity of learners is seen as the starting point of all further pedagogical decisions. Thus, the best possible place of support for children is decided on an individual basis, whereby schooling in a mainstream school close to the child’s home initially has priority. Further decisions are made depending on the respective support needs or support level (or intensity). For example, a child’s place of support may – after prior pedagogical assessment – also be at a support institution if the appropriate conditions

5.2 Challenges for Inclusive School and Classroom Development

195

are met there. However, special education institutions in Finland are usually not specialised in one specific special focus, as is usually the case in Germany, but cover several special focuses. In addition, all special schools are now also counselling centres (BFZs), which are also active in “inclusive” settings. The main concern is always – if possible – inclusive schooling at a community school. This also includes temporary training and preparation measures for pupils who learn certain skills in the BFZ (e.g. workplace organisation) in order to subsequently apply them in mainstream schools. The renunciation of categorical attributions is deeply inscribed in the programme of inclusive education (cf. Katzenbach, 2015). First of all, a basic problem is that the term “special educational needs” – in international as well as in national comparison – is an inconsistent category which can be attributed to varying definitions. Thus, a comparability between the educational systems is only possible to a limited extent, also due to the different conceptual understandings of “disabilities” or “special educational needs”. The difficulty of an international comparison with regard to the number of students receiving special educational needs is also shown by the case of Finland: Since 2011, there has been a three-tier support system which divides the support into three different levels – depending on the intensity or the scope of the support. At the time of the survey in autumn 2016, a total of 16.4% of all Finnish pupils received special education support at the second level or intensified support (9%) and the third level or special support (7.5%). Figures for the first level of support are not available, as these are not statistically recorded. However, it is estimated that approximately 28% of all pupils in Finland receive at least one of the three forms of support, but only the two more intensive forms of support (intensified and special support) are formally recorded. In contrast, only 7.5% of all students in Germany received special educational support in the 2018/2019 school year (cf. Hollenbach-Biele & Klemm, 2020). Obviously, the statistics conceal different ways of dealing with the term “special educational needs”. The difference therefore lies particularly in the fact that in other countries it is generally assumed that there is a need for support, and this is not necessarily implemented in the form of person-related support measures. Basic special needs education is provided on a systemic basis. In Finland, general support measures (first support level) are part of everyday school life, which means that initially, at the school organisational level, labelling in the form of a “label” disability is dispensed with. Whether this form of decategorisation is also reflected in the interactions of the actors remains to be seen and requires intensive research efforts. Nationwide as well as internationally, the percentage of children with special educational needs is continuously increasing. This is especially true when the amount of additional resources is linked to the awarding of the label, and a so-called “labelling-resource

196

5  Conclusion: Learning from Finland?

dilemma” arises (cf. Katzenbach, 2015). Finland, through its reform of special needs education in 2011, decided against linking the amount of resources to the award of a label for precisely this reason. More recent statistics show that at least the rate of learners with the highest support needs (third level of support) is decreasing (see OSF, 2018). However, the proportion of learners in the second support level (intensified support) is steadily increasing: Since the introduction of the three-tier support system, the number of learners with Intensified Support has tripled from just over 3–9% (OSF, 2018). Regardless of how resources are allocated, the task of an inclusive education system must be to create appropriate frameworks that enable high-quality educational provision for all learners, avoiding formal labelling as far as possible (cf. Katzenbach, 2015). The question of (de)categorisation does not only concern the organisational level, but also explicitly the pedagogical practice on the level of teaching and school life. Securing special educational expertise is considered a basic prerequisite for inclusion. In order to secure expertise, models seem to prevail internationally at different schools and meanwhile also in Germany, in which a basic special needs education provision for each individual school is combined with the establishment of regional or also supra-regional competence centres. A similar picture can be seen in Finland, where the basic provision of special needs education at general schools is oriented towards the total number of pupils and, if necessary, is readjusted by a social factor (cf. Katzenbach, 2015). This type of resource management has also been established in Finland. However, the implementation of special needs education in mainstream schools has a much longer tradition than, for example, in Germany. In Finland, too, there are regional and supra-regional competence centres which offer appropriate support in the form of outpatient counselling services and support measures. The supra-regional counselling and support centres in Finland usually specialise in areas of support or types of disability that are statistically less common (e.g. sensory impairments). Support in the areas of “learning” and “social and emotional development” is usually provided by special education teachers trained in these areas in general education schools. A similar trend is also emerging in Germany, with a parallel system remaining between special educational support and guidance centres (especially for sensory impairments) and general education schools (cf. inter alia Giese, 2021). A look at the training structure of special needs teachers in Finland shows the peculiarity that trainee teachers receive a rather broad and uniform training programme with a focus on the support area “learning”. This means that they are specifically trained to work in general education schools in order to cover basic special needs education on the spot. In the case of rare forms of impairment, such as blindness or hearing impairments, or in the case of high support needs (e.g. complex impairments), there is a risk that these

5.3 Points of Reference for Teacher Education

197

systemic a­ llocated resources will not be sufficient and will have to be expanded by individually related forms of resource allocation.

5.3 Points of Reference for Teacher Education 5.3.1 The Importance of Selection Procedures The organisation of teacher training in Finland is different from that in Germany due to a prior selection procedure for the study programme. In Finland, only about 10% of the applicants are admitted to the classroom teacher training programme (cf. Sahlberg, 2011). For the subject of physical education at the University of Jyväskylä, only 5% of all applicants receive a place (cf. Heikinaro-Johansson & Telama, 2005). The pre-selection procedure (VAKAVA) is conducted at national level and includes a written examination. The applicants with the highest scores in the first stage of the application process are admitted to the second stage of the application process, which is organised by the respective universities. This often consists of individual and group interviews in which the aptitude and motivation of the applicants are tested. The focus is less on testing professional competencies, but rather on the question of why someone decides to become a teacher. In Finland, the teaching profession is held in high social esteem, also due to the strict selection procedure. In Germany, on the other hand, teacher training courses are associated with varying degrees of prestige due to the hierarchical order, and teaching careers for “lower” educational courses in particular are less attractive for many applicants (cf. Rühle, 2015). There are also a few aptitude tests for prospective teachers at German universities, although these are often seen as a voluntary advisory service. In some federal states, there is a compulsory online aptitude test for teacher candidates at individual universities. At the University of Passau, for example, the Chair of School Education offers all new student teachers the counselling procedure “PArcours” – a one-day counselling procedure based on the quality standards of an ‘Assessment Centre’. Participation in a career aptitude test and an obligatory internship before taking up studies can certainly help to develop a realistic view of the activities and stresses in school and teaching and to critically examine one’s career aspirations. It is certainly also problematic that the subject-related training of certain teacher training courses at German universities has a rather low status and is often done along the way (Brand et al., 2015). In Finland, the teaching profession also enjoys a high social status because teacher education is considered important at universities and has a large research area. In this context, the results of

198

5  Conclusion: Learning from Finland?

the PISA studies have certainly contributed to enhancing the public image of the teacher and the Finnish school system. Single-Phase Teacher Training In Finland, teacher education is completely in the hands of the universities. This has the advantage that the practical training of teachers is also based on research. In Finland, it is considered particularly important to encourage trainee teachers to engage in “research-based thinking” in preparation for their later professional practice. One example of this are the practical schools at the universities, which test new didactic concepts in practice in close cooperation with the universities. These schools thus serve as models for other schools. However, some teachers criticised the practical schools during the interviews, because they would not prepare the student teachers for the real professional practice. As far as the training of special needs teachers is concerned, the teaching of specific special educational content in the special needs areas of “vision”, “hearing” and “mental development” is less the responsibility of the universities, but rather of the respective counselling and support centres. This was viewed critically by some teachers in the context of the present study. However, the possible devaluation of special educational expertise by current developments (keyword: “decategorization”) is also critically regarded by many authors in Germany (cf. on this Ahrbeck, 2014; Giese & Weigelt, 2015; Herz, 2014). In the German-language inclusion discourse, it is feared that a possible decategorisation will lead to a deprofessionalisation of special needs education and inevitably to a lack in the provision of corresponding expertise or resources in everyday school life. A possible reform of the special needs education system (with a renunciation of special needs education priorities) in Germany goes hand in hand with a structural question that requires, among other things, extensive changes regarding the function of the current special needs education system and teacher training. Experts expect that the de-professionalisation of special needs education will lead to a shortage in the provision of appropriate resources. In addition, in some professional fields there is also the fear for their right to exist or for a devaluation of their profession. This inevitably also affects teacher training: What role does higher education play in the individual areas of specialisation if the need for special support is questioned? The teaching of specific (subject-)didactic competences is generally regarded as a task for highly qualified professionals, who need to have both knowledge in the respective areas of specialisation and didactic expertise in their teaching subjects (cf. Ravenscroft & Giese, 2020). This makes sense insofar as, for example, in the case of blind and visually impaired people, special teaching structures and methods as well as individual medical conditions (eye diseases) have to be taken into

5.3 Points of Reference for Teacher Education

199

a­ ccount in order not to expose the pupils to any (health) risk. With regard to joint teaching, the question arises as to how this specialist knowledge finds its way into concrete teaching practice. Multi-professional teams, “inclusive” school structures and sufficient material and personnel resources can be seen as a basic prerequisite to be able to productively deal with diversity in everyday school life. In particular, the question of personnel resources – depending on the intensity of individual support needs – is to be seen as a challenge, and is also perceived as such in Finland. In the course of the current development, however, it can be assumed that in the event of a dissolution of specific special needs areas, major structural changes will also be required at university level (teacher training), which will also affect the training of special needs teachers. The structural opening of teacher training courses in favour of a school type independent training of primary, secondary level I and II (renouncement instead of of classical school types such as Hauptschule and Realschule), as well as the increased inclusion of educational science and diversity-­ sensitive study contents indicate a rethinking in university teacher training. In Germany, the study of special needs teachers, at least at many universities, has a unique training structure in this form. Due to the historically strong field of activity as (specialist) teachers at specific special needs institutions, the specialist training of special needs teachers in at least one subject forms a focal point of the course. This subject is often studied to the same extent as it is provided for in the study of lower secondary education. In the main course of study, the choice of two specific specialisation areas is the rule. Training in the corresponding special needs areas is considered particularly important, since the prospective special needs teachers are employed in the corresponding fields of activity on the basis of their acquired expertise. Professionalisation of Teachers with Special Educational Needs Expertise Different Finnish studies have shown that (prospective) mainstream teachers and special needs teachers have very different perspectives on the distribution of roles and responsibilities (cf. e.g. Takala et al., 2009, 2015; Mihajlovic, 2020). One reason could be the very different training structure, as the training of mainstream teachers focuses on learning in the whole group, whereas special education training tends to focus on individual support of single learners or small groups. There are only a few research findings in German-speaking countries on the joint implementation of lessons – e.g. in the form of team teaching or co-teaching. The study by Hellmich et al. (2017) was able to show that the willingness to cooperate with other specialist staff among the primary school teachers involved in the study is influenced by their attitudes to teamwork and their previous experience of inclusive teaching. In general, a willingness to cooperate with other teachers or professions

200

5  Conclusion: Learning from Finland?

can be seen as a basic prerequisite for planning and implementing collaborative teaching. The results of this study show that special needs teachers in particular take on more diverse tasks in and out of the classroom in the course of inclusive education. The type of activity varies greatly depending on the particular working environment and the structural conditions in the schools (cf. Mihajlovic, 2020; Saloviita & Takala, 2010). For most special needs teachers in inclusive education, supporting learners with individual support needs is the core activity of their work. In the schools studied, this usually took the form of ‘supportive teaching’ (cf. Saloviita & Takala, 2010), where the subject teacher took the main role and the special needs teacher was responsible for supporting the learning processes of individual children. However, other forms of cooperation in the sense of Saloviita and Takala (2010) could also be observed in joint teaching: Especially in the primary school studied (School I), both forms of “complementary teaching” and “team teaching” between different teachers were part of everyday teaching. Overall, from the point of view of the special needs teachers interviewed, cooperation with other teachers is becoming increasingly important, which in some cases was also assessed as an “obstacle to inclusion” (cf. Mihajlovic, 2020). Overall, a rather inconsistent work profile could be identified among the special needs teachers, which was also reflected in the statements of the actors. In this context, Brand et al. (2015) problematize the change in the job description of special needs teachers from a sports pedagogical perspective, which seems to become increasingly diffuse. Depending on where they are employed, special needs teachers either increasingly work as subject and class teachers (at special needs institutions) or primarily in counselling and individual support (in joint lessons at mainstream schools). Special needs teachers with their teaching subjects represent a small marginal group in (subject-specific) higher education, which often runs alongside other teacher training courses and is “co-trained”. As a rule, this is also reflected in the range of courses offered by higher education institutions, which rarely offer specific subject didactic courses taking special needs education into account. The currently unclear job profile of special needs teachers contributes to the difficulty of designing a uniform university training structure for future special needs teachers. In Finland, there has already been a change in the job profile of special needs teachers in school practice, but the question is how to implement the specific special needs expertise (e.g. in the field of “vision”) into the university training structure (cf. Takala et al., 2009, 2015). The unclear work profile of special needs teachers has also been researched in Finland (Takala et al., 2009), although Finland has now had an integrated support system for several decades. This is due to the fact that the interviewed special needs teachers in mainstream schools mostly

5.3 Points of Reference for Teacher Education

201

work alone and are heavily burdened due to the wide range of tasks (Takala et al., 2009, p. 170): The work of special education teachers is demanding. In Finnish mainstream schools, the special education teachers often work alone and find their work exhausting. The work profile is unlimited, and often no regular support systems exist. (Takala et al., 2009, p. 170)

Special needs teachers have a double responsibility: On the one hand they are responsible for the individual support of pupils with special needs, on the other hand they are also responsible for “inclusive tasks” (counselling, bureaucratic matters). The teachers interviewed in the present study stated that they have little time left especially for counselling and bureaucratic matters. These findings are in line with the results of previous studies in Finland (cf. Takala et al., 2009). Current developments show that there are still many unanswered questions that need to be urgently addressed and coordinated in line with the current discourse on inclusion. One possibility is to train special education teachers primarily for their use in co-­ curricular settings and to equip them with advisory skills, diagnostic procedures and methodological-didactic skills in teaching basic cultural practices (primarily literacy and numeracy) in heterogeneous groups. This would mean that the study of the teaching subject(s) – so far a compulsory part of most courses of study – would no longer necessarily have to be part of teacher training. In Finland, special education teachers receive a relatively broad education that is not oriented towards specific special needs, as is the case in Germany. Instead, the causes of possible learning difficulties and how to deal with them are addressed in the course of study. More specific special needs areas (e.g. “seeing”, “hearing”), which require more extensive expertise, are offered at most in the form of awareness-raising events. The general training structure corresponds to the job description of the majority of special needs teachers in Finland, who provide support teaching in small groups at community schools and primarily teach pupils with learning difficulties (e.g. dyslexia). Children with other impairments  – e.g. visual impairments  – are usually supported by national support and advice centres. The special needs teachers and other (educational) staff in the BFZs there have the relevant expertise to provide temporary support and advice to the pupils. The specific training of the special needs teachers employed there takes place primarily in the BFZs with the help of further education and training of experienced colleagues.

202

5  Conclusion: Learning from Finland?

5.3.2 Possible Consequences Moegling (2017) argues for a more long-term planning of teacher education in the German-speaking countries and for a participatory development with the actors involved. With regard to initial teacher training at universities, all teaching professions should attend teacher preparation courses that focus on inclusive teaching strategies. Similar to what is already the case in Finland, Moegling (2017) argues for a continuous theory-research-practice connection in the sense of a science-­ oriented dual course of study. Consequently, the institutions of teacher education – universities, schools and study seminars – should complement and support each other in the long term in a single-phase initial training. In this model, the second training phase (traineeship) is omitted and is shifted to the university training and the career entry phase. The implementation of a single-phase teacher training is viewed critically, especially by the state-run study seminars (cf. Conrad, 2017). The model proposed by Moegling locates teacher training primarily at the universities, which would possibly go hand in hand with a weakening of the institution of the study seminar. On the one hand, the loss of influence of the state in the training of teachers is criticized (cf. Conrad, 2017). However, it is also questioned whether the planned practical encounters are quantitatively and qualitatively sufficient to adequately prepare teachers for entering the profession. Terhart (2017) is of the opinion that, in view of the complex institutional network of interests, the planning of teacher training should take place in a more small-scale manner, for example in the form of pilot tests in individual federal states or individual universities. Critically, Terhart (2017) considers, among other things, that universities need to engage in a greater degree of career orientation, and that seminaries need to accept their institutional positioning in the new structure of teacher education. Regardless of this, it can be deduced for university teacher education that courses in which dealing with heterogeneity is in the foreground should be offered wherever possible for all student teachers, regardless of the teaching profession studied. This can broaden students’ individual perspectives and avoid too much focus on the intended teaching profession at an early stage (cf. Erhardt & Breyer, 2014). Due to the structuring of the teacher training course according to different teaching professions, many prospective teachers develop an attitude early on in their studies that they are responsible for a specific, homogeneous group of pupils (Erhardt & Breyer, 2014) and that dealing with heterogeneity is rather the responsibility of special needs teachers. This is exactly the point of divergence for the further development of university teacher education in Germany: The education of teachers that understands inclusion as a cross-sectional task and introduces inclusive curricula for all study courses will eventually lead to the situation, that all students of the teaching profession will benefit in the long run.

References

203

References Ahrbeck, B. (2014). Inklusion. Eine Kritik. Kohlhammer. Bernasconi, T. (2016). Bildung bei schwerer und mehrfacher Behinderung. Teilhabe, 55(4), 168–172. Blasse, N., Budde, J., Hinrichsen, M., Hummrich, M., Niemeyer-Jensen, B., & Thon, C. (2015). Die Exklusivität des Inklusiven. In C.  Siedenbiedel & C.  Theurer (Hrsg.), Grundlagen inklusiver Bildung. 1. Inklusive Unterrichtspraxis und -entwicklung (S. 137– 161). Prolog-Verl (Theorie und Praxis der Schulpädagogik). Brand, S., Rischke, A., & Zimlich, M. (2015). Probleme und Perspektiven der Professionalisierung von Förderschullehrkräften für den inklusiven Schulsport. In S. Meier & S. Ruin (Hrsg.), Inklusion als Herausforderung, Aufgabe und Chance für den Schulsport (S. 115–128). Logos. Bünger, C., & Mayer, R. (2009). Erfahrung – Wachstum – Demokratie? Bildungstheoretische Anfragen an Deweys Demokratiebegriff und dessen programmatische Rezeption. Zeitschrift Für Pädagogik, 55(6), 837–848. Conrad, F. (2017). Steigert die einphasige Lehrer*innenbildung die Qualität? Schulpädagogik Heute, 15(8), 1–4. Dose, I., Hecker, K., & Schulz, U. (Hrsg.). (2007). Vorbildfunktion vs Entsorgungspädagogik? Schulpolitik und Bildung in Skandinavien und Deutschland. Kirchhof & Franke. Erhardt, M., & Breyer, C. (2014). Inklusive Schule Gestalten Durch Inklusive Lehrer*innenbildung. Zeitschrift Für Inklusion, Nr. 4 (Januar). https://www.inklusion-­ online.net/index.php/inklusion-­online/article/view/197 Finnish National Board of Education (FNBE). (2016). National core curriculum for basic education 2014. National core curriculum for basic education intended for pupils in compulsory education. Finnish National Board of Education. Fornefeld, B. (2010). Alle reden von Bildung für alle  – Sind alle noch gemeint? Bildungsanspruch für Menschen mit Komplexer Behinderung. In O.  Musenberg & J. Riegert (Hrsg.), Bildung und geistige Behinderung. Bildungstheoretische Reflexionen und aktuelle Fragestellungen (S. 260–281). Athena. Giese, M. (2021). Research on visual impairment and blindness in german-speaking countries  – A special path? British Journal of Visual Impairment, 39(1), 3–5. https://doi. org/10.1177/0264619620982391 Giese, M., & Weigelt, L. (2015). Konstituierende Elemente einer inklusiven Sportdidaktik. In M. Giese & L. Weigelt (Hrsg.), Inklusiver Sportunterricht in Theorie und Praxis (S. 10–52). Meyer & Meyer. Gomolla, M., & Radtke, F.-O. (2009). Institutionelle Diskriminierung. Die Herstellung ethnischer Differenz in der Schule (3. Aufl.). VS Verlag. 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 Heikinaro-Johansson, P., & Telama, R. (2005). Physical education in Finland. In U. Pühse & M. Gerber (Eds.), International comparison of physical education. Concepts, problems, prospects (pp. 250–271). Meyer & Meyer. Hellmich, F., Hoya, F., Görel, G., & Schwab, S. (2017). Unter welchen Voraussetzungen kooperieren Grundschullehrkräfte im inklusiven Unterricht? Eine Studie zu den Bedingungen

204

5  Conclusion: Learning from Finland?

der Kooperationsbereitschaft von Grundschullehrerinnen und -Lehrer*innen im inklusiven Unterricht. Empirische Sonderpädagogik, 9(1), 36–51. Herz, B. (2014). Pädagogik bei Verhaltensstörungen. An den Rand gedrängt? Zeitschrift Für Heilpädagogik, 65(1), 4–14. Hinz, A. (2009). Inklusive Pädagogik in der Schule– veränderter Orientierungsrahmen für die schulische Sonderpädagogik!? Oder doch deren Ende?? Zeitschrift Für Heilpädagogik, 60, 171–179. Hollenbach-Biele, N., & Klemm, K. (2020). Inklusive Bildung zwischen Licht und Schatten: Eine Bilanz nach zehn Jahren inklusiven Unterrichts. Bertelsmann Stiftung. Hunt, P., Farron-Davis, F., Beckstead, S., Curtis, D., & Goetz, L. (1994). Evaluating the effects of placement of students with severe disabilities in general education versus special education classes. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 19, 200–214. Jahnukainen, M., & Korhonen, A. (2003). Integration of students with severe and profound intellectual disabilities into the comprehensive school system: Teachers’ perceptions of the education reform in Finland. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 50(2), 169–180. Katzenbach, D. (2015). Ressourcen und Ressourcensteuerung für inklusive Bildung Nationale Entwicklungen und internationale Erfahrungen. Gemeinsam Leben, 4, 197– 208. Katzenbach, D., & Schnell, I. (2012). Strukturelle Voraussetzungen inklusiver Bildung. In V.  Moser & H.  Deppe (Hrsg.), Die inklusive Schule. Standards für die Umsetzung (2. Aufl., S. 23–41). Kohlhammer. Kennedy, C.  H., Shukla, S., & Fryxell, D. (1997). Comparing the effects of educational placement on the special relationships of intermediate school students with severe disabilities. Exceptional Children, 64, 31–48. Kivirauma, J., & Ruoho, K. (2007). Excellence through special education? Lessons from the Finnish school reform. International Review of Education, 53(3), 283–302. Klafki, W. (2007). Neue Studien zur Bildungstheorie und Didaktik. Zeitgemäße Allgemeinbildung und kritisch-konstruktive Didaktik. Beltz. Klemm, K. (2013). Inklusion in Deutschland – eine bildungsstatistische Analyse. Bertelsmann Stiftung. http://www.bertelsmann-­stiftung.de/cps/rde/xbcr /SID-­B8248BAD870248E4/ bst/xcms_bst_dms_37485_37486_2.pdf. Accessed 2016, September 20 Klemm, K., & Klemm, A. (2010). Ausgaben für Nachhilfe – teurer und unfairer Ausgleich für fehlende individuelle Förderung. Bertelsmann Stiftung. http://www.bertelsmann-­stiftung. de/cps/rde/xbcr/SID-­D5A78791-­65DB5007/bst/xc ms_bst_dms_30717_30784_2.pdf. Accessed 2016, September 20 Kricke, M. (2015). Lernen und Lehren in Deutschland und Finnland: eine empirische Studie zu Schulsystem und LehrerInnenbildung im Ländervergleich (Dissertation). Universität zu Köln. Kricke, M. (2017). Finnlands “Schule für alle” – eine inklusive Lernumgebung? Das finnische Schulsystem unter einer inklusiven Lupe. In S. Barsch, N. Glutsch, & M. Massumi (Hrsg.), Diversity in der LehrerInnenbildung. Internationale Dimensionen der Vielfalt in Forschung und Praxis (S. 108–120). Waxmann.

References

205

Lange, V. (2006). Risikogruppe Migranten? Über den Zusammenhang zwischen schulischen Anerkennungsstrukturen und sozialer Ungleichheit in Kanada und Deutschland. ibidem Verlag. Lütje-Klose, B., & Urban, M. (2014). Kooperation als wesentliche Bedingung inklusiver Schul- und Unterrichtsentwicklung Teil 1: Grundlagen und Modelle inklusiver Kooperation. Vierteljahrsschrift Für Heilpädagogik Und Ihre Nachbargebiete VHN, 83(2), 112–123. https://doi.org/10.2378/vhn2014.art09d Malinen, P. (2008). Vertiefender Exkurs II: Ausländische Einflüsse bei der Gestaltung der finnischen Grundschule. In A.-L. Matthies & E. Skiera (Hrsg.). Studien zum Bildungswesen und Schulsystem in Finnland (S. 81–89). https://www.oulu.fi/sites/default/files/content/ Giellagas_BildungswesenSchulsystemFinnland_0.pdf. Accessed 2021, Juni 01. Melzer, C., Meyer, M., Ehlscheid, M., & Schlicht, S. (2016). Inklusive Bildung braucht ein allgemeines inklusives Kerncurriculum – Denkwege und Umsetzungsmöglichkeiten. Teilhabe, 55(4), 192–197. Mero, M., & Meri, M. (2017). Inklusive Schule – Einblicke in das finnische Bildungssystem und seine Lehramtsausbildung. Ein Bericht. In S. Barsch, N. Glutsch, & M. Massumi (Hrsg.), Diversity in der LehrerInnenbildung. Internationale Dimensionen der Vielfalt in Forschung und Praxis (S. 121–129). Waxmann. Mihajlovic, C. (2020). Special educators’ perceptions of their role in inclusive education: A case study in Finland. Journal of Pedagogical Research, 4(2), 83–97. Moegling, K. (2017). Die Strukturreform der Lehrer*innenbildung – langfristig angelegt und partizipativ durchdacht und geplant. Schulpädagogik Heute, 15(8), 1–34. OECD (2013). International migration outlook 2013. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. https://doi.org/10.1787/migr_outlook-­2013-­en. Accessed 2016, September 26. OECD. (2016). PISA 2015 results (volume I): Excellence and equity in education. Organisation für wirtschaftliche Zusammenarbeit und Entwicklung. https://doi. org/10.1787/9789264266490-­en Official Statistics of Finland (OSF). (2016). Special education. Appendix table 1. Comprehensive school pupils having received intensified or special support in 2015. Statistics Finland. Zugegriffen: 22. Okt. 2016. http://www.stat.fi/til/erop/2015/ erop_2015_2016-­06-­13_tau_001_en.html Official Statistics of Finland (OSF). (2017). Special education [e-publication]. ISSN=1799– 1617. 2017. Statistics Finland [referred: 16.1.2021]. http://www.stat.fi/til/erop/2017/ erop_2017_2018-­06-­11_tie_001_en.html Official Statistics of Finland (OSF). (2018). Special education [e-publication]. Helsinki: Statistics Finland [referred: 11.1.2021]. http://www.stat.fi/til/erop/2016/erop_2016_2017-­ 06-­13_tie_001_en.html Ravenscroft, J., & Giese, M. (2020). Was ist eine qualifizierte Lehrkraft im Förderschwerpunkt Sehen? Ein Diskussionsaufruf vor dem Hintergrund aktueller Herausforderungen in der Lehrkräfteversorgung? Blind-sehbehindert, 140(1), 338–345. Reich, K. (2014). Inklusive Didaktik. Bausteine für eine inklusive Schule. Beltz. Rühle, S. (2015). Diversität, Curriculum und Bildungsstrukturen. Eine vergleichende Untersuchung in Deutschland und Finnland. Waxmann. Sahlberg, P. (2011). Finnish lessons: What can the world learn from educational change in Finland? Teachers College Press.

206

5  Conclusion: Learning from Finland?

Saloviita, T., & Takala, M. (2010). Frequency of co-teaching in different teacher categories. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 25, 389–396. Schroeder, J. (2010). Lernen von Finnland? Im Ernst? Probleme der Herstellung von Bildungsgerechtigkeit im Schulsystem. In N.  Wenning, M.  Spetsmann-Kunkel, & S.  Winnerling (Hrsg.), Strategien der Ausgrenzung. Exkludierende Effekte staatlicher Politik und alltäglicher Praktiken in Bildung und Gesellschaft (S. 171–183). Waxmann. Stobbe, C. (2014). Bewegung an einer inklusiven Ganztagsschule. In R.  Hildebrandt-­ Stramann, R. Laging, & J. Teubner (Hrsg.), Bewegung und Sport in der Ganztagsschule. StuBBS: Ergebnisse der qualitativen Studie (S. 250–287). Schneider. Takala, M., Pirttimaa, R., & Törmänen, M. (2009). Inclusive special education: The role of special education teachers in Finland. British Journal of Special Education, 11, 162–172. Takala, M., Wickman, K., Uusitalo-Malmivaara, L., & Lundström, A. (2015). Becoming a special educator  – Finnish and Swedish students’ views on their future professions. Education Inquiry, 6(1), 25–51. Terhart, E. (2017). Über große Sprünge und kleine Schritte in der Reform der Lehrer*innenbildung. Ein Kommentar. Schulpädagogik heute, 15(8), 1–15. Tiemann, H. (2015). Inklusiven Sportunterricht gestalten  – didaktisch-methodische Überlegungen. In M. Giese & L. Weigelt (Hrsg.), Inklusiver Sportunterricht in Theorie und Praxis (S. 53–66). Meyer und Meyer. UNESCO. (2009). Inklusion: Leitlinien für die Bildungspolitik. Deutsche UNESCO-­ Kommission e. V. United Nations (UN). (2006). Convention on the rights of persons with disabilities and optional protocol. http://www.un.org/disabilities/documents/convention/convoptprote.pdf. Accessed 2016, Okt 22. Wocken, H. (2012). Rettet die Sonderschulen? Rettet die Menschenrechte! Zeitschrift für Inklusion. http://www.inklusiononline.net/index.php/inklusion-­online/article/ view/81/81. Accessed 2016, Juni 21. Wocken, H. (2014). Zum Haus der inklusiven Schule. Ansichten – Zugänge – Wege (2. Aufl.). Feldhaus.