Special Education in the Early Years: Perspectives on Policy and Practice in the Nordic Countries (International Perspectives on Early Childhood Education and Development, 36) 3030912965, 9783030912963

Citation preview

International Perspectives on Early Childhood Education and Development 36

Heidi Harju-Luukkainen Natallia Bahdanovich Hanssen Christel Sundqvist   Editors

Special Education in the Early Years Perspectives on Policy and Practice in the Nordic Countries

International Perspectives on Early Childhood Education and Development Volume 36

Series Editors Marilyn Fleer, Monash University, Frankston, Australia Ingrid Pramling Samuelsson, Gothenburg University, Göteborg, Sweden Editorial Board Members Jane Bone, Monash University, Frankston, Australia Anne Edwards, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK Mariane Hedegaard, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark Eva Johansson, University of Stavanger, Stavanger, Norway Rebeca Mejía Arauz, ITESO, Jalisco, Mexico Cecilia Wallerstedt, Gothenburg University, Göteborg, Sweden Liang Li , Monash University, Frankston, Australia

Early childhood education in many countries has been built upon a strong tradition of a materially rich and active play-based pedagogy and environment. Yet what has become visible within the profession, is essentially a Western view of childhood preschool education and school education. It is timely that a series of books be published which present a broader view of early childhood education. This series seeks to provide an international perspective on early childhood education. In particular, the books published in this series will: • Examine how learning is organized across a range of cultures, particularly Indigenous communities • Make visible a range of ways in which early childhood pedagogy is framed and enacted across countries, including the majority poor countries • Critique how particular forms of knowledge are constructed in curriculum within and across countries • Explore policy imperatives which shape and have shaped how early childhood education is enacted across countries • Examine how early childhood education is researched locally and globally • Examine the theoretical informants driving pedagogy and practice, and seek to find alternative perspectives from those that dominate many Western heritage countries • Critique assessment practices and consider a broader set of ways of measuring children’s learning • Examine concept formation from within the context of country-specific pedagogy and learning outcomes The series will cover theoretical works, evidence-based pedagogical research, and international research studies. The series will also cover a broad range of countries, including poor majority countries. Classical areas of interest, such as play, the images of childhood, and family studies will also be examined. However the focus will be critical and international (not Western-centric). Please contact Astrid Noordermeer at [email protected] to submit a book proposal for the series. More information about this series at https://link.springer.com/bookseries/7601

Heidi Harju-Luukkainen Natallia Bahdanovich Hanssen Christel Sundqvist Editors

Special Education in the Early Years Perspectives on Policy and Practice in the Nordic Countries

Editors Heidi Harju-Luukkainen University of Jyväskylä, Finland and Nord University Bodø, Norway

Natallia Bahdanovich Hanssen Faculty of Education and Arts Nord University Bodø, Norway

Christel Sundqvist Nord University, Norway and Åbo Akademi University Vaasa, Finland

ISSN 2468-8746     ISSN 2468-8754 (electronic) International Perspectives on Early Childhood Education and Development ISBN 978-3-030-91296-3    ISBN 978-3-030-91297-0 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-91297-0 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 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 imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

Contents

1 Introduction to Special Education in the Early Years—Policies and Practices Across the Nordic Countries����������������    1 Heidi Harju-Luukkainen, Natallia B. Hanssen, and Christel Sundqvist Part I Policy Perspectives 2 Early Childhood Special Education in Finland������������������������������������   13 Päivi Pihlaja 3 Children with Autism Spectrum Conditions: Social Norms and Expectations in Swedish Preschools������������������������   31 Mona Holmqvist 4 Implicit and Inclusive Early Education for Gifted Children Swedish Policy and International Possibilities����������������������   43 Valerie Margrain and Jorryt van Bommel 5 Gaps in Care: (E)quality ECEC in Nordic Early Childhoods������������   59 Charlotte Ringsmose 6 Autism and Young Children in Sweden ������������������������������������������������   73 Amanda Webster, Susanne Garvis, and Gunilla Westman Andersson 7 Swedish Early Childhood Preservice Teachers and Inclusive Education��������������������������������������������������������������������������   87 Susanne Garvis, Liisa Uusimaki, and Umesh Sharma Part II Practice Perspectives 8 Developing Inclusive Learning Environments – When Collaboration Is (Not) the Answer����������������������������������������������������������  103 Charlotte Riis Jensen, Mette Molbæk, Maria Christina Secher Schmidt, and Janne Hedegaard v

vi

Contents

9 How Do Children Describe Learning Self-­Regulation Skills in the Kids’ Skills Intervention?��������������������������������������������������  119 Merja Hautakangas, Lotta Uusitalo, and Kristiina Kumpulainen 10 Experiences of Educational Support for Mathematical High-Ability Children in Finland. A Netnography of Parental Perspective from ECE to the School Context��������������������  135 Heidi Harju-Luukkainen, Camilla Björklund, Erja Sandberg, and Laura Rhinehart 11 A Survey of the Views of Graduates of Early Childhood Teacher Education in Norway on Special Needs Education����������������  151 Natallia B. Hanssen and Kathrin Olsen 12 Inclusive Practices in Early Childhood Education in Norway������������  169 Jorun Buli-Holmberg, Elisabeth McGuire, and Mona Rønning Winsnes 13 Late Talkers and Language Learning in Norwegian ECEC for Children Under Three ����������������������������������������������������������  185 Elisabeth Brekke Stangeland and Joakim Evensen Hansen 14 Finger Patterns as Tools for Learning the Basic Meaning of Numbers��������������������������������������������������������������  199 Camilla Björklund and Angelika Kullberg 15 Support of Language and Communication in Swedish Preschools������������������������������������������������������������������������������  215 Ann Nordberg 16 Communities of Practice: A Model for Professional Development in Early Childhood Education and Care to Support Children with Communication Barriers?��������������������������  229 Anna Katharina Jacobsson 17 Teacher Perceptions of Language Challenges Among Children in Three Different Language-Medium Settings in Finland������������������  247 Eva Staffans 18 Behind the Practice: Finnish Early Childhood Education and Care Professionals’ Perceptions and Beliefs Concerning Children in Need of Social and Emotional Support ����������������������������  263 Marianna Heinonen 19 Special Education in the Early Years: Summary and Outlook�����������  277 Heidi Harju-Luukkainen, Natallia Bahdanovich Hanssen, and Christel Sundqvist

About the Contributors

Natallia  Bahdanovich  Hanssen  is a leader of the Research Group on Special Needs Education and an associate professor in the Faculty of Education and Arts at Nord University in Bodø, Norway. She has an aesthetic education, with a major in music, singing, and art history from the Belarusian State Pedagogical University and adaptive training and special needs education from Nord University in Bodø, Norway. Natallia’s research is currently linked to early childhood education, special needs education, inclusive education, comparative studies, language difficulties, aesthetic and special needs education, bullying, psychosocial learning challenges, and behavioural and relational impairments. Camilla  Björklund  is Professor of Education at the University of Gothenburg, Sweden. Björklund is involved in research projects within the field of mathematics learning and teaching in early childhood education, which are characterised by practice-oriented research questions and designs. Elisabeth Brekke Stangeland  is an associate professor in the Reading Center at the University of Stavanger, Norway. She is a special education teacher and has a PhD in education. Her research focuses on language learning and reading in preschools and on language and communication difficulties. Furthermore, she is interested in the connection between language, play, and social competence in the early years. She teaches in graduate and undergraduate programmes and has published research articles both nationally and internationally. Jorun  Buli-Holmberg  is an associate professor at the University in Oslo, Department of Special Needs Education, and Professor 2 at the Artic University of Norway. She is the leader of the Research Group ‘Diversity and Inclusion’ at the University of Oslo. Buli-Holmberg has several publications with different aspects related to special and inclusive education. Her research focused on inclusion and how to tackle implementing inclusion in practice.

vii

viii

About the Contributors

Joakim Evensen Hansen  is a postdoctoral researcher in the Department of Early Childhood Education, University of Stavanger, and Filiorum – Centre for Research in Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC). Hansen’s research focuses on conceptualising and measuring quality in ECEC and on the effect of quality on children’s social, cognitive, and language development in early years. Hansen is a part of the research project Better Provision for Norway’s Children from Early Childhood Education and Care through Primary School (BeProS). Susanne Garvis  is a professor and chairlady in the Department of Education at Swinburne University of Technology. Her research focus is within ECEC field. She is a world-renowned expert in policy and quality development in early childhood education. She has worked with numerous services, professional organisations, and NGOs across the globe. Heidi Harju-Luukkainen,  PhD is a professor at Nord University in Norway and a professor and vice director at the University of Jyväskylä, Kokkola University Consortium, Finland. She holds a PhD in education, special education teacher qualification, and a qualification in leadership and management. She has published over 200 international books, journal articles, and reports and has worked on over 25 projects globally. Harju-Luukkainen has worked at top-ranking universities in the USA, such as UCLA and USC, and in many Nordic research universities. She has developed education programmes for universities, been a principal investigator of PISA sub-assessments in Finland, and served as a board professional. Her research areas are on early childhood education, justice in education, and international student assessment. Currently, she is leading two international research groups in the education field. Merja Hautakangas  is a university teacher at the Institute of Education Leadership, University of Jyväskylä. In her dissertation, she studied the development of children’s self-regulation skills in the Kids’ Skills intervention. Lately, her research interest has been in the field of positive psychology, especially in strength-based leadership in educational institutions. Janne Hedegaard  is a PhD holder and an associate professor and head of National Research Centre for Children and Youth at High Risk, Denmark. She is researching inclusion and exclusion processes in an educational context. Her recent focus is on cross-professional collaboration and co-teaching regarding inclusive school development. Marianna Heinonen  is a project researcher and PhD student at the University of Turku, Finland. She is currently working on a research project focusing on the socioemotional development of toddlers. Her doctoral thesis focuses on the self-­ perceptions of children needing special education (SE) support and the child perceptions of ECEC professionals.

About the Contributors

ix

Mona Holmqvist  is Professor of Educational Sciences in the Faculty of Education and Society at Malmö University, Sweden, and a research leader in the Department of School Development and Leadership. Her main research interests focus on learning, mainly within two fields – collaborative classroom research and special education (mainly with a focus on students with ASD). She is a scientific leader for a national postgraduate school in special education, funded by the Swedish Research Council, and has been appointed by the government as a member of the National Agency for Special Needs Education and Schools (SPSM) Authorities Board. Anna  Katharina  Jacobsson,  PhD is an associate professor at Nord University, Faculty of Education and Arts, Norway, and a senior lecturer at the University of Gothenburg, Department of Education and Special Education. She teaches in the Special Educational Needs (SEN) teachers’ programme and the school headmasters’ programme, and is a teacher’s education instructor. Her research interests mainly focus on school improvement, leadership in schools, professional development, and children with special needs. Angelika Kullberg  is an associate professor at the University of Gothenburg. She has conducted research on the relationship between teaching and learning in mathematics, in learning studies, and long-term interventions for over 15 years. She is a council member of the World Association of Lesson Studies. Kristiina Kumpulainen  is Professor of Education in the Faculty of Educational Sciences, University of Helsinki. Her research focuses on understanding the social, emotional, and cultural dimensions of learning and development. She has been interested in developing new knowledge about social interaction in learning, illuminating the ways in which participation, agency, and knowledge are situationally negotiated across space and time. Valerie  Margrain  is Professor of Pedagogical Work at Karlstad University and adjunct professor at Victoria University, Melbourne. Her research in the last two decades has focused on the educational experiences of young, gifted children. She is presently leading a funded study exploring internationalisation and interculturality in Swedish preschool teacher education. Elisabeth McGuire  is a specialist in pedagogical psychological counselling. She graduated with a master’s degree from UiO. McGuire currently works as an educational psychological counsellor for upper secondary school in Asker and Bærum. She has previously worked at the Educational Psychological Service in Bærum with children from 0–6 years and in the Guidance Service for Kindergartens. From 2018 to 2020, she worked as a university lecturer in the Department of Special Education at the University of Oslo.

x

About the Contributors

Mette  Molbæk  is a PhD holder and an associate professor at VIA University College. She is the head of the research programme Children’s Well-Being in and Across Daycare, School, and Home, and her main research focus is on exclusion processes and how professionals develop inclusive learning environments. Ann  Nordberg,  PhD is an associate professor at the University of Gothenburg, Department of Education and Special Education, Faculty of Education, Sweden. Her research is particularly focused on strengthening children’s communicative participation in preschools and schools. Particular attention is paid to professional development to scaffold language development using evidence-informed tools for profiling features of language support in preschools and schools. The connection between early language support and children’s reading and writing is also a focus and research interest. Kathrin  Olsen  is a preschool teacher with a PhD in special needs education. Kathrin is Associate Professor of Pedagogics, but she is currently working as a director of the kindergarten teacher education programme at campus Bodø, Faculty of Education and Arts, Nord University. Päivi Pihlaja,  PhD, is a special teacher and an adjunct professor (docent). She has been working as a university research fellow at the University of Turku, Finland. In autumn 2020, she got the post of a senior lecturer in early education subject at the University of Helsinki. Her research interests are related both to early childhood education and special education. Currently, she is leading a research project in which inclusive education and co-teaching are being studied. She is also leading EduSteps – longitudinal study, which is part of a large multidisciplinary study at the University of Turku (see Kasvatus, koulutus ja oppiminen https://sites.utu.fi/ hyvan-kasvun-avaimet/tutkimusteemat/) and also Toddlerstudy (https://sites.utu.fi/ toddlerstudy/en/). In this study, social-emotional competence and difficulties are in focus. She has supervised doctoral students and has been teaching special education studies at the University of Turku. [email protected]. https://researchportal.helsinki.fi/en/persons/p%C3%A4ivi-­pihlaja-­2 Laura  Rhinehart  is an assistant researcher at the Centre for Dyslexia, Diverse Learners, and Social Justice at UCLA. She received her MEd and PhD from UCLA’s Department of Education. Her current research focuses on early interventions, reading development, and children’s executive functioning skills. Charlotte Riis Jensen  is a PhD holder and an associate professor at the University College Absalon. Her main research focus is on professional collaborative processes on inclusion and exclusion, in general, and SE. She also teaches pedagogical education in social and special pedagogics.

About the Contributors

xi

Charlotte Ringsmose  is a professor at Aalborg University (Denmark), Department of Culture and Learning Laboratory for Practice-Based Development in ECEC and School. Her research area is quality ECEC, with a particular research focus on quality ECEC environments, studying how child development links to the possibilities for development present in the surroundings. She has published in international and national peer-reviewed books and journals on quality in early childhood learning, development, and education, particularly in three areas: (1) the Nordic Social Pedagogical approach, (2) systematic quality rating scales and children’s development regarding qualities in the environment, and (3) action-based research developing quality in care. Mona Rønning Winsnes  is a specialist in educational psychological counselling. She graduated with a master's degree (Cand. Paed.) from UiO in 1988. Winsnes has worked for 10 years as a university lecturer in pedagogy at Buskerud University College. Since 2001, she has worked as a pedagogical psychological counsellor in Bærum municipality linked to the kindergarten team, and previously at the pedagogical psychological service in Borre municipality and at a guidance centre in Oslo as a supervisor for kindergartens. Erja Sandberg  is a PhD holder and a freelance researcher. Her main interest lies in the SE field, ADHD, and strengths pedagogy. Erja’s doctoral dissertation is called ‘ADHD in the family—The support provided by the educational, social, and health sectors, and the experienced impact’, and it was published at the University of Helsinki in 2016. Maria Christina Secher Schmidt  is a PhD holder and an associate professor and leader of the research programme  – Diversity and participation in school, at University College Copenhagen, Denmark. Her research approach combines general pedagogic considerations with subject didactics in the work of studying efforts towards inclusion. Her focus grasps both academic and social aspects. Eva Staffans  works as a university teacher in the Faculty of Education and Welfare studies, Åbo Akademi in Vasa, Finland. Her special interest is in SE in early childhood education and pre-primary education, e.g. SE teacher’s work and support provided for children in need of support. Christel Sundqvist  is Associate Professor of SE at Nord University, Norway. She also works as a university teacher at Åbo Akademi University in Finland. Her research interest concerns inclusion with a special focus on the SE teachers’ role, multi-professional collaboration, and consultation in special needs education. She has published in these fields in several international peer-reviewed books and journals. Currently, she is involved in research projects focusing on the development of inclusive SE support in schools and multi-professional collaboration, co-teaching, and consultation services offered to teachers.

xii

About the Contributors

Liisa  Uusimaki  is Associate Professor of Pedagogy at the University of Gothenburg, Sweden. Based on her interest and expertise in teaching and learning in higher education, she received an Excellent Teacher award in 2018. Areas of research interest include inclusion, teacher education, educational/pedagogical leadership, internationalisation, mentoring, learning technologies, and educational psychology. Lotta  Uusitalo  is a university lecturer and Adjunct Professor of SE in the Department of Teacher Education, Faculty of Behavioural Sciences, at the University of Helsinki. Her research interest lies in the positive psychology field, especially in its school applications. Character strengths and strength-based learning in inclusive classrooms are her main focus. Jorryt  van Bommel  works as a mathematics teacher educator and is Associate Professor of Mathematics Education at Karlstad University, Sweden. Her current research revolves around problem solving in preschool classes, teachers’ professional development, and classroom instruction effects. Amanda Webster  is an associate professor and academic programme director for the Master of Autism programme at the University of Wollongong. Her research is focused on creating meaningful social impacts and centres on leadership for inclusive education and community environments that support the achievement and self-­ determination of individuals diagnosed with autism or other disabilities and their families. Dr Webster’s research has culminated in some peer-reviewed publications, including three research-based books published by Springer and Routledge overviewing case studies and models of practice for empowering and supporting individuals on the autism spectrum in community and school settings. Gunilla Westman Andersson  is a senior lecturer and primarily teaches neuropsychiatric disorders regarding SE in the Department of Education and Special Education (IPS), University of Gothenburg. She is also a special educational needs (SEN) coordinator and has been working with neuropsychiatric assessments for many years. Her PhD and postdoctoral research revolved around young children with Early Symptomatic Syndromes Eliciting Neurodevelopmental Clinical Examinations (ESSENCE) problems at the Gillberg Neuropsychiatric Centre in Gothenburg.

Chapter 1

Introduction to Special Education in the Early Years—Policies and Practices Across the Nordic Countries Heidi Harju-Luukkainen

, Natallia B. Hanssen

, and Christel Sundqvist

Keywords  Special education · Early years · Policies · Practices Political and social attention to early childhood education and care (ECEC) has increased over the past decade, with many countries undertaking ongoing educational reforms (Garvis et al., 2018). Children’s access to preschool provision has been broadened across the world because policymakers have recognised the benefits of good-quality ECEC on children’s learning and development (OECD, 2012). International studies conducted in OECD-participating countries, have found that children attending ECEC are usually better prepared for primary school and can achieve higher education outcomes (OECD, 2019). Good quality early education, including a high-level special education (SE) support system, helps in school readiness by ensuring that the transition to school is a seamless experience. This seamless experience exists only if quality early education and care are implemented by achieving targets around quality goals and regulations for delivering early education and care (OECD, 2015). Therefore, governments globally are increasingly recognising that good-quality ECEC with high-level special educational supports is critical in developing their country’s social and economic potentials in the future. This study highlights questions around SE in the early years, synergising the leading SE academics from across the Nordic countries (Finland, Sweden, Norway, H. Harju-Luukkainen (*) University of Jyväskylä, Finland and Nord University, Bodø, Norway e-mail: [email protected] N. B. Hanssen Faculty of Education and Arts, Nord University, Bodø, Norway e-mail: [email protected] C. Sundqvist Nord University, Bodø, Norway Nord University, Norway and Åbo Akademi University, Vaasa, Finland e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 H. Harju-Luukkainen et al. (eds.), Special Education in the Early Years, International Perspectives on Early Childhood Education and Development 36, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-91297-0_1

1

2

H. Harju-Luukkainen et al.

and Denmark) to explore questions around policies and practices in SE in the early years and highlighting shared enablers and barriers across them. All the authors focus on SE. Here, in this book, we have chosen to use the word SE, but we also acknowledge that it is not a term without its difficulties. Other terms, such as inclusive education, emphasise approaches to education. Meaning that it modifies teaching and educational organisations better to accommodate differences. This debate can be compressed into how we position disability within special needs. Do we see it as being caused by individual limitations or as a special need caused by the limitations of the education systems? Therefore, it is important for the reader of this book to understand that the language in the chapters can be used in various ways, not only creating tensions but also bridging between the different chapters. One of those terms, which are approached from different perspectives and, consequently, creating tensions across this book, is the notion of inclusion, along with the notion of inclusive education. These have emerged during the historic development of SE and are traceable to many documents, such as the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989), UNESCO’s World Declaration on Education for All (1990), and The Salamanca Statement and the Framework for Action on Special Needs Education: Access and Quality (1994). Since the expansion and evolution of these notions, the movement towards inclusion and inclusive education has been a major concern in many countries (Ainscow, 2020). Stakeholders and researchers globally have tried to define and understand the notions of inclusion and inclusive education. However, the inclusion movement, as it is appearing today, tends to offer finished solutions instead of unfinished ones, thereby minimising the power of change (Hausstätter, 2014). Furthermore, many researchers claim that these notions still remain contentious; they lack a tight conceptual focus, which may have contributed to ambivalence and confused practices (Hanssen & Khitruk, 2021; UNESCO, 2021). Throughout the literature on inclusion, it refers to several models or practices. Sebba and Ainscow (1996) provided an understanding of the concept as a process by which educational systems can reconsider their professional organisation and dissemination by responding to all students’ need, in broad perspective. Based on the broad perspective of inclusion, inclusive education can be defined as ‘education that fits’ or education as a general guiding principle towards building upon this vision of inclusion (Mitchell, 2005; Hanssen & Khitruk, 2021). In this, inclusive education becomes essential in achieving social equity and is a constituent element of an equitable lifelong learning experience for all learners (UNESCO, 1994; UNESCO, 2021). Also, the debate on the concept of inclusion and inclusive education is tied to SE—called the narrow perspective of inclusion (Haug, 2017). Importantly, here, inclusion is not SE, but this narrow perspective impacts the SE field on political, theoretical, and practical levels (Hausstätter & Vik, 2021). Many critical voices claim that SE is linked to mechanisms of control and selection, to maintaining order in the society through isolation, and to segregating and even eliminating individuals not considered capable and useful for the development of inclusion and inclusive education (Haug, 2017; Ström & Linnanmäki, 2017). Also, SE aims to help and support students with SEN (Hanssen & Khitruk, 2021). This tension is a reality in many countries and, as Sundqvist (2021) claimed, this complexity

1  Introduction to Special Education in the Early Years—Policies and Practices…

3

is important to consider, and the question of whether there is a need for SE moving towards inclusion should be replaced by the question of how SE can be used inclusively. For instance, the cultural, historical background, financial resources, and social demands have induced different paths in inclusion practices globally (Ferreira et al., 2018) and, therefore, in the Nordic countries also. Although the interpretation of the notion of inclusive education differs between countries, the main idea remains similar. In recent years, the focus and definition of inclusive education in the Nordic countries have switched from the specific focus on children with special educational needs towards a broad definition focusing on all children’s right to receive education according to their individual needs together with other children in a community (Haug, 2017). Thus, this common framework, children in need of inclusive education, is sometimes overlooked in both policies and practices, as evidenced by many of the chapters of this book. Furthermore, when one’s access to an inclusive education context is limited, it leads further in life to reduced possibilities in participating fully in the society. Another bridging theme of this book is the Nordic perspective on families and children. The Nordic countries have established a welfare model, often referred to as the ‘Nordic model’. It includes policies and practices that promote equality for all in the society. This strive for equality, also in educational question, has meant multiple reforms that support families, such as child allowances, parental leave and provision of preschool for all children. In ECEC, the ‘Nordic model’ is thus grounded in the idea that society can reduce differences between children by supporting their learning and development. All Nordic countries have found their own ways to build up their support systems regarding families and children. However, notably, the Nordic countries have also imported ideas and philosophies from their neighbouring countries and from other countries, and therefore, we would prefer to take on the suggestion of Garvis and Ødegaard (2017, p.1) of a Nordic dialogue for this book, where ‘Nordic perspectives are closely linked to national and global economies and transnational cultural ideas and ideals on families and children’ rather than talking about a ‘Nordic model’. There are many similarities between countries regarding ECEC. The universal access to early learning is among the crucial elements of equal education services in each of these countries. In all Nordic countries, universal access to early learning is available. In Sweden, Iceland, and Norway, children can attend ECEC from one year of age. In Finland, children can start even a bit earlier, at the age of eight months, and in Denmark, already from the age of six months. Regarding SE services in ECEC, there are only some differences to be found, sometimes even nuances, between the countries regarding, for instance, how the practices are defined in the national core curriculums. For instance, in Norway and Finland, we can find differences in how the practices are described. In Norway, the focus is on inclusive practices, adjustments, and informing the parents. According to the framework plan for kindergartens (NDET, 2019, p. 40) in Norway, kindergartens should adapt their general pedagogical practices to suit the children’s needs and circumstances, including children who may require additional support for shorter or longer periods. The

4

H. Harju-Luukkainen et al.

kindergartens must also quickly make the necessary social, pedagogical, and/or physical adjustments to ensure that children requiring additional support can benefit from inclusive and equal provision. Inclusion in kindergarten also includes facilitating social participation. Furthermore, kindergarten must inform parents of their right to request an expert assessment. In Finland, the focus is on recognising the child’s needs and strengths, appropriate inclusive practices, and collaborating with parents and in multi-professional networks. According to the Finnish National Agency for Education (FNAE) (2017, p.  86–87), early childhood education and care is developed following inclusion principles. The child’s need for support should be recognised, and appropriate support should be arranged as the need arises. Sufficiently early and correctly targeted support may promote a child’s development, learning, and well-being. Simultaneously, the support may be used to prevent problems from emerging. The organisation of support is based on each child’s strengths and needs regarding learning and development. Cooperation with children, their guardians, kindergarten teachers, special kindergarten teachers, and other ECEC personnel is needed to identify the children’s need for support and to plan and implement support measures. The starting point in organising SE during the early years in Sweden differs from the above two mentioned countries. The Swedish national core curriculum for ECEC (Skolverket, 2019, p. 2) does not mention inclusive practices at all. However, it states, ‘The preschool must pay special attention to children who for various reasons need more guidance and stimulation or special support. All children should receive an education that is designed and adapted so that they can develop as far as possible. Children who temporarily or permanently need more support and stimulation should have this designed based on their own needs and conditions’. Furthermore, it stipulates that education must be equal regardless of where in the country it is organised. It must consider children’s different conditions and needs and be adapted to all children in preschool. This means that education cannot be uniformly designed everywhere and that the preschool’s resources should therefore not be distributed equally. However, the Nordic model is, according to several researchers, threatened by forces of marketisation and competition, challenging the traditional welfare values of equality (Barow & Berhanu, 2021; Olsen, 2021; Ström & Sundqvist, 2021). For example, Barrow and Berhanu (2021) highlighted that some municipalities in Sweden tend to run a segregating education policy, regardless of the Education Act, which conveys inclusive values. Ström and Sundqvist (2021) stressed that the Nordic welfare model in Finland exposes tendencies of educational values with neo-liberal overtones, characterised by market efficiency, individualism, and competition. Furthermore, Olsen (2021) claimed that the space for diversity seems to be shrinking in Norway. From this example, it is clear that inclusive education and SE are viewed from slightly different perspectives across Nordic countries. This is also something that the readers of this book need to consider: the policies form the practices around children with SE needs, but the policies are developed in slightly different contexts. Therefore, there is a dialogue in SE policies and practices between the countries, not an identical ‘model’ ranging across them.

1  Introduction to Special Education in the Early Years—Policies and Practices…

5

Nevertheless, the findings of the chapters in this book provide an important insight into the Nordic country educational systems and offer readers a chance to understand relevant issues facing the Nordic countries’ policy and practice connected to SE in the early years. In this book, all the 19 chapters present unique research and give the readers a possibility, for instance, to understand how special educational services during the early years are defined and implemented. Each chapter in this book highlights research from a policy and/or practice perspective on the SE field in the early years and critically discusses possible developmental objectives. This book’s chapters are divided into two parts, each highlighting SE policy or practice perspectives. The first part of the book includes seven chapters, each with a focus in policy perspectives. The first research chapter’s author comes from Finland. Chapter 2, authored by Päivi Pihlaja, starts by describing Finnish early childhood SE and how it has evolved in Finland. The author explores a topic rarely studied in the country. In this chapter, Pihlaja takes a broad approach and gives readers both a historic and a current perspective of the topic. This chapter discusses how the government has guided and how municipalities have implemented ECSE. The data of the study comprises policy-level documents, such as legislation, circulars or guidelines, and research literature. In the next chapter (Chap. 3), Mona Holmqvist, presents a theoretical discussion based on purposeful sampling to synthesise research regarding young children with ASD. This study’s results reveal the need to change the norm of the country instead of the expectations regarding the child’s behaviour. This is to make the environment more inclusive and to give all children the best possible opportunities to develop. The situation of gifted children is the topic of Chap. 4. The authors, Valerie Margrain and Jorryt van Bommel, discuss why these children should be recognised in policy documents and practice and offer support in the early years. The chapter informs the reader about how the needs of gifted children can be met in an inclusive early childhood education context. A specific framework titled SPARK for engaging with gifted education in the early years is illustrated and discussed by using a case study in which a three-year-old boy is the focus. In Chap. 5, Charlotte Ringsmose discusses quality and un(equality) in early childhood education in Denmark. She takes the adoption of earlier Danish research, indicating gaps in the education for children of different backgrounds. The importance of high qualitative early childhood education practices that can create more equal opportunities for children, eliminate the gaps in children’s development, and prevent learning disabilities is discussed. Chapter 6 turns our attention towards the Swedish context and autism. Here, the authors, Amanda Webster, Susanne Garvis, and Gunilla Westman Andersson, summarise current Swedish literature and educational policies around autism and young children’s preschool and schooling. The chapter highlights that children on the autism spectrum experience many difficulties in preschools/schools and often need support to overcome the potential problems of preschool/school environments. The chapter reveals that teachers in Sweden are struggling to meet the needs of children with ASD. Furthermore, the authors identified several gaps in policy and practice regarding their topic. They highlight the types of practices that could be utilised for early intervention and the lack of research

6

H. Harju-Luukkainen et al.

on children in the early years in Sweden. In Chap. 7, Susanne Garvis, Liisa Uusimäki, and Umesh Sharma discuss Swedish early childhood pre-service teachers and inclusive education through a case study. This chapter reports on how inclusive education is taught and enacted in Swedish early childhood teacher education. A specific focus is made on local legislation documents as precursor for actions. A case study is shared from a study of Swedish early childhood pre-service teachers’ beliefs to include all the children in Swedish classrooms to show current understandings. At the end of the chapter, the authors highlight future teacher education policies and practices. The second part of this book includes 10 chapters regarding SE practices across the Nordic region. It starts with a chapter authored by Danish researchers. The authors of Chap. 8, Charlotte Riis Jensen, Mette Molbæk, Maria Christina Secher Schmidt, and Janne Hedegaard, analyse how collaboration within SE needs and inclusionary practices occurs in Danish early education and early care. The results indicate that collaborative processes do not solve the challenges of developing inclusive learning environments, but even risks inducing the exclusion of individual children rather than to inclusion. The authors argue for changing the understanding and practice of collaboration towards situations in which the professionals focus on identifying new ways of handling diversity rather than identifying ways of compensating for a child’s special needs. In the next chapter (Chap. 9), Merja Hautakangas, Lotta Uusitalo, and Kristiina Kumpulainen describe how children in Finnish early childhood education learnt self-regulation skills after participating in an intervention programme called the Kids’ Skills programme. Participating children, diagnosed as having difficulties in their self-regulation, described their learning as narratives and drawings. According to the results, the children learnt to regulate their behaviour, which helped them build friendship and become more accepted to participate in joint actions. The authors discuss the relevance of building early environments that enable children to learn self-regulation. In Chap. 10, Heidi HarjuLuukkainen, Camilla Björklund, Erja Sandberg, and Laura Rhinehart discuss mathematically high-achieving children. In Finland, the national curriculums for early childhood education (2018) and basic education (2014) require teachers to cultivate these talents. This study’s objective is to describe parent’s perceptions of the types of support mathematically high-ability children received in preschool and school context in Finland. According to the results, parents were mostly unsatisfied with the support schools gave to their high-ability children in mathematics, although these children were recognised in their early years as high-ability children. The type/level of support children received to further develop their abilities seemed to be more dependent on their teacher or the teacher’s view on the needed support in mathematics. In the next chapter (Chap. 11), Natallia B Hanssen and Kathrin Olsen reflect on the results of a survey conducted with early childhood education teacher students in Norway. This chapter describes their knowledge regarding special needs education and further how the students are being prepared to support children with special needs in early childhood. The results indicate that, according to the students, the education received in Norway was insufficient to give them, as future teachers, the competence required to meet the heterogeneity of children in

1  Introduction to Special Education in the Early Years—Policies and Practices…

7

ECEC. Chapter 12 is authored by Jorun Buli-Holmberg, Elisabeth McGuire, and Mona Rønning Winsnes. This chapter investigates how the implementation of KIDS (Quality in Day Care Institutions) helps to improve inclusive practices through observations and reflections on the quality of practice. The results show that the implementation of KIDS helps to improve the educational provision for all children, especially for children with special needs. In the conclusion, the authors state that KIDS is a useful tool to improve inclusive practices regarding relationships, physical environment and play and activities are suitable, and to raise the level of kindergarten staff’s competence practicing inclusion. In Chap. 13, the authors, Elisabeth Brekke Stangeland and Joakim Evensen Hansen, explore and discuss possibilities and challenges in the language learning environment for children under three with low language skills. The chapter builds on data from two doctoral theses focusing on educational language practices, language development, play and social functioning in a Norwegian ECEC context. According to the results, there are variations in children’s language development that explain their participation in play. Moreover, the results highlight that ECEC staff provide children with few language learning opportunities, which are assumed to promote language development. The authors ultimately highlight the importance of the quality of the language learning environment in securing progression and development for late talkers. Chapter 14 turns our attention towards the Swedish context. Here, the authors, Camilla Björklund and Angelika Kullberg, discuss a potential way of supporting the learning of basic numerical skills to pre-schoolers with limited knowledge of number concepts. The authors discuss one question: In what ways are the ideas of using finger patterns as a structuring tool to support numerical understanding reflected in the children’s arithmetic problem solving? The results show that children are facilitated to see part-whole relations of the first ten numbers on their fingers, which seems to benefit children’s learning of early arithmetic skills. The authors suggest that children who show deficits in mathematical domains at an early age need pedagogical interventions that will help them to develop their basic number concepts and strategies, so they can start formal mathematics education in primary school with sufficient basic knowledge of numbers, like most of their peers. Chapter 15, written by Ann Nordberg, describes how systematic language support from professionals working in Swedish preschools can be designed. The Communication Supporting Observation Tool was used to observe and identify the preschool staff’s support for the children’s language use and how it could be further developed. The results show that the children were offered many opportunities to actively use and process language inputs. The staff created many natural opportunities for language exposure and usage, and they had many reflections on how to go further. However, potentials for increasing the support of language learning were found, particularly, to increase interactions between child–teacher and child–child. The author, Anna Katharina Jacobsson, discusses in Chap. 16 how preschool staff collaborate and improve their professional skills to meet the curriculum objectives for children who need special support for communication. The analysis in this study used a narrative approach based on Wenger’s theory of Community of Practice (CoP). The findings show that CoP can be a form of professional development tool that can help ECEC teachers

8

H. Harju-Luukkainen et al.

improve their skills and profession to teach and stimulate children with barriers in their communication. The results also indicate that CoP can be supplemented with other forms of professional development, such as collegial external study groups and coaching, to add more knowledge to enable professionalisation. In the next chapter (Chap. 17), Eva Staffans reports results from an investigation regarding teachers’ perceptions of the prevalence and support that children with various language challenges receive when participating in three different language settings. The percentage of children needing support for language challenges is low in bilingual settings, and the causes are discussed. Teachers working in different language settings also perceived language challenges differently but still used similar support methods. The results suggest the importance of training all teachers on the appropriate assessment of and interventions for children with language challenges, especially focusing on the similarities and differences in language development between monolingual, bilingual, and multilingual children. The author of Chap. 18, Marianna Heinonen, provides findings from a Finnish study focusing on ECEC professionals’ perceptions and beliefs concerning children needing socio-emotional support. Despite several perceived challenges, the findings show that the professionals’ perceptions concerning individual children were more positive than their general beliefs regarding children with socio-emotional difficulties. The author discusses the results regarding labelling and individual-centred views of children needing socio-emotional support. The last chapter of this book (Chap. 19), authored by Heidi Harju-Luukkainen, Natalia B Hanssen, and Christel Sundqvist, gives the readers a summary and outlook, describing the similarities and differences across the Nordic countries regarding special educational policies and practices. Here, different enablers and challenges across the different countries are presented, and the developmental object identified by the authors across this book.

References Ainscow, M. (2020). Promoting inclusion and equity in education: Lessons from international experiences. Nordic Journal of Studies in Educational Policy. https://doi.org/10.1080/2002031 7.2020.172958. Barow and Berhanu. (2021). INCLUSIVE EDUCATION IN SWEDEN Policy, politics, and practice. In N.  B. Hanssen, S.-E.  Hansèn, & K.  Ström (Eds.), Dialogues between Northern and Eastern Europe on the Development of Inclusion. Theoretical and Practical Perspectives. Routledge. Ferreira, J. M., Mäkinen, M., & de Souza Amorim, K. (2018). Reflecting on inclusion in early childhood education: Pedagogical practice, school space and peer interaction. Journal of Early Childhood Education Research, 7(1), 25–52. Finnish National Agency for Education (FNAE). (2017). National core curriculum for early childhood education and care 2016. Regulations and guidelines 2017: 10. Author. Garvis, S., & Eriksen Ødegaard, E. (2017). Nordic dialogues on children and families. Evolving families. Routledge.

1  Introduction to Special Education in the Early Years—Policies and Practices…

9

Garvis, S., Philipsson, S., & Harju-Luukkainen, H. (2018). Volume I: Early childhood education in the 21st century. International teaching, family and policy perspectives. Routledge. Hanssen, N. B., & Khitruk, V. (2021). Understanding Inclusion and Inclusive Education for Students with SEN—Ideals and Reality. In S.-E.  Hansèn & K.  Ström (Eds.), Natallia Bahdanovich Hanssen. Dialogues between Northern and Eastern Europe on the Development of Inclusion. Haug, P. (2017). Understanding inclusive education: Ideals and reality. Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research, 19, 206–217. Hausstätter. (2014). In support of unfinished inclusion. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 58(4), 424–434. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2013.773553 Hausstätter, R., & Vik, S. (2021). A theoretical framework of an overall perspective of inclusive special education. In N.  B. Hanssen, S.-E.  Hansèn, & K.  Ström (Eds.), Dialogues between Northern and Eastern Europe on the development of inclusion: Theoretical and practical perspectives (pp. 18–33). Routledge. Mitchell, D. (2005). Introduction: Sixteen propositions on the contexts of inclusive education. In D. Mitchell (Ed.), Contextualizing inclusive education: Evaluating old and new international perspectives (pp. 1–21). Routledge. NDET. (2019). Framework plan for kindergartens. Contents and tasks. Norwegian Directorial for Education and Training. Retrieved from https://www.udir.no/globalassets/filer/barnehage/rammeplan/framework-­plan-­for-­kindergartens2-­2017.pdf OECD. (2012). Starting strong III: A quality toolbox for early childhood education and care. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264123564-­en OECD. (2015). Starting strong IV: Monitoring quality in early childhood education and care. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264233515-­en OECD. (2019). Providing quality early childhood education and care: Results from the starting strong survey 2018. Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/publications/providing-­quality-­ early-­childhood-­education-­and-­care-­301005d1-­en.htm Olsen, M. (2021). A practical–theoretical perspective on the inclusive school in Norway. In S.-E. Hansèn & K. Ström (Eds.), Natallia Bahdanovich Hanssen. Dialogues between Northern and Eastern Europe on the Development of Inclusion. Sebba, J., & Ainscow, M. (1996). International developments in inclusive schooling: Mapping the issues. Cambridge Journal of Education, 26(1), 5–18. Skolverket. (2019). Läroplan för förskolan Lpfö18. Skolverket. Ström, K., & Linnanmäki, K. (2017). Samhällssyn, människosyn och kunskapssyn. In S-E. Hansén & L. Forsman (Eds.), Allmändidaktik (pp. 232–247). Studentlitteratur. Ström, K., & Sundqvist, C. (2021). In pursuit of the inclusive school: The case of Finland. In N. B. Hanssen, S.-E. Hansèn, & K. Ström (Eds.), Dialogues between Northern and Eastern Europe on the development of inclusion: Theoretical and practical perspectives (pp. 83–98). Routledge. Sundqvist, C. (2021). Moving towards inclusive schools: Teacher collaboration as a key aspect of the development of inclusive practices. In N. B. Hanssen, S.-E. Hansèn, & K. Ström (Eds.), Dialogues between Northern and Eastern Europe on the Development of Inclusion. Theoretical and Practical Perspectives. Routledge. UNESCO. (1994). The Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action on Special Needs Education. World Conference on Special Needs Education: Access and Quality, Salamanca, Spain, 7–10 June. UNESCO. (2021). Central and Eastern Europe, Caucasus and Central Asia Report - Inclusion and Education: All Means All. Global Education Monitoring Report.

Part I

Policy Perspectives

Chapter 2

Early Childhood Special Education in Finland Päivi Pihlaja

Abstract  This paper examines Finnish early childhood special education (ECSE) and how it has been evolving in Finland. The Finnish early childhood education (ECE) provides the context for ECSE.  The aim is to study ECSE at the policy, macro-and meso levels; in this case, educational practices in child groups are excluded. The aim is to discuss how the state has guided and how municipalities have implemented ECSE. The material in this study comprises policy-level documents, such as legislation, circulars, or guidelines. This paper overviews a subject concerning which studies are almost non-existent in Finland. The method relies on qualitative content and document analyses. Results are discussed together with ideas on how to further develop this area in Finnish early education. Keywords  Finland · Special edcuation · Early childhood · History

Introduction This paper examines Finnish early childhood special education (ECSE) and how it has been evolving in Finland. ECSE concerns children with disabilities and special educational needs (SEN) in daycare/early childhood education institutions. Finnish Early Childhood Education (ECE) provides the context for the ECSE, its policy, and implementation. ECE mainly comprises municipal or outsourced services provided by municipalities in ECE institutions, while municipal family daycare is only marginal. Also, vouchers and private care allowance are available. While ECE is mostly public, currently, there are an increasing number of private providers, part of which are for profit organisations. In 2019, about 77% of 1–6-year-old children were in ECE (THL, 2019). P. Pihlaja (*) University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 H. Harju-Luukkainen et al. (eds.), Special Education in the Early Years, International Perspectives on Early Childhood Education and Development 36, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-91297-0_2

13

14

P. Pihlaja

Children’s special needs are on the media almost weekly nowadays. Children’s bullying and behavioural problems in early education and compulsory education have provoked public discussion. The cause of these problems is seen either in families or in educational institutions. The Finnish Minister of Education, Li Andersson, has also commented actively on these matters. Wider discussion and studies concerning SE (special education) are needed, and this article makes one contribution to the need. The administrative branch of ECE is currently in educational sector. While the Ministry of Education and Culture implements national policy and prepares legislation and decisions, it handles matters concerning budget fund utilisation (see www. minedu.fi/en/fronpage). SE is and has been integrated into ECE in Finland, so it is therefore justifiable to start with a short description of ECE development.

From Daycare to Early Childhood Education In Finland, daycare was originally meant for children whose parents were at work or were studying when the Day Care Act (Law, 36/1973) came into effect. Daycare has, in Finnish society, a long tradition of adult-centred justification for society-­ needed women in the labour markets (Kinos, 2002; Välimäki, 1998). Although daycare as a service system was justified by labour markets and adult-centred reasons, there is still a strong pedagogical orientation and strong pedagogical roots in Fröbel’s pedagogical orientation. The basis for goal-oriented pedagogical work and early education was laid with the change in legislation in the beginning of the 1980s and behind these changes was the work done by the Day Care Committee (Kom, 1980). A new clause entered into legislation that defined new aims of daycare (Law, 304/1983, 2a§). The aim of daycare was to support families with their upbringing tasks and, together with parents, to promote the balanced development of the child’s personality. Daycare was supposed to offer continuous, secure, and warm relationships and activities that diversely support the child’s development. Daycare should also promote the physical, social, and emotional development of the child while supporting the child’s aesthetical, cognitive, ethical, and religious education. Daycare has belonged to the sector of social care for decades. One focal element in the concept of education at the national level was the Government Resolution about the Guidelines for ECE (not care) in 2002. This resolution stated that ‘ECE … means children’s educational interaction in different settings to fostering the child’s healthy growth, development, and learning’. The primary right and responsibility for nurturing and educating children lies with parents, with public ECE services merely supporting the work performed by parents in the home (Ministry of Social Affairs and Health, 2003, 9). However, a slow movement towards educational orientation at the administrative level succeeded this. Municipalities were permitted to transfer daycare from the social sector to education in 2003 when the Social Welfare Act (Law, 155/2003) authorised

2  Early Childhood Special Education in Finland

15

municipalities to choose the administrative sector of daycare. This opportunity launched a process whereby most of the municipalities transferred daycare from the social sector to education (Harju et al., 2007). The process ended when daycare was transferred from the Ministry for Social and Health Affairs to the Ministry of Culture and Education in 2013. The new ministry prepared new daycare legislation, and in 2015, the name of the law was changed to the ‘Early childhood Education Law’ (Law, 36/1973). In 2015, the Finnish National Agency for Education (FNAE) became the national development agency responsible also for ECEC. The legislative reform ended with a completely new law in 2018 (Law, 540/2018). This administrative and ideological debate (education vs. social care) that has been part of Finnish ECE for decades has also been the context for early childhood SE.  The administration sector was for decades ‘social care’, which also affected the orientation towards children with SEN. In the last decade, Finnish ECE has faced major changes along with the change in administrative branch, a whole new legislation, and also an increase in private providers.

Aims and Method of This Study This study examines ECSE in Finland and how it has developed in recent history, and to develop an understanding of its relevance and its place in Finnish society. It explores ECSE at the policy, macro, and meso levels. The study data comprise documents and studies. The education in child groups is outlined and other services for children (e.g. therapies, rehabilitation, child health care) or families (e.g. family counselling). With the following questions, the aim is to uncover the meaning of the ECSE in Finland. The main questions are as follows: 1. How has early childhood special education been developed in Finland? 2. What are the characteristics of early childhood SE in Finland? This study material comprises policy-level documents and studies that are related to municipal or national level ECSE. All documents and studies in this study are produced for external and public consumption; they are ‘social facts’ that have been generated, shared, and used socially (Atkinson & Coffey, 2004). Merriam and Tisdell (2015, 175) wrote that when using documents as sources, ‘data collection is guided by questions, educated hunches, and emerging findings’. This analysis relies on qualitative content and document analysis. The idea was to read various texts concerning the ECSE, especially texts linked to ECSE policy. The starting point is that the documents are standardised artefacts (Wolff, 2004, 284), which typically occur in particular formats, here considered legislation or state-level norms and guidelines. These official documents function as institutional traces of ECSE (Wolff, 2004, 284), and they represent an independent level of data (Hodder, 2000, 704–704; Wolff, 2004, 288), which enables their use as a source of information. The documents assist in tracking change and development, as stated by Bowen (2009), which is appropriate as the aim is also to examine the changes. The aim is to study what is

16

P. Pihlaja

said about the ECSE, along with focusing on what is not said, the silences, the gaps, or omissions (Rapley, 2011). With studies showing how the national preference for ECSE has been implemented, it is also critical to reflect these official documents. Studies conducted in Finland about ECSE mostly concern child groups, pedagogics, peer interaction, teachers, children, or parents (Koivula et al., 2020; Suhonen et al., 2014; Syrjämäki et al., 2018; Viitala, 2000). There is a gap in research concerning policy-level or macro-level studies. This study starts by overviewing the studies, especially dissertations made in ECSE; after this, the recent history of ECSE is analysed, and the very essential contemporary education policy ideology of inclusion and its meaning for ECSE are also discussed. Present policy guidelines and discussion of the findings complete this study.

Research in the Area of ECSE In Finland, SE and ECE have historically had their own roots and paths in research and also in education. The roots of ECSE are situated in the universities when special kindergarten teacher education started in Finland in the 1970s. Special teacher education is nowadays a 60-credit unit degree, either part of master-level teacher studies or after a few years of work as a competent teacher. SE research and special teacher education have origins where the studies in this area have been mainly focused on compulsory education. Also, (general) educational science has been and still is closely connected to teachers’ training (Husa & Kinos, 2005). In Finland, ECSE research is usually placed in the branch of SE, while in ECE, it plays a minor role (Alijoki & Pihlaja, 2011). Internationally, ECSE is a research area of its own with professorships and independent university master’s degree (e.g. University of Oregon, Kansas, Florida). In Finland, the University of Jyväskylä offers a master’s degree in SE focusing on ECSE teacher education, yet it is part of special teacher education, not an independent academic subject, with no professorships. This is unsurprising for the first full professorship in ECE was introduced in the1990s (Husa & Kinos, 2005). To examine the field of educational research, especially dissertations, focusing on ECSE is one way to examine what kind of research has been done, how much, and what kind of research is still needed. By examining dissertations1 on ECSE conducted between 2000 and 2019, it can easily be noticed that these are mostly part of the branch of SE. Dissertations in ECSE began to emerge at the beginning of the 2000s, with themes varying from toddlers with special needs (Suhonen, 2009) to daycare personnel’s expertise in ECSE (Korkalainen, 2009; Kovanen, 2004). Rantala (2002) examined multi-professional work, and in her study, daycare was  With the following keywords in Finnish and English, the search was made in University of Turku Volter: ECSE, special daycare, special need AND day care/ECE, so it might be that some dissertations are excluded here.

1

2  Early Childhood Special Education in Finland

17

one area. One dissertation examined the experiences of a mother with a disabled child and the meaning of partnership with daycare (Tonttila, 2006). Two dissertations examined ECSE more on a municipal level (Heinämäki, 2004; Pihlaja, 2003), and one examined SEN when children had social and emotional or language difficulties (Pihlaja, 2003). The work of Leena Tauriainen (2000) handled the overall quality of ECE in an integrated special group. From 2010 to 2020, there were altogether eight dissertations. The focus varied from the child’s activity (From, 2010) to partnership with parents and professionals (Koivunen, 2012). Peer interaction (Madureita, 2018), pedagogics that enhance interaction in ECSE (Syrjämäki, 2019), and the need for support in the social–emotional area were also studied (Viitala, 2014). Nislin’s (2016) work concentrated on work-related well-being, stress, and quality of pedagogical work among professionals. Heiskanen (2019) studied documentation and individual pedagogical plans. In sum, the themes are diverse and form a multilevel unity, but there are still relatively few dissertations, and only some focused on the macro-or meso-level, while no one focused on ECSE policy.

 rom Yesterday to Today in Early Childhood F Special Education The EC(S)E Policy and Its Implementation In Finland, the official beginning of SE in daycare can be set in the1950s when the first special groups in kindergartens2 were established in Jyväskylä and Helsinki. These groups were meant for children with mental or physical disability. After this, in the 1960s, some municipalities were interested in how many ‘special care children’ there were and did surveys to get numbers (Kom, 1967, 24; Sosiaalihallitus, 1978). In a new Day Care Act (Law, 36/1973), a ‘special kindergarten’ was mentioned, and this kindergarten was entitled to a 10% rise in the state aid. ‘Special kindergarten’ was an institution where one or more groups were so-called special groups. The Day Care Decree (Law, 239/1973) specified that, in a child group where all the children needed ‘special care and upbringing’, the number of children could be only half of that of the general child group (6§). When admitting a child requiring ‘special care and upbringing’ into daycare, a statement from a specialist doctor or from a family-counselling centre was needed. Still in the 1970s, ‘special daycare’ was a minor element in daycare with a medical orientation shown by the statement on the child. At the turn of the 1980s, interest in children with special needs was growing at the national level. There were two national official work groups, one evaluating the number of children with special needs and the other developing municipal special  The name was originally kindergarten, and it was changed to daycare centre (later in this article ECE institution) by the new legislation in 1973. It is still very common to talk about ‘kindergartens’ in Finland. 2

18

P. Pihlaja

daycare work groups and their tasks (Sosiaalihallitus, 1978; Särkkä, 1982). These national work groups were essential for future development since, according to their work, the National Board of Social Services (in Finnish Sosiaalihallitus) gave instructions concerning special daycare. These instructions were circulars. In the circulars (Sosiaalihallitus 1981, 1984), there were guidelines on the following themes: –– The daycare of children with special care and upbringing, to choose a daycare placement; –– Special arrangements in a general child group; –– Special daycare centre; –– A municipal special daycare work group or the person in charge. Also, integrated special groups and special groups were defined. The aim was that, in every 500 daycare placements, there should be one itinerant special kindergarten teacher. An important new clause was legislated in 1985: ‘when a child needs special care and upbringing, a rehabilitation plan must be made for the child to integrate the rehabilitation’ (Law, 1119/1985, 7a§). In 1988, according to the legislation, if, in a group, there was a child with ‘special needs and upbringing’, this should be considered in the number of children or the number of pedagogical personnel if the assistant for the child is lacking (Law, 486/1988). An assistant or fewer children were the only options municipalities used. This clause was meaningful when the number of children in the groups was limited. In the 1980s, municipalities founded special daycare work groups, new posts for special kindergarten teachers and new special and integrated special groups (Pihlaja, 1998). In the end of the 1980s, the administrative ideology changed nationally, and the National Board of Social Services sent no longer circulars to municipalities; instead, only information guidance came. In a new guide for daycare, the special daycare was condensed into one page of information but included the same concepts as earlier in circulars (Sosiaalihallitus, 1988). At the national policy level, there was a shift to municipal autonomy at the end of the 1980s by reducing the state’s role in social and health care. The aim was to give more power to municipalities to create a service system that would ensure services to all in need and would also be economic and efficient while giving municipals wider freedom to act and would also be administratively simple (HE, 216/ 1991, 9). The idea behind this change was to make the most of the resources in daycare and, for example, to prevent underutilisation of daycare placements (Memo of the Ministry of Social and Health Care, 1992). Then, the daycare legislation was revised, and it became more like a skeleton law after the changes in 1992. The number of children in a child group was no longer limited since there were enough adults in the group (ratio in all-daycare was 1:7 when children were over 5  h in daycare, and 1:13 under 5 h for 3–6 year-olds). This also impacted the position of children with SEN, as the number of children increased substantially in child groups (Kauppinen, 1995).

2  Early Childhood Special Education in Finland

19

The National Board of Social Services was disbanded, and the National STAKES was established in 1992; this united social and health care. From this timeline, the focus was more on health and social care, and ever since, daycare was no longer an independent area of national planning and funding but a part of social and health care. Children with SEN constituted a silent subject at the national level. In the beginning of the1990s, there were about 200 projects in daycare supported by STAKES, and none concentrated on ECSE or children with SEN (see Stakes, 1998). One key actor officer from STAKES said that ‘we do not want to label these children’ when she was asked why there were no projects concerning this theme. This kind of understanding might induce the children to be included and excluded simultaneously (Hilt, 2015), meaning that the child has a placement in a general group but with no friends, is with a personal assistant, or has a segregated placement in a group. At the end of the 1990s, the Ministry of Social and Health Care earmarked resources for a national study concerning ‘special daycare’ and children with SEN in municipalities. The need for this study was made clear to the ministry by the writer of this paper, together with a municipal ECE leader, Pirjo-Liisa Svärd. The study ‘On the Edge of Daycare—Special Daycare in Finland 1997’ revealed a huge variation in the structural quality of special daycare in municipalities, and a large variation in how many children were identified as having SEN.  The variation between municipalities was 0–49% (Pihlaja, 1998.) Concurrently, in Sweden, the variation was 5–25% (Socialstyrelsen, 1997). Then, about 30% of the municipalities had integrated or special groups, or special kindergarten teachers in daycare (Pihlaja, 1998). Thus, the children were in an unequal position depending on where they lived and in which daycare centre they were to get SE or support. Because of these undesirable results, the Ministry of Social and Health Care started a national development project called ERIKA to develop ECSE in municipalities. After ERIKA, the projects, EriNet 2002–2003 and Vartu 2004–2005, were implemented. Simultaneously, with the ERIKA project, a work group under the Ministry of Social and Health Care was preparing national guidelines for ECEC that the Council of State approved in 2002. In this document called ‘Decision in Principle Concerning the National Policy Definition on ECEC’, it was emphasised that each child should receive the ‘special care, rearing, and teaching that he/she needs’. Every child has a right to be accepted, and SE should be implemented fully in general ECE services. (Ministry of Social Affairs and Health, 2003, 17). From this recent historical description, we will pass on to the situation and context in the 2000s. In this study, we used the terms special daycare and the child with special need for care and upbringing, as these were used in policy documents and legislation. These terms have since vanished, and in the 2003 Basics of ECE plan in Finland, the term ‘special support’ was launched. Along with this, the shift in ECE ideology turned even more on the individual child without a larger context, such as ‘special daycare’ (Stakes, 2003).

20

P. Pihlaja

The 2000s-Inclusive and Special Education in ECE At the beginning of the 2000s, the international context began to have more influence on Finnish education policy at all educational levels. The OECD and EU reports and guidelines have been widely read at the national level. A focal ideology in the educational sector that also led the way in Finnish educational policy was inclusion and inclusive education. The goals of inclusion are to promote friendship and involvement with peers, to create possibilities for participation, and equality in a shared and joint school (Ainscow, 2005; Booth, 2011). According to inclusion, special schools and other segregate placements are no longer needed. Now, the discussion on inclusive education, especially in SE, both in research and practice, has been ongoing for over a decade. There have been different kinds of opinions, and it is clear that not all special educators or SE scholars share the same views. There has also been emotional tuning—dislike or like—around this concept, also in research. According to Dyson and Farrell (2007), inclusion is a broad concept that ‘generates more heat than light’. The challenge of inclusion is that the term and its implementation are extensive and multifaceted. There are many elements that need to be set before we can really speak about inclusion in ECE. Bricker (1995, 2000) and Jones (2004) wrote that the basic element lies in services meant for all children near their homes. Every child should have access to the nearest ECE institution. This is the basic factor. After this, other elements should come true: the professionals’ attitudes (emotional and cognitive) should promote inclusive education, a common curriculum should encourage the participation and activity of every child, the necessary resources should be at the child’s disposal, and consultation with the personnel should be available when needed. The Finnish government has stated that every child has a right to ECE, so access for all children has been ensured by legislation since 1973. However, the private sector has breached this, as some private providers reject children with SEN into their institutions, and the share of children with SEN is marginal in the private sector (Pihlaja & Neitola, 2017; Riitakorpi et al., 2018). In the current Act on ECEC (Law, 540/2018), it is stated that the aim of ECE is ‘to recognise the child’s need for individual support and provide the child with appropriate support in ECEC, including support involving multi-professional cooperation when necessary’. (Section 3). The municipality must have ECE special teachers’ services at its disposal (Section 25). According to the Finnish National Core Curriculum for ECEC, ECE should be implemented ‘following the principles of inclusion’ (FNAE, 2017, 58). One troublesome question concerns the term ‘inclusion’, for it has no definition in ECE CC. Instead of this, in ECE CC, some inclusive values are mentioned many times, e.g. democracy, equality, and participation. The current legislation (Law, 540/2018) and previous ECE plans have emphasised both children’s and parents’ participation as a meaningful part of the child’s early education. Unfortunately, this comes true in a varied way when the child has special needs (Viitala, 2000; Pihlaja, 2009). The attitudes towards children with special needs also vary depending on the child’s special needs; children with

2  Early Childhood Special Education in Finland

21

emotional and behavioural difficulties are the hardest to confront (Pihlaja, 2003; Viitala, 2000). One interesting unanswered question is: Who are the children with SEN in ECE? In Finland, the answer varies a lot for in surveys the amount has varied from 0% to 49% and from 5% to 25% depending on the municipality or the child group (Pihlaja, 1998; Pihlaja et al., 2010). In a survey conducted in 2016 (Pihlaja & Neitola, 2017), it was impossible to say what kind of special needs the children had or how many had special needs, for not all municipalities answered the question or else the respondents said that they do not gather this kind of information. In the ECE CC, the child’s need for support has been described only when the child typically needs full-­ time, continuous, and individual support, in the case of ‘the child’s severe disability, illness, delayed development, and a support need related to socioemotional development’ (FNAE, 2017, p. 60). In the1980s, the definition was more explicit and wider, but typically for that period had a medical orientation with an expression such as ‘disturbed’ (Sosiaalihallitus, 1984). In some municipalities, a three-step support system (general, intensified, and special need) is used, although it is a national regulation focused on preschool class and compulsory education. (Opetushallitus, 2014). One interesting result in a survey by Pihlaja and Neitola (2017) was that only about 2% of all the SEN children in ECE were in private sector. The private sector has increased its share in ECE markets since 2010, making the context more fragmented and uneven for children with SEN. The principle of some private ECE companies rejecting children with SEN is against the inclusive principles that Finland is committed to (Unesco, 1994). The inclusive ideology concerns the whole service system (such as ECE and compulsory education), municipal policy, and individual educational institutions. One essential element in inclusion is the question of how individuality or individual special needs and the social context are related. This is reflected in the following section.

The Individual Child and the Social Context According to the Finnish ECE CC (FNAE, 2017), an individual ECE plan should be made for every child in ECE. Heiskanen et al. (2018) studied children’s ECE plans for children with SEN. In their study, some plans had no descriptions of the support the child required. They called this ‘missing descriptions’. The most dominant descriptions were repetitious as opposed to missing ones. In these plans, support is described but briefly, non-specifically, and repetitiously. Heiskanen et  al. (2018) wrote that these were ‘almost identical from one recording to another’. The third way to describe these plans was to call them ‘disorganised patterns’, which gave an incoherent view of support from the viewpoint of continuity. The most infrequent pattern was called the ‘explicit pattern’, in which descriptions were typically detailed, contextualised, and linguistically unambiguous. Researchers have stated that the documents typically ‘functioned as a tool of problematisation’. Also, in an

22

P. Pihlaja

earlier study conducted by Pihlaja (2003), the children were problematised, and the problems were situated in the individual child without any reflection of the pedagogical context. The idea was to change the child, not the physical environment nor the pedagogical context. These studies (Heiskanen et al., 2018; Pihlaja, 2003) established the individual model of disability that focuses on problems, delays, or deficits in the individual child, forgetting the essential social context in inclusion (Vehkakoski, 2006; Reindal, 2008). Instead of the individual model, the social model of disability sees disability as a construct that we create socially. Different communities socially construct what is regarded or defined as disabled or special. Social context can also exclude or include people in joint activities (Oliver, 1996; Reindal, 2008). For every child in Finland, an individual ECE plan, together with his/her parents, is a norm, the origins of which lie in the 1980s (Law, 1119/1985; Law, 540/2018). In 1986, the plan was called ‘the rehabilitation plan’; nowadays, it is just a child’s ECE plan. As seen above, the quality of these plans for children with SEN greatly varies. Although the earlier ‘rehabilitation plan’ was the norm from 1985 to 2018 (to be made for children with SEN), it was realised only for every other child (Pihlaja & Junttila, 2000; Pihlaja et al., 2010). The children with behavioural and emotional problems formed the group for which it was made most seldom (Pihlaja et  al., 2010). So, this policy-level norm has not been implemented sufficiently in Finland.

Resource Allocation and ECSE Management One essential but forgotten element of inclusion in many municipalities is the resources. Resources mean all the support the child’s needs, e.g. SE, speech therapy, smaller group size, special teachers, interventions, or support for teachers and practical nurses. There are different kinds of child groups in Finland. Most of the groups are general groups. These groups are either all-day or part-time groups for children under 3 years or 3–6 years old. In some municipalities, there are also integrated or SE groups in which one or two of the staff are special teachers. In the integrated special groups, most of the children are typically developed or non-disabled and the minority of children have SEN. In the special groups, all the children have SEN. In Finland, there are no ECE institutions where all children have SEN, unlike in compulsory education where special schools still exist (Tilastokeskus, 2019). Although the integrated special groups are inclusive, many municipalities have closed down such groups (Pihlaja & Neitola, 2017). Municipalities have justified this by inclusive ideology. The ideology has obviously not been understood. In the University of Helsinki, research is being conducted on special groups in ECE (University of Helsinki, 2020). A study by Syrjämäki et al. (2018) indicated good pedagogical quality in integrated special groups. Also, in Pihlaja’s (2003) study, special groups in ECE were seen positively, as the quality of children’s individual plans was better in (integrated) special groups compared to general child groups. In Alijoki’s (2006) dissertation, the result revealed that integrated special groups and

2  Early Childhood Special Education in Finland

23

special groups offer the strongest special educational support for children with SEN. Alijoki (2006) stated that children with SEN received strong special educational support (therapy and pedagogical methods) in 6% of cases if the children were in general groups in preschool and 50% of cases if they were in special groups. This kind of intervention, smaller groups with a SE teacher, is justified because the earlier the intervention is conducted, the more effective it is, says Blackwell (2003). One element of resources is the competence of ECE personnel. In Finland, we currently have child groups where there is no single ECE teacher, which is a threat to the overall pedagogical quality. The heads in ECE institutions or at the municipal level largely influence how the norms and guidelines concerning ECSE are implemented. In a recent study of municipal ECE leaders conducted by Laakso et al. (2020), the results showed that inclusion is understood very differently. The attitudes are, in principle, positive towards inclusion and children with SEN.  However, the leaders saw obstacles in implementation. Those leaders who were oriented more to leadership had a more positive attitude towards inclusion compared to leaders who had more of a management and administrative orientation. In Pihlaja’s study (2003), some of the daycare centres’ heads had positive attitudes towards the competence to support personnel in ECSE. Some of the heads felt pity for the SEN children (Oh no!) and could not do anything to support the personnel. Unfortunately, some of the heads had negative attitudes towards these children, thus making the personnel’s work difficult (Pihlaja, 2003).

National Guidance in ECSE In the current Finnish guidance system, the Ministry of Education and Culture prepares the legislation and implementation of ECE, while the FNAE is also the national development agency responsible for ECE; its core task is to develop ECE nationally. Alongside these national organisations is the Finnish Education Evaluation Centre (FINEEC), which was established in 2013 (Law, 1295/2013). FINEEC is a national actor with the task of conducting national external evaluations of ECE and supporting ECEC organisers in their statutory task of self-evaluation and quality management (www.karvi.fi/en). FINEEC (Vlasov et al., 2019) has published guidelines and recommendations for evaluating ECEC quality. In this publication, quality factors concerning ECSE or inclusive education are also presented. There are two structural factors at the national and local levels and two factors at the level of pedagogical activities. These factors are linked to adequacy, availability, accessibility, and ECEC inclusiveness, as Table 2.1 shows. These factors include the children’s rights (UNESCO, 1994) to participation on many levels. The terms linkable to inclusive and SE or to ECSE are inclusiveness, support, a joint learning environment, and participation. Inclusion is mentioned, but what it really means is vague. One interesting change is that, recently, we discuss ‘need’ and ‘support’ instead of ‘special educational needs’ or ‘education’. Thomas

24

P. Pihlaja

Table 2.1  Factors Linked to Inclusive Education in ECE Factors at the national level

The national steering system safeguards every child’s right to ECEC. High-­ quality services implementing the principle of inclusiveness are available and accessible for all children. The national steering system sets the policies for and safeguards the provision of support for individual development and learning, ensuring that each child receives the support they need. Factors at the local ECEC organisers must ensure the availability and accessibility to all level children of high-quality ECEC services where the principle of inclusiveness is implemented. Local ECEC services have been organised to safeguard the provision of support for development and learning, ensuring that each child receives the required support. The support needed by a child is provided in the child’s usual learning environment. Factors at the level The leader of the daycare centre ascertains daily that a sufficient number of staff as required by law and considering the number of children present, of pedagogical ensuring that the children’s safety and the permanence of interactive activities relationships can be guaranteed and the objectives set for ECEC are reached. ECEC staff ensure that all children can participate in all activities, regardless of their background and individual characteristics. Vlasov et al. (2019)

(2005) considered the concept of need and wrote that ‘…these needs have been silently transmuted from the school’s need for order calm, routine, and predictability to the child’s needs…’. Of these abovementioned terms linked to ECSE in FINEE’s (Vlasov et al., 2019) document, participation is described more explicitly; therefore, it is also easily implemented practically. These factors will be further clarified by new quality criteria that are currently (September 2020) in process. This national quality work on the ECE process is ongoing, and how the factors and the new forthcoming criteria are implemented in ECE will be seen in the future.

Discussion and Conclusion This study aims to examine the ECSE in Finland and its paths and development to understand its relevance and how it is placed in Finnish early education. ECSE and its development are linked closely to ECE, which has provided the frames for ECSE. At the national level, since the Day-Care Act of 1973, the crucial change has been in the administrative sector. ECE was transferred from the social sector to education in 2013, and consequently, a whole new legislation (Law, 540/2018) with a national regulation, the ECE CC 2016, was launched (FNAE, 2017). At the time of writing this paper, the reform is ongoing, and its effect on ECSE is still to be seen. Same kind of changes have been going on in other Nordic countries. The

2  Early Childhood Special Education in Finland

25

administrative sector has changed from social care to education; only the timelines have varied. Children with SEN or ECSE have, in many ways, been invisible in Finnish ECE for many decades. The 1980s is an exception to this on many levels, as national-­ level guidelines were given to municipalities, e.g. how to organise ‘special day care’, who were the children in need of ‘special care and upbringing’. The number of integrated special groups and special kindergarten teachers increased, and the norm of the ‘rehabilitation plan’ was launched. The visibility of children with SEN was faint at the national level in the beginning of the 1990s, which changed again at the end of the 1990s with a national survey (Pihlaja, 1998) that revealed huge differences between municipalities, and the children’s unequal position depending on where they lived and which day-care institution they attended. After this study, development projects, financed by the state administration, started (Erika 1999–2001, EriNet 2002–2003, VarTu 2004–2005). During these projects, the focus changed, and the mainstream ideology with the term ‘early support’ gained much weight, while the concept of ‘special needs’ vanished. This raises two questions. (1) Do not all children need support in their development and learning? (2) Do children need only support, not (special) education? There is a risk that with a generic and wide support concept, the ‘special’ and children with disabilities or SEN in education are easily ignored. The term that could describe national-level ideology is mainstream. This would seem to suit the Finnish inclusive education policy well: even the term inclusion is understood in many ways, and many connect it only to joint services. According to Lundahl (2016), the Nordic countries share the Nordic education model that stresses social justice and equality, which are also essential elements in inclusive ideology. The common and joint ECE CC is one indication of inclusion, but for children with SEN, ECSE as a system or part of an ECE institution has not been given enough column space in ECE CC. This is also the case if we examine Swedish Curriculum for the Preschool, Lpfö 18 (Skolverket, 2018). This raises the question of whether term inclusion or how it has been understood makes the terms special needs or disability to ‘vanish’ or become more invisible. If so, there is a risk that the SEN of children will be unidentified or well eoungh considered. In the legislation (Law, 540/2018), there is a clause stating that the municipality should have access to ECE special teacher services to correspond to the need as it appears (Law, 540/2018, 25§). This ‘appearing need’ is again a vague expression. How can this be realised if the officials in municipalities do not even know how many children need special support or education, or what kinds of special needs there are? The personnel in general child groups should also have competence in SE to support and instruct children with SEN. Unfortunately, ECE teachers in Finland are currently lacking. When examining the emotional attitudes or the context in which the children are, obviously, the individual model of disability still prevails in Finnish ECE. The individual child has difficulties or lacks some skills. The child is a problem, and the concepts can contain negative attitudes (Heiskanen et  al., 2018; Pihlaja, 2003). Peter Karlsudd (2021) writes in his study about the documentation and assessment practices in Swedish preschools that these ‘likeliest influence the preschool view of

26

P. Pihlaja

normality and restrict the acceptance of differences’. To support, guide, and teach children with SEN according to their needs, it is important to examine also the social context, e.g. values, attitudes, instruction, and facilities in ECE. The social context is crucial in inclusion for the community, among the basic inclusion values. To conclude this section, I present some ideas about what to do next, both at the national and local levels, to improve the conditions and education of children with SEN. These ideas can also be easily reflected in other Nordic countries. First, alongside the work on overall quality improvement in Finland, the ECSE should also be given more national attention. When developing ECE, children with disabilities or SEN should also be focused on. One positive and hopeful step in this matter is Prime Minister Sanna Marin’s government’s (2019) development programme, called the ‘Right to Learn’ programme (Ministry of Education and culture 2020). This programme ‘will strengthen quality and equality in ECEC and comprehensive school education by reducing and preventing learning differences and by strengthening support for learning’. (see minedu.fi/en/qualityprogramme.) Only the future will show how well the implementation of this programme has succeeded. The second thing that needs clarification is the term ‘inclusion’. It should have a more precise definition e.g., in ECE CC and in quality factors. This would help municipalities and private providers develop and evaluate inclusive and SE. Also, the current ECE personnel need in-service training on inclusive education, ECSE, and SEN, which are not only a Finnish problem (e.g. Spear et al., 2018). The current national and international ECEC guidance (e.g., Unesco, 1994; European Commission, 2020) underlines inclusive elements, such as participation with parents and children, and multi-professional cooperation, both of which are needed especially for children with SEN. Cooperation with professionals in the social and health sectors can strengthen the work in ECE. Perhaps the biggest question is how to change the view from an individual’s failures or difficulties to seeing the larger context and also reflect on each other’s own values, knowledge, and attitudes in ECE. Furthermore, in the social context, adults are in charge and pass on their attitudes and behavioural patterns to the children. Within this individual model, professionals also maintain the problem-based orientation. To change this requires knowledge, management, guidance, and values. All of these should be reflected to improve the field of early childhood SE.

References Ainscow, M. (2005). Developing inclusive education systems: What are the levels for changes? Journal of Educational Change, 6(2), 109–124. Alijoki, A. (2006). Erityistä tukea tarvitsevien lasten polut esiopetuksesta alkuopetukseen – tukitoimet ja suoriutuminen. University of Helsinki. Alijoki, A., & Pihlaja, P. (2011). Pedagogiset rakenteet ja ratkaisut erityisen tuen näkökulmasta [pedagogical structures and special needs education]. In E. Hujala & L. Turja (Eds.), Varhaiskasvatuksen käsikirja (pp. 264–275). PS-Kustannus.

2  Early Childhood Special Education in Finland

27

Atkinson, P., & Coffey, A. (2004). Analysing documentary realities. In D.  Siverman (Ed.), Qualitative research. Theory, method and practice (pp. 56–75). Sage Publications. Blackwell, J.  A. (2003). Early intervention: An overview. In S.  L. Odom, M.  J. Hanson, J.  A. Blackman, & S.  Kaul (Eds.), Early intervention around the world (pp.  1–27). Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co. Booth, T. (2011). The name of the rose: Inclusive values into action in teacher education. Prospects, 41, 303–318. Bowen, G. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27–40. Bricker, D. (1995). The challenge of inclusion. Journal of Early Intervention, 19(3), 179–194. Bricker, D. (2000). Inclusion: How the scene has changed. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 20(1), 14–19. Dyson, A., & Farrell, P. (2007). But what about the other? Patterns of student achievement in inclusive schools. In R. Cigman (Ed.), Included or excluded? The challenge of the mainstream for some SEN children. Routledge. European Commission. (2020). Toolkit for inclusive early childhood education and Care. Providing High Quality Education and Care to All Young Children. https://doi.org/10.2766/399018. FNAE. (2017). National core curriculum for early childhood and care 2016. Finnish National Agency for Education. From, K. (2010). Että sais olla lapsen toisten lasten joukossa”: substantiivinen teoria erityistä tukea tarvitsevan lapsen toiminnallisesta osallistumisesta toimintaympäristössään. University of Jyväskylä. (Dissertation). Harju, H., Lindberg, P., & Välimäki, A-L. (2007). Päivähoidon hallinto kunnissa [The administration of day care in municipalities 2006]. Stakes. HE 216/ 1991. (1991). Hallituksen esitys Eduskunnalle sosiaali- ja terveydenhuollon suunnittelua ja valtionosuutta koskevan lainsäädännön uudistamisesta [Government Proposal to the Parliament of Finland About the Renewal of Social and Health Care Planning and State Subsidy Legislation]. Heinämäki, L. (2004). Erityinen tuki varhaiskasvatuksessa: erityispäivähoito  – lapsen mahdollisuus. University of Jyväskylä. (Dissertation). Heiskanen, N. (2019). Children’s needs for support and support measures in pedagogical documents of early childhood education and care. University of Jyväskylä. (Dissertation). Heiskanen, N., Alasuutari, M., & Vehkakoski, T. (2018). Positioning children with special educational needs in early childhood education and Care documents. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 39(6), 827–843. https://doi.org/10.1080/01425692.2018.1426443 Hilt, T. L. (2015). Included as excluded and excluded as included: Minority language pupils in Norwegian inclusion policy. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 19(2), 165–182. Hodder, I. (2000). The interpretation of documents and material culture. In N.  K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 703–716). Sage Publications. Husa, S., & Kinos, J. (2005). Academisation of early childhood education. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 49(2), 133–151. Jones, C. (2004). Supporting inclusion in the early years. Open University Press. Karlsudd, P. (2021). When differences are made into likeliness: The normative documentation and assessment culture of the preschool. International Journal of Inclusive Education. https://doi. org/10.1080/13603116.2021.1879951. Kauppinen, S. (1995). Päivähoidon ryhmäkokoselvitys. Helsinki: Stakes. Kinos, J. (2002). Kohti lapsilähtöisen varhaiskasvatuksen teoriaa [Toward child-Centred theory in early education]. Kasvatus, 33(2), 119–132. Koivula, M., Laakso, M.-L., Viitala, R., Neitola, M., Hess, M., & Scheithauer, H. (2020). Adaptation and implementation of the German social-emotional learning Programme Papilio in Finland: A pilot study. International Journal of Psychology, 55(1), 60–69. https://doi. org/10.1002/ijop.12615

28

P. Pihlaja

Koivunen, P-L. (2012). Jos sana muuttuu, muuttuuko todellisuus: erityistä tukea tarvitsevien lasten vanhempien ja työntekijöiden kasvatuskumppanuutta koskevia käsityksiä. University of Jyväskylä. (Dissertation). Kom. (1967). Lasten päivähoitolaitostoimikunnan mietintö 1967:B46. Sosiaaliministeriö. Kom. (1980). Päivähoidon kasvatuskomitean mietintö. Valtioneuvosto. Korkalainen, P. (2009). Riittämättömyyden tunteesta osaamisen oivallukseen: ammatillisen asiantuntijuuden kehittäminen varhaiserityiskasvatuksen toimintaympäristössä. Univeristy of Jyväksylä. (Dissertation). Kovanen, P. (2004). Oppiminen ja asiantuntijuus varhaiskasvatuksessa: varhaisen oppimaan ohjaamisen suunnitelma erityistä tukea tarvitsevien lasten ohjauksessa. University of Jyväskylä (Dissertation). Laakso, P., Pihlaja, P., & Laakkonen, E. (2020). Inklusiivisen pedagogiikan johtaminen varhaiskasvatuksessa [Inclusive leadership in early education]. Journal of Early Childhood Education Research, 9(2), 373–398. Law 1119/1985. The law of amendments of the Day Care Act. Law 1295/2013. The Law of National education evaluation centre. Law 155/2003. Amendments to the Social Welfare Act. Law 239/1973. The Day care Decree. Law 304/1983. Amendments to Day Care Act 36/1973. Law 36/1973. The Day Care Act. Law 486/1988. Amendments to Day Care Decree. Law 540/2018. The Act on Early Childhood Education and Care. Lundahl, L. (2016). Equality, inclusion and marketization of Nordic education: Introductory notes. Comparative & International Education, 11(1), 3–12. Madureita, F. J. (2018). Inclusive early childhood education and the role of peer interaction: Brazil and Finland in dialogue. University of Tampere. (Dissertation). Memo of the Ministry of Social and Heath Care. (1992). 13.8.1992/Appendix 1. Merriam, S. B. & Tisdell, E. J. (2015). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated, 2015. ProQuest Ebook Central, https://ebookcentral. proquest.com/lib/kutu/detail.action?docID=2089475 Ministry of Education and Culture. (2020). The right to learn program. Retrieved: http://julkaisut. valtioneuvosto.fi/handle/10024/161950 Ministry of Social Affairs and Health. (2003). Government resolution concerning the National Policy Definition on early childhood education and Care. Ministry of Social Affairs and Health Publication 2003:9. Nislin, M. (2016). Nerve-wracking or rewarding? A multidisciplinary approach to investigate work related well-being, stress regulation and quality of pedagogical work among early childhood professionals. University of Helsinki. (Dissertation). Oliver, M. (1996). Understanding disability: From theory to practice. Macmillan. Opetushallitus. (2014). Opetussuunnitelman perusteet [The Core curriculum in compulsory education]. Opetushallitus. Pihlaja, P. (1998). Päivähoidon syrjällä – erityispäivähoito 1997 [On the edge of day care: Special day care]. Sosiaali- ja terveysministeriö. Pihlaja, P. (2003). Varhaiserityiskasvatus suomalaisessa päivähoidossa. Erityiset tuen tarpeet sosiaalis-emotionaalisella ja kielen kehityksen alueilla. University of Turku. (Dissertation). Pihlaja, P. (2009). Erityisen tuen käytännöt varhaiskasvatuksessa: Näkökulmana inkluusio. Kasvatus 49(2), 42–53. Pihlaja, P., & Neitola, M. (2017). Varhaiserityiskasvatus muuttuvassa varhaiskasvatuksen kentässä [Early childhood special education in the changing field of early education]. Kasvatus & Aika, 11(3), 70–91. Pihlaja, P., Rantanen, M-L., & Sonne, V. (2010). Varhaiserityiskasvatus Varsinais-Suomessa. Vastauksia monitahoarvioinnilla [ECSE in South-Western Finland]. Varsinais-Suomen sosiaalialan osaamiskeskus.

2  Early Childhood Special Education in Finland

29

Rantala, A. (2002). Perhekeskeisyys  – puhetta vai todellisuutta?: työntekijöiden käsitykset yhteistyöstä erityistä tukea tarvitsevan lapsen perheen kanssa. University of Jyväskylä (Dissertation). Rapley, T. (2011). Doing conversation, discourse and document analysis. Sage Publications Ltd (pp. 112–124). https://dx-­doi-­org.ezproxy.utu.fi/10.4135/9781849208901. Reindal, S. M. (2008). A social relational model of disability: A theoretical framework for special needs education? European Journal of Special Needs Education, 23(2), 135–146. Riitakorpi, J., Alila, K., & Kahiluoto, T. (2018). Varhaiskasvatuksen yksityiset palvelut [Private early childhood education and care services—A National Survey 2015]. Ministry of Education and Culture. Särkkä, R. (1982). Erityistä hoitoa ja kasvatusta tarvitsevien lasten päivähoidon kehittämisraportti. Helsinki: Sosiaalihallitus. Skolverket. (2018). Läroplan för förskolan Lpfö18. Skolverket. Socialstyrelsen. (1997). Barn som behöver särskilt stöd I barnomsorgen. Socialstyrelsen. Sosiaalihallitus. (1978). Erityistä hoitoa ja kasvatusta tarvitsevien lasten päivähoito [The day care of children in need of special care and upbringing]. Sosiaalihallitus. Sosiaalihallitus. (1981). Sosiaalihallituksen yleiskirje A4/1981/pe. Helsinki: Sosiaalihallitus Sosiaalihallitus. (1984). Sosiaalihallituksen yleiskirje A3/1984/pe. Helsinki: Sosiaalihallitus. Sosiaalihallitus. (1988). Lasten päivähoidon vaihtoehdot [The daycare choices]. Sosiaalihallitus. Spear, C.  F., Piasta, S.  B., Yeomans-Maldonado, G., Ottley, J.  R., Justice, L.  M., & O’Connel, A.A. (2018). Early childhood general and special educators: An examination of similarities and differences in beliefs, knowledge, and practice. Journal of Teacher Education, 69(3), 263–277. Stakes. (1998). Toimintakertomus [Annual reports]. Stakes. Stakes. (2003). Varhaiskasvatussuunnitelman perusteet. Helsinki: Stakes. Suhonen, E. (2009). Erityistä tukea tarvitsevan taaperon sopeutumineen päiväkotiryhmään: monitapaustutkimus vuorovaikutussuhteista ja niiden rakentumisesta. University of Helsinki. (Dissertation). Suhonen, E., Sajaniemi, N., Alijoki, A., Hotulainen, R., Nislin, M. & Kontu, E. (2014). Lasten stressin säätely, reagointitaipumukset ja leikkikäyttäytyminen päiväkotiryhmissä. Psykologia 49(3), 184–197. Syrjämäki, M. (2019). Leikkien, havainnoiden, kannatellen. Vertaisvuorovaikutusta vahvistavaa pedagogiikkaa varhaiserityiskasvatuksen toimintaympäristöissä. Univeristy of Helsinki. (Dissertation). Syrjämäki, M., Sajaniemi, N., Suhonen, E., Alijoki, A., & Nislin, M. (2018). Enhancing peer interaction: An aspect of a high-quality learning environment in Finnish early childhood special education. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 32(3), 377–390. Tauriainen, L. (2000). Kohti yhteistä laatua: henkilökunnan, vanhempien ja lasten laatukäsitykset päiväkodin integroidussa erityisryhmässä. University of Jyväskylä. (Dissertation). THL. (2019). Varhaiskasvatus 2019. Tilastoraportti 33/2020. [ECE in 2019, a Statistical Report]. Retrieved: www.julkarifi/handle/1002/140541 (7.101.2020). Thomas, G. (2005). What do we mean by EBD? In P. Clough, P. Garner, J. T. Pardeck, & F. Yuen (Eds.), Handbook of emotional & behavioural difficulties (pp. 59–82). Sage. Tilastokeskus. (2019). Erityisopetus. http://www.stat.fi/til/erop_2019_2020-06-05_tie_001_fi.html Tonttila, T. (2006). Vammaisen lapsen äidin vanhemmuuden kokemus sekä lähiympäristön ja kasvatuskumppanuuden merkitys. University of Helsinki. (Dissertation). Unesco. (1994). The Salamanca statement and framework for action on special needs education. United Nations, UNESCO.  Retrieved: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/ images/0009/000984/098427eo.pdf University of Helsinki. (2020). Early childhood and early special childhood education research group. Retrieved: https://lassotaaperot.com/in-­english/ Välimäki, A-L. (1998). Päivittäin. Lasten (päivä)hoitojärjestelyjen muotoutuminen varhaiskasvatuksen ympäristöissä suomalaisessa yhteiskunnassa 1800  – ja 1900  - luvuilla. Oulun yliopisto.

30

P. Pihlaja

Vehkakoski, T. (2006). Leimattu lapsuus? Vammaisuuden rakentuminen ammatti-ihmisten puheessa ja teksteissä. Jyväskylän yliopisto. Viitala, R. (2000). Integraation toimivuus lastentarhanopettajien arvioimana [Integration according to kindergarten teachers]. University of Jyväskylä. Viitala, R. (2014). Jotenki häiriöks. Etnografinen tutkimus sosioemotionaalsita erityistä tukea saavista lapsista päiväkotiryhmissä. University of Jyväskylä. (Dissertation). Vlasov, J., Salminen, J., Repo, L., Karila, K., Kinnunen, S., Mattila, V., Nukarinen, T., Parrila, S., & Sulonen, H. (2019). Guidelines and recommendations for evaluating the quality of early childhood education and care. Finnish Education Evaluation Centre. Retrieved: https://karvi. fi/app/uploads/2019/03/FINEEC_Guidelines-­and-­recommendations_web.pdf Wolff, S. (2004). Analysis of documents and records. In I. U. Flick, E. von Kardoff, & I. Steinke (Eds.), A companion to qualitative research (pp. 284–289). Sage Publications.

Chapter 3

Children with Autism Spectrum Conditions: Social Norms and Expectations in Swedish Preschools Mona Holmqvist

Abstract  This paper synthesises research evidence regarding enablers and barriers for children with autism spectrum conditions (ASC) in the inclusive early-years Swedish preschool context. Focusing on current norms, this chapter presents a review conducted using purposeful sampling. The Swedish preschool curriculum sets expectations for children with ASC, which can be challenging. It is therefore important to discuss how norms can hinder the development of children with ASC.  Some of the core goals of the curriculum are difficult for children with impaired social skills, low impulse control, impaired perceptual ability, and hyperactivity to achieve. Understanding the challenges experienced by children with ASC, and a sound ASC knowledge symptoms among professionals, can improve the opportunities for children with ASC to develop their full potential in inclusive preschool settings. Optimal development of preschool children requires a dynamic view of each child’s challenges and strengths, and expanding existing norms to create more inclusive learning environments in the future. Keywords  Sweden · Autism · Social norms · Preschool

Introduction Preschool teachers in Sweden estimate that about 17% of all children in preschool require adaptations and specialised support, with around 4% having a diagnosis of some form (Lillvist & Granlund, 2010). These proportions are high, and it can be safely assumed that all teachers will meet and teach children with autism spectrum conditions (ASC). The majority of Swedish children (85%) are enrolled in preschools, and the Swedish system includes all children in regular preschools. Swedish M. Holmqvist (*) Malmö University, Malmö, Sweden e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 H. Harju-Luukkainen et al. (eds.), Special Education in the Early Years, International Perspectives on Early Childhood Education and Development 36, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-91297-0_3

31

32

M. Holmqvist

preschools follow the National Curriculum for Preschool (Lpfö 18), which includes general and learning goals for all children up to 5  years of age. There is thus a national standard prescribing preschool activities and children’s developmental goals. Because norms are both inclusive and exclusive, their impact on children with ASC can be problematic. This chapter focuses on social norms in the preschool context, an aspect typically challenging for children with ASC. The definition of social norms in this study is based on Rimal and Lapinski’s (2015) definition: ‘Social norms are regarded as collective representations of acceptable group conduct and individual perceptions of particular group conduct’ (p. 393). The decision to focus on children with ASC is motivated by the challenges often experienced by preschool teachers as they try to understand the behaviour of children with ASC. The children experience a phenomenon called ‘contextual blindness’, which is an impaired ability to read social contexts (Vermeulen, 2015). It is important to understand the symptoms of ASC in general, separated from any particular child. Understanding the difficulties, a child might have support teachers’ knowledge of how to adapt to the situation if they know what might be challenging. In a preschool setting, children are supposed to learn by acting in a social context and developing their knowledge through social interaction guided by preschool teachers. Some children learn by watching each other and adults in a given situation; however, some children do not have the same ability to learn in spontaneous situations. Those who discern how details relate to each other socially have an advantage over children who have limitations in finding a general pattern of how things are related. Children with ASC often experience difficulties in comprehending the overall impression of a situation and how to act based on this information. If this ability is limited, children might find it difficult to navigate social contexts, and the control of social actions becomes challenging. In such situations, the teacher greatly influences the child to create an overall understanding. This requires that the teacher can consider and spontaneously interpret the social context from the child’s perspective. According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (American Psychiatric Association, 2013), ASC are permanent disabilities in social reciprocity, non-verbal communicative behaviour, such as eye contact or body language, and understanding social relationships, and are based on biological differences. The symptoms observed are due to an underlying difficulty in processing and compiling incoming impressions from the surrounding social context (Persuh et al., 2016; Pyko et al., 2018), thus inducing a different reaction to the environment than would be expected. Contextual blindness includes scenarios in which a child does not notice and adapt to expectations efficiently within the prevailing norms that exist in the social context, which causes situations that are perceived as challenging by the environment. The unexpected behaviour of these children causes stress in staff and parents (Lecavalier et al., 2006). The atypical behaviour of young children with ASC occurs in inclusive social contexts for preschool children. Parents may consider that the child does not behave according to the norms of the preschool context (Baker-­ Ericzén et al., 2005). The high-stress levels that are attributed to the atypical behaviour of children with ASC and their inability to adapt to other children pose

3  Children with Autism Spectrum Conditions: Social Norms and Expectations…

33

challenges. Preschool teachers with a good understanding of ASC and knowledge of the tools and methods that facilitate a child’s everyday life have lower stress levels and a reduced risk of burnout (Jennett et al., 2003). By understanding the reasons why a child is unable to follow instructions, interrupts ongoing activity, or has outbursts, situations can be better adapted to the child’s abilities by implementing stress-reducing measures, such as stimulus reduction and reduced requirements (Kinnealey et  al., 2012). When such knowledge is lacking, others may consider these children to be uneducated, and thus, the children may be given more rules and clarity rather than appreciating their specific way of understanding the environment (Nicholas et al., 2016). Early interventions for ASC can enable more opportunities for children to be included in regular education, which would reduce school failure rates; this would benefit everyone, especially children. The findings from the present research may help develop norms guiding how children with ASC are perceived and expected to behave in preschool. The review focuses on the aspects of ASC that might present challenges for the existing norms. The research question is as follows: What are the gaps, if any, between the general inclusive norm of Swedish preschool education and the challenges experienced by children with ASC? The search is guided by five themes: 1) norms of children’s learning and development (Zsolnai et al., 2012); 2) how differences challenge the norm and through that make it visible (Roberts et al., 2019); 3) how children outside the norm are perceived (Mavropoulou & Sideridis, 2014); 4) norms that create security (Sterponi, 2004), and 5) norms that create insecurity (Chambres et al., 2008). The themes defined start at a policy level through a focus on the steering documents and curriculum. We consider how the variation in children’s functioning becomes ‘norm-breaking’ in such contexts, how children outside the norm are perceived, and how norms can help or hinder the child to cope in the preschool environment.

Data and Methods This review sets out to synthesise research evidence regarding the main obstacles for children with ASC in Swedish preschools. As this study presents a theoretical discussion, the data captured are purposeful articles presenting results that differ in the five themes defined. The review does not follow the principles of a systematic research review. Rather, data are collected through textual mixed purposeful sampling based on a combination of a deviant and heterogeneity case sampling model (Suri, 2011). Deviant case sampling strives to find examples that illustrate how the situation is experienced as a success or failure. Here, the existing norm is presented and questioned by showing examples of research highlighting what is experienced as successful and what failures can be found. This process may enhance our understanding of children’s needs when developing preschool education. Heterogeneity sampling strives to identify key dimensions of variation by urgently finding cases that differ from each other (Suri, 2011; Patton, 2002). By finding the end points or borders, the dimension of possible failure and success can be captured, and used to explain how the learning environment can limit the child.

34

M. Holmqvist

Results In the next section, the results regarding the five themes are discussed, aiming to find enablers and barriers for children with ASC in preschool education.

Theme 1: The Norm of Children’s Learning and Development What characterises preschool children in a Swedish context? Happy children are typically considered to play well and happily together in a safe environment with few conflicts (Zsolnai et  al., 2012). One aspect of well-being is to order chaos (Cummins, 1996). Among the difficulties that children with ASC frequently experience is sorting incoming experiences into an understandable way. A context with many stimuli will theoretically decrease the child with ASC’s wellbeing, and the child might be satisfied with playing by themselves sometimes (Calder et al., 2013). According to Hakvoort and Olsson (2014), school-aged children tend to learn that conflicts should be avoided instead of learning how to handle conflict and solve it through democratic discussion. Teachers tend to focus on controlling situations to avoid conflict. In preschool, the situation is different; there is a higher degree of acceptance of conflict among children. However, there are expectations that even preschool-aged children will understand, follow, and act according to norms in peer relationships (Paulus, 2017). At the age of 2–3 years, children are already aware of when other children do not follow norms and act against their peers. Not having an interest in other children and being perceived as lonely or ‘acting out’ challenges a child’s image of how children should behave. In the Swedish context, there is an effort towards security and consensus, where the majority of people share similar perspectives, and the consensus view is upheld to a greater or lesser degree. In some cultures, such as Swedish culture, where consensus is sought over conflict (Rosenberg, 2002; Wiborg, 2015), norms risk becoming less open to challenges and less questionable, and this view is transmitted to children at an early age. The stronger the consensus on how things should be, the greater the consequences of falling outside of a given norm. Once norms become established in curricula, it becomes particularly obvious that children do not meet the criteria that characterise the prevailing norms in a specific context. In the preschool context, children differ depending on whether their functional differences are visible or not (Moriña Díez et al., 2015). This influences the opportunities offered for learning and development. Children who look different or have apparent problems performing certain tasks because of an intellectual or physical disability are treated differently and are less well understood compared with children who have non-visible disabilities. These children need greater support to achieve social inclusion (Tuersley-Dixon & Frederickson, 2016). Studies show that

3  Children with Autism Spectrum Conditions: Social Norms and Expectations…

35

children aged 3–5 years tend to prefer other children without disabilities, and view behaviours that differ from the existing norm more negatively than those without disabilities, regardless of the visibility of the disability (Huckstadt & Shutts, 2014). Societal expectations of children who have no visible disabilities, but who nevertheless perform actions that are norm-breaking pose a high risk for failure to acquire understanding of those in their environment. Their actions are not considered acceptable, and it is difficult for those in the environment to accept when the outward appearance of the child unexplained the differences. Children who prefer solitude and are content to play alongside other children (Wolfberg, 2015) may be misunderstood: their actions may be interpreted as a sign of low wellbeing instead of in a positive light, as it might be their way to reduce stimuli. Research shows that there is a need to re-evaluate how we identify the wellbeing of children who do not follow the norms of social interaction, as the current assumptions do not match the needs of this group (Rodogno et al., 2016).

Theme 2: Norm Borders of Variation in Function Learning in Swedish preschool is strongly associated with children’s verbal-­ linguistic expression, which has also become the norm for identifying learning and development, and is crucial for identifying differences. In the linguistic context, there are many variables other than disabilities that affect children’s learning opportunities. A research project has explained how preschool children learn and develop knowledge of specific mathematical concepts (quantity and size), and the expectations that preschool teachers have regarding learning opportunities for children (Holmqvist et al., 2012). The children studied included those who had Swedish as their first language and those who had another language as a first language. The preschool teachers’ expectations of children who mastered the Swedish language were higher than those who had lower verbal ability, regardless of the first language. However, the study results also showed that there were children who developed knowledge of specific learning content regardless of their verbal ability; these children could determine the difference between size (quantity or amount) and number (counts). In stimulated recall interviews, preschool teachers who contributed to the children’s development shared their ideas about the learning opportunities of each child. The teachers indicated that the children’s verbal skills were an indicator of developed mathematical thinking, which had consequences for the children’s learning opportunities. The children with developed verbal skills received mathematical activities that challenged their development, while the children who were considered to have slightly slower language development also received fewer stimuli in subject areas other than language. We can only speculate on the consequences of this treatment for the future development of these children, especially for their self-­ image, as one to be challenged or requiring help. The study referred to did not

36

M. Holmqvist

include children with functional variations; all participants were perceived to be typical. If these differences were found in a group considered typical, it seems clear that children who significantly challenge preschool norms—and teachers’ beliefs of what is typical—might be treated similarly. Norms also include a perspective of power (Foucault, 2005); individuals who follow the most typical and common behaviours are the norm-setters who have power in society. Norm setting induces those individuals who have atypical perceptions of the world (and thus fall outside of a norm) to be at a disadvantage, because the world is organised based on the needs of the majority. The majority’s way of seeing the world defines the norms that surpassed alternative views. Furthermore, Foucault’s assumptions suggest that social codes allow us to see the order of things in our social context. Reciprocally, this means that children who do not automatically perceive or search for these codes to understand connections in the environment do not feel included in the social context. A commonly stated aim in current preschools, and education generally, is inclusivity. However, despite the best intentions to create inclusive learning environments, studies have shown that children often do not perceive themselves as being included on their terms (Woodgate et al., 2019). One reason for this is the strict norms that prevail in preschools and schools stated in the steering documents (SOU, 2010). The goals of the preschool curriculum can themselves be exclusive. The preschool curriculum states that preschool teachers should develop the children’s ability to understand and appreciate collaborative work; be willing to help others; function individually and in groups; identify connections that link things; discover new ways to understand their surroundings; and try to understand other’s perspectives. The goals induce preschool teachers to have high expectations of children’s social abilities and of teachers’ abilities to help children develop socially according to the governing documentation. Children with limited social and communication skills may find it challenging to understand other people’s ways of thinking. They might also struggle to collaborate in groups. This is attributed to difficulties in sorting impressions and understanding simple relationships, which may become difficult to achieve regarding existing preschool goals. If the child is hypersensitive, a trait of many children with ASC, the collaboration might be exhausting. It is particularly difficult for children who experience difficulties that are invisible. Their limitations may not always be accepted in the same way they would be for children with more evident disabilities; for example, a child with spina bifida cannot walk (visible disability), while a child with ulcerative colitis has less visible difficulty. Regardless of whether children with disabilities have been formally diagnosed, acting differently increases their risk of being categorised as unsuccessful, as they may not succeed despite their best efforts. For example, a person with spina bifida would never be asked to stand up, but a child with ASC might be asked to stay in a noisy room, even when it is evident that their hypersensitivity renders them unable to cope with a multitude of incoming stimuli.

3  Children with Autism Spectrum Conditions: Social Norms and Expectations…

37

Theme 3: Children Who Fall Outside the Norm The Stockholm County Council found that in 2016, 3.1% of children were diagnosed with autism and 7.7% with ADHD (Centre for Epidemiology and Community Medicine, Stockholm County Council1). Even among children who do not receive a diagnosis at an early age, there is a significant proportion of preschool children whose perception of the world differs from what is usually expected. The discussions about whether there is an ‘epidemic’ of autism presently or an increase due to symptom-triggering factors, such as increased urbanisation (inducing increased exposure to stimuli as children are expected to be in public), external environmental impact on the foetus, or more awareness of autism, will certainly continue for some time. One effect of the existing norm faced by parents of children with ASC is that the children are sometimes judged as being ‘ill-bred’ (Nicholas et al., 2016). Based on this perspective, children with ASC need a good upbringing rather than education. An existing norm of intolerance, that is, the neglect of children who are different, governs the negative response towards children whose behaviour differs from the norm for no apparent reason (Nicholas et al., 2016). Norms can also become problematic for people with ASC who are perceived as having reduced ability (Brownlow, 2010). It could be the opposite, as they might have increased abilities to register experiences from the outside world, and might also have extraordinary memory. Being cognitively capable and able to learn the content taught (Bishop-Fitzpatrick et al., 2018), but not understanding or following social rules, is provocative in the social environment, and can hinder a child’s development. If a child appears typical, we expect them to act, feel, think ordinarily, or agree with our own way of acting. A child’s behaviour is perceived and met with reactions from the social environment, regardless of whether the child has a disability or a particular diagnosis (Bishop-Fitzpatrick et al., 2018). Children’s agency (Esser et al., 2016) and their behaviours in an inclusive preschool environment might collide with the norms of diagnoses. Studies that compared how children with an early or late diagnosis developed showed that children who received an early diagnosis have significantly more opportunity to develop their social, linguistic, and cognitive abilities. They are also likelier to attend regular schools (Clark et al., 2018).

Theme 4: Norms That Create Security Teachers still experience difficulties understanding how to respond to children with ASC (Lecavalier et al., 2006; Boujut, Popa-Roch et al., 2017). If a child with ASC is unable to predict what might happen, physically aggressive outbursts of 1  h t t p s : / / c e s . s l l . s e / a k t u e l l t / d i a g n o s e r- i n o m - a d h d - o c h - a u t i s m - o k a r- b l a n d - b a r n och-unga-i-stockholms-lan/

38

M. Holmqvist

behaviour can occur, which can harm other children. Children experience anxiety if they are regularly exposed to situations that involve making too many decisions (South et al., 2014). When children are required to make their own decisions, their understanding of what is expected governs their behaviour. If the assumptions of a given norm are unclear to the child making the decision, their lack of certainty around what is expected induces stress. Children with ASC often have reduced executive ability, meaning that organising, planning, and executing actions become challenging. Furthermore, reduced impulse control can add to these difficulties because there is insufficient time to assess the impact of the behaviour before the child has acted (Hill, 2004). Preschool teachers who are guided by the norms of the curriculum will be restricted to interrupting the children’s activities, and unsure about whether interrupting will be in the children’s best interests. Structured and well-planned activities for children who have an underdeveloped executive ability contribute to better development, and also have a calming effect (Panerai et  al., 1998). Such activities are rare in a Swedish preschool context, where free play is the dominant activity (Hjelmér, 2020), a further challenge for children with ASC. In preschool, children participate in visualising schedules, pictures, and objects to teach them the plan for the day. The teachers also have expectations of their knowledge, such as sitting when eating, the procedures for morning assembly, and the order for getting dressed (Edfelt et al., 2019). Children with uncertainties about these expectations and when they are supposed to do particular tasks can find themselves, in later life, being drawn towards groups where there are clear rules and decision makers, such as extremist or criminal groups (Caffero-Tolemy, 2018). In these groups, disabled people gain a sense of security that comes from their actions being guided by a clear leader. Therefore, unclear or very tolerant norms can also create a lack of security that negatively impacts children’s development, although they may not be exposed to adverse treatment.

Theme 5: Norms That Create Insecurity The workplace of a preschool environment is particularly problematic regarding sound stimuli, which can be harmful to the well-being of both staff and children (Waye et al., 2019). It is socially acceptable for adults to self-exclude, such as when they have severe headaches or migraines. Loud sounds and light stimuli are generally accepted as inappropriate in these circumstances. However, people with ASC experience difficulties with stimuli daily, in all environments, without anyone offering them help by providing stimulus-reduced adjustments. When existing norms affect the well-being of some individuals and instil insecurity and fear, there is reason to be critical. Children with ASC who have unique problems with executive functions are included in preschools and schools today, unlike a few decades ago, when teachers planned and controlled classroom activities in more explicit ways. Teachers’ ways of working in the past implicitly compensated for the child’s impaired ability to organise and plan, which is not the situation today. The

3  Children with Autism Spectrum Conditions: Social Norms and Expectations…

39

assumption that silence is required to learn and develop can, in some cases, conflict with the view of free play in preschool. Incoming noise levels are higher for children today than before, and this might be one explanation of why some children develop more in classes containing few students (Zweers et al., 2019).

Discussion Although the inclusion of children with ASC in preschools has increased since the Act on Support and Service for Certain Disabled Persons came into force in 1986 (Act 1985: 568 on specialised care for the mentally disabled; Thunman & Edström, 1988), the situation has not yet induced optimal schooling for children with ASC in preschools and schools. There is an increasing trend towards exclusion of this group of children later in their school careers. Reports from the Swedish Schools Inspectorate and the School Commission’s Report 2015 (SOU 2015: 35) highlighted the situation for this group of students as particularly problematic, which led organisations such as Attention (association for persons with ADHD) and the Autism and Asperger’s Association to conduct membership surveys, which showed a negative trend (SOU 2015: 35). The theoretical discussion in this chapter was based on the five themes described at the outset, focusing on the early challenges faced by children with ASC and their teachers. First, children with atypical ways of behaving are exposed to various norms in preschool, which are guided by national standardised goals for how children are supposed to develop. The goals may exclude children who do not fulfil the expectations. This clearly points to an issue with the ‘inclusive’ nature of the curriculum, suggesting a curriculum that is somewhat contradictory. The more detailed the expectations are, the less flexibility for variations will be allowed within this norm. If the needs of all children are not considered, there is a risk of the child becoming excluded and absent in a future school situation. The assumption that all children are social and communicative has a strong foundation, and children who have other skills may be less valued or appreciated when they do not fit the abilities assessed and focused on. The second theme considered the borders of what is judged as normal. Children whose behaviour is on the fringes of what is considered typical may be challenged and hindered if they do not develop the abilities expected. What a child is in a contemporary context has to be negotiated, and how we define their needs and wellbeing. The third theme addresses this issue; for example, withdrawal may be viewed as problematic rather than a positive strategy for reducing stimuli, and helping ‘recharge’ children who prefer to observe rather than interact. Our norms of what is needed for a child’s well-being affect the view of what well-being is for a child with needs versus what it is for a typical child. Finally, norms are needed, in many cases, to make sense of a world that can be difficult to live in without rules. Norms can create security where expectations are lacking; a sense of insecurity may result for all children, and particularly for children with ASC. Our views of children as active participants, who are supposed to initiate and execute

40

M. Holmqvist

activities, plan their work, and influence what happens, are norms that can induce insecurity for children with ASC. If a child has limited executive functions, he/she needs to be guided and instructed by a teacher to understand what to do, when, and where. If the child does not get that support, their time in preschool might be confusing rather than an opportunity for facilitated development. SEN have to be guided by a sound knowledge of what difficulties a child could experience to eliminate obstacles in the learning environment. Most importantly, a child’s needs should be taken seriously even if the needs contradict what is perceived to be best for the majority of children. We may need to consider new and flexible ways of supporting each child’s unique needs. If we avoid seeing the challenges children with ASC experience and neglect to support them in overcoming their difficulties, we will ultimately fall short in affording them the best opportunities for development and future possibilities. In Sweden, full inclusion in general preschool settings for all children is the norm, which means that all children are supposed to be placed in the same preschool group of children, regardless of disabilities or not. This puts high expectations not only on the teachers’ competence to understand and develop all children (Probst & Leppert, 2008), but also on the children’s abilities to cope in mainstream settings. Furthermore, it requires teachers’ knowledge of atypical development for children needing SE. In July 2019, the Swedish government instituted a guarantee of early support for children in preschool and primary school, regulated by the Education Act (Skollagen SFS 2010:8009). The aim of the guarantee is that a child needing support will receive it early on, based on his/her needs. The diversity of children’s needs characterises a Swedish preschool teacher’s daily work, which is a challenge to fulfilling the guarantee. There is also a risk of increased expectations for children with atypical behaviour to adapt to the needs of the main group of children. To succeed with inclusive intentions, there is a need for a dynamic view of each child’s challenges and strengths and expanding existing norms to create more inclusive learning environments in the future. Acknowledgements  I am grateful for the funding from the Swedish Research Council (Dnr 2017–06039).

References American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders. BMC Medicine, 17, 133–137. Baker-Ericzén, M. J., Brookman-Frazee, L., & Stahmer, A. (2005). Stress levels and adaptability in parents of toddlers with and without autism spectrum disorders. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 30(4), 194–204. Bishop-Fitzpatrick, L., Mazefsky, C. A., & Eack, S. M. (2018). The combined impact of social support and perceived stress on quality of life in adults with autism spectrum disorder and without intellectual disability. Autism, 22(6), 703–711. Brownlow, C. (2010). Re-presenting autism: The construction of ‘NT syndrome’. Journal of Medical Humanities, 31(3), 243–255.

3  Children with Autism Spectrum Conditions: Social Norms and Expectations…

41

Caffero-Tolemy, A. (2018). The relationship between autism spectrum disorder and criminality: A call to arms. In The complexity of autism Spectrum disorders (pp. 127–147). Routledge. Calder, L., Hill, V., & Pellicano, E. (2013). ‘Sometimes I want to play by myself’: Understanding what friendship means to children with autism in mainstream primary schools. Autism, 17(3), 296–316. Chambres, P., Auxiette, C., Vansingle, C., & Gil, S. (2008). Adult attitudes toward behaviors of a six-year-old boy with autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 38(7), 1320–1327. Clark, M. L. E., Vinen, Z., Barbaro, J., & Dissanayake, C. (2018). School age outcomes of children diagnosed early and later with autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 48(1), 92–102. Cummins, R.  A. (1996). The domains of life satisfaction: An attempt to order chaos. Social Indicators Research, 38, 303–332. Edfelt, D., Jahn, C., Reuterswärd, M., & Sjölund, A. (2019). Tydliggörande Pedagogik i Förskolan. Natur och Kultur. Esser, F., Baader, M. S., Betz, T., & Hungerland, B. (Eds.). (2016). Reconceptualising agency and childhood: New perspectives in childhood studies. Routledge. Foucault, M. (2005). The order of things. Routledge. Hakvoort, I., & Olsson, E. (2014). The school’s democratic mission and conflict resolution: Voices of Swedish educators. Curriculum Inquiry, 44(4), 531–552. Hill, E. L. (2004). Executive dysfunction in autism. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8(1), 26–32. Hjelmér, C. (2020). Free play, free choices? – Influence and construction of gender in preschools in different local contexts. Education Inquiry, 11(2), 144–158. Holmqvist, M., Brante, G., & Tullgren, C. (2012). Learning study in preschool: Teachers’ awareness of children’s learning and what they actually learn. International Journal for Lesson and Learning Studies, 1(2), 153–167. Huckstadt, L. K., & Shutts, K. (2014). How young children evaluate people with and without disabilities. Journal of Social Issues, 70(1), 99–114. Jennett, H. K., Harris, S. L., & Mesibov, G. B. (2003). Commitment to philosophy, teacher efficacy, and burnout among teachers of children with autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 33(6), 583–593. Kinnealey, M., Pfeiffer, B., Miller, J., Roan, C., Shoener, R., & Ellner, M. L. (2012). Effect of classroom modification on attention and engagement of students with autism or dyspraxia. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 66(5), 511–519. Lecavalier, L., Leone, S., & Wiltz, J. (2006). The impact of behaviour problems on caregiver stress in young people with autism spectrum disorders. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 50(3), 172–183. Lillvist, A., & Granlund, M. (2010). Preschool children in need of special support: Prevalence of traditional disability categories and functional difficulties. Acta Paediatrica, 99(1), 131–134. Mavropoulou, S., & Sideridis, G.  D. (2014). Knowledge of autism and attitudes of children towards their partially integrated peers with autism spectrum disorders. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 44(8), 1867–1885. Moriña Díez, A., López, R. G., & Molina, V. M. (2015). Students with disabilities in higher education: A biographical-narrative approach to the role of educators. Higher Education Research & Development, 34(1), 147–159. Nicholas, D.  B., Zwaigenbaum, L., Ing, S., MacCulloch, R., Roberts, W., McKeever, P., & McMorris, C. A. (2016). “Live it to understand it” the experiences of mothers of children with autism Spectrum disorder. Qualitative Health Research, 26(7), 921–934. Panerai, S., Ferrante, L., Caputo, V., & Impellizzeri, C. (1998). Use of structured teaching for treatment of children with autism and severe and profound mental retardation. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 367–374. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Sage. Paulus, M. (2017). How to Dax? Preschool children’s prosocial behavior, but not their social norm enforcement relates to their peer status. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1779.

42

M. Holmqvist

Persuh, M., Emmanouil, T. A., & Ro, T. (2016). Perceptual overloading reveals illusory contour perception without awareness of the inducers. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 78(6), 1692–1701. Popa-Roch, M., Palomares, E.  A., Dean, A., & Cappe, E. (2017). Self-efficacy and burnout in teachers of students with autism spectrum disorder. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 36, 8–20. Probst, P., & Leppert, T. (2008). Brief report: Outcomes of a teacher training program for autism spectrum disorders. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 38(9), 1791–1796. Pyko, A., Lind, T., Mitkovskaya, N., Ögren, M., Östenson, C. G., Wallas, A., … Eriksson, C. (2018). Transportation noise and incidence of hypertension. International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health, 221(8), 1133–1141. Rimal, R.  N., & Lapinski, M.  K. (2015). A re-explication of social norms, ten years later. Communication Theory, 25(4), 393–409. Roberts, S. O., Ho, A. K., & Gelman, S. A. (2019). The role of group norms in evaluating uncommon and negative behaviors. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 148(2), 374. Rodogno, R., Krause-Jensen, K., & Ashcroft, R.  E. (2016). ‘Autism and the good life’: A new approach to the study of well-being. Journal of Medical Ethics, 42(6), 401–408. Rosenberg, G. (2002). The crisis of consensus in postwar Sweden. Culture and crisis (pp. 170–201). Berghahn. SOU 2010:64. (2010). Se de Tidiga Tecknen  – Forskare Reflekterar Över Sju Berättelser Från Förskola och Skola. Fritzes. SOU 2015:35. (2015). Samling för Skolan-Nationell Strategi för Kunskap och Likvärdighet. Fritzes. South, M., Chamberlain, P.  D., Wigham, S., Newton, T., Le Couteur, A., McConachie, H., … Rodgers, J. (2014). Enhanced decision making and risk avoidance in high-functioning autism spectrum disorder. Neuropsychology, 28(2), 222. Sterponi, L. (2004). Construction of rules, accountability and moral identity by high-functioning children with autism. Discourse Studies, 6(2), 207–228. Suri, H. (2011). Purposeful sampling in qualitative research synthesis. Qualitative Research Journal, 11(2), 63. Thunman, M., & Edström, A.-M. (1988). Barn Med Psykisk Utvecklingsstörning. Utbildningsförlaget. Tuersley-Dixon, L., & Frederickson, N. (2016). Social inclusion of children with complex needs in mainstream: Does visibility and severity of disability matter? International Journal of Developmental Disabilities, 62(2), 89–97. Vermeulen, P. (2015). Context blindness in autism spectrum disorder: Not using the forest to see the trees as trees. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 30(3), 182–192. Waye, K.  P., Fredriksson, S., Hussain-Alkhateeb, L., Gustafsson, J., & van Kamp, I. (2019). Preschool teachers’ perspective on how high noise levels at preschool affect children’s behavior. PLoS One, 14(3), e0214464. Wiborg, S. (2015). Privatizing education: Free school policy in Sweden and England. Comparative Education Review, 59(3), 473–497. Wolfberg, P. J. (2015). Play and imagination in children with autism. Teachers College Press. Woodgate, R. L., Gonzalez, M., Demczuk, L., Snow, W. M., Barriage, S., & Kirk, S. (2019). How do peers promote social inclusion of children with disabilities? A mixed-methods systematic review. Disability and Rehabilitation, 42(18), 2553–2579. Zsolnai, A., Lesznyák, M., & Kasik, L. (2012). Pre-school children’s aggressive and pro-social behaviours in stressful situations. Early Child Development and Care, 182(11), 1503–1522. Zweers, I., Tick, N. T., Bijstra, J. O., & van de Schoot, R. (2019). How do included and excluded students with SEBD function socially and academically after 1, 5 year of SE services? European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 17(3), 317–335.

Chapter 4

Implicit and Inclusive Early Education for Gifted Children Swedish Policy and International Possibilities Valerie Margrain and Jorryt van Bommel

Abstract  Giftedness is a special education need that can receive more attention in Nordic early years’ education. Here, we draw upon examples provided in early years’ research literature and on a new narrative example of practice to illustrate inclusive and responsive teaching possibilities where gifted children’s special learning needs are acknowledged. Gifted children have a need for specific cognitive support and a need for social and emotional support. Specific strategies to account for such support include curriculum differentiation, higher-order questioning, partnerships, and opportunities to work with like-minded peers. Through a framework for engaging with gifted education in the early years titled SPARK, with the elements support, policy, awareness, relationships, and knowledge, giftedness in inclusive education is illustrated and discussed. The elements were inclusively integrated in the everyday context of a Swedish preschool that caters for children with various abilities and needs. There is a policy mandate for teachers to engage with gifted education in Sweden; however, it is largely implicit, and more work is required before the special needs of gifted children are explicitly recognised. Keywords  Gifted · Inclusion · Sweden · Policy · SPARK

Introduction Is giftedness a special educational need (SEN)? How do we cater for the needs of exceptionality alongside the needs of the larger class group? What does the Swedish curriculum view regarding giftedness? This chapter addresses these questions by discussing the possibilities of contemporary Swedish policy and international practice. This chapter primarily aims to show how gifted education can be an inclusive V. Margrain (*) · J. van Bommel Karlstad University, Karlstad, Sweden e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 H. Harju-Luukkainen et al. (eds.), Special Education in the Early Years, International Perspectives on Early Childhood Education and Development 36, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-91297-0_4

43

44

V. Margrain and J. van Bommel

SE response in the early years, and how it is implicit within policy. The second aim of the chapter is to show through a Swedish exploratory narrative how one example of a gifted education framework can highlight issues of relevance to preschool teaching. Here, we draw on a common international perspective of ‘the early years’ as being from birth to eight years of age, which supersedes context. Regarding Sweden, our examples include children in preschools (age 1–5 years), preschool class (typically age 6), and the first year of school (typically age 7). We use the term ‘preschool’ as a translation to the Swedish term förskola, but we also note that in wider international literature, the term ‘early childhood education’ (ECE) is more common. We have focused on Sweden for policy analysis to illustrate that there is an implicit mandate for inclusion of all, and all needs to include gifted children. However, international studies have found that there is a difference between ideal and observed early years work with gifted children. For example, in a New Zealand survey, 97.2% of early years practitioners stated that it was important to provide additional opportunities for gifted children to further develop and practice their special gifts/talents/abilities and strength, but only 70.8% had observed this practically (Margrain & Farquhar, 2012). Therefore, we cannot rely on policy alone.

Recognising Giftedness as a Special Education Need Here, we explain the importance of recognising giftedness amongst young children, sharing common characteristics and addressing their special learning needs, and social and emotional needs.

Recognising Young Gifted Children Many definitions of giftedness exist, reflecting differing theoretical constructs. Some definitions align with creativity, others measure Intelligent Quotient (IQ), and others draw on cultural perspectives. Perhaps most relevant for the early years is to search for performance— that is, to consider what a young child shows, says, creates, or enacts for us to observe and recognise potential giftedness. If we work with a performance-based definition, it aligns with the skills of early years’ teachers in observation, collaboration, and consultation. Usually, simply recognising the child, their competence, potential, and support needs is more important than attempting to find any definitive measure or score of giftedness. While each gifted child is unique, with their own constellation of characteristics, we can note some typical indicators of giftedness in the early years. These include children who are usually self-motivated with a voracious appetite for learning, have particular interests, are strong communicators and problem-solvers, are insightful, excellent at remembering and reasoning, are intensely curious and creative, pick up

4  Implicit and Inclusive Early Education for Gifted Children Swedish Policy…

45

on humour well, are intense, sensitive, and need little sleep (Margrain et al., 2015; Silverman, 2013). Gifted children typically reach many developmental milestones earlier than their same-age peers do, for example, advanced vocabulary or early reading and mathematical knowledge. Some of the characteristics and behaviours of giftedness, such as alertness, concentration, and memory, appear as early as infancy (Delaune, 2015). As with other children, teachers have a responsibility to observe children’s developmental progress, be alert to areas of competence or strength, and support needs (Liljedahl, 2018). All gifted children are different from each other. Some young gifted children are gifted in many different domains, and others are gifted in just one. Some are gifted in academic areas (literacy, numeracy, and science), while others are gifted in areas such as creativity, leadership, intrapersonal insight, or physicality (Gagné, 2015). Some children can have disabilities alongside giftedness, which is termed as ‘twice-­ exceptional’ or 2e. Twice-exceptional children are especially at risk of being misunderstood or misdiagnosed (Liljedahl, 2018; Missett et  al., 2016). Not all gifted children have disabilities, but most have aspects of asynchronous development. For instance, Margrain (2005) observed four-year-old Alistair who can read like a nine-­ year old, but his kindergarten teacher noted that he had more difficulty than his age peers with managing such everyday tasks as clothing and food.

Why Is Giftedness a Special Learning Need? It is not true that gifted children always achieve highly. They generally need more and/or other support and stimulation than their peers to thrive and develop according to their potential in educational setting. They usually experience boredom and frustration at the pace of curriculum content. Imagine how it is for a young child who can read chapter books to have to sit and ‘learn’ A, B, C, just like the other children in the class do. Many children have recounted that they only learn new academic things when preschool or school is over for the day. In Axelsson et al.’s (2017) research about children in Swedish preschool and preschool classes, a mother to a gifted young child Benjamin, was interviewed. In her description of Benjamin, she recognised that he learns easily, is on a high intellectual level, is good at remembering, learnt to read by himself, reads very early, has fine-and gross-­ motor difficulties, and is sensitive. However, she also shared that Benjamin’s preschool teachers did not seem to understand his characteristics and need of intellectual stimulation. According to her, the preschool teachers provided Benjamin with opportunities to improve his social, fine, and gross motor skills, but not his academic strengths and interests. To learn, gifted children need to have their special needs recognised and be offered support at the appropriate level. Margrain (2005) observed that after his preschool teacher said a one-line-per-page book was ‘difficult’, 4-year-old David, who had a 10-year-old reading ability, pretended to struggle with the simple text. This example suggests that social pressure and ideas about what is developmentally

46

V. Margrain and J. van Bommel

‘normal’ influence teacher expectations, and in response, children can deliberately ‘dumb down’. Liljedahl (2018) shares many authentic local examples of lived experiences and expectations in her Swedish book, which highlights challenges and opportunities for young gifted children and Swedish preschools.

Social and Emotional Needs When adults do not recognise the needs of children, gifted or not, the children can miss out on opportunities for learning extension, inducing negative learning experiences and developing stress symptoms, sleep disorders, and other unwanted behaviours. Rydelius (2006) reported various negative outcomes for children whose needs are unprovided for, including over-activity and aggressiveness amongst boys or withdrawal amongst girls. In Sweden, unstimulated children or children given too high demands have been estimated to be overrepresented in child and adolescent psychiatry (Rydelius, 2006). Another reason for needing to be aware of social-emotional needs is that gifted children are often the recipients of negativity. Margrain’s (2005) research observed that 4-year-old gifted children were excluded from play with age peers if they used long words, were called names, such as ‘weird’, and their teachers talked disparagingly about the children being ‘abnormal’. Negative experiences compound loneliness when there is an absence of like-minded peers and when members of society actively reject or disparage gifted children and families. In a study of Swedish adolescent members of the high-IQ organisation Mensa, one participant reflected, ‘I have rarely met people my own age that understand me’ (Lindberg & Kaill, 2012, p. 23). Gifted children also frequently have heightened sensitivities (Daniels & Meckstroth, 2009), such as being distressed by world problems, such as poverty or climate change, or the death of a star in outer space. One globally known Swedish youth is Greta Thunberg who reportedly became depressed that so little was being done to counter climate change when she was eight years old, in 2011, and in response, stopped talking and eating. Recognising the characteristics of giftedness in young children is important because these children’s behaviours are frequently misunderstood or viewed negatively (Missett et al., 2016). For example, when gifted children challenge rules, their articulate questioning can be seen as argumentation or disobedience. Such misunderstanding means children’s competence or capability is not to the fore.

Policy Mandate for Gifted Education in Sweden Various perspectives on giftedness suggest that there can be as many as 15–20% of the population gifted, Gagné (2015) suggests 10%, and the Swedish National Agency for Education (SNAE) conservatively states 5% (Stålnacke, 2015). Even

4  Implicit and Inclusive Early Education for Gifted Children Swedish Policy…

47

5% indicates that teachers should expect to encounter gifted children in any early years’ classroom, in any community, of socio-economic level or ethnicity. We argue that every Swedish teacher is a teacher of gifted children. As gifted children in Sweden will be in ‘regular’ mixed-ability community preschools and schools, we will turn to policy and curricular documents to consider how giftedness is framed within teachers’ work.

 arly Years’ Education Settings in Sweden: Preschool— E Preschool Class—Primary School In Sweden, approximately 77% of all 1- to 3-years-olds and 95% of all 4- and 5-years-old attend preschool, (SNAE, 2017). The play-based pedagogy for preschool offers an opportunity to let children explore according to their own interest and development. All Swedish children have a right to a preschool place, and the cost is highly subsidised. In the year children turn six years old, they attend a year called preschool class, mandatory since autumn 2018, aiming to smooth the transition between preschool and primary school. These transition goals are explicitly mentioned in all Nordic curricula (Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden), and often, the importance of play is highlighted. During preschool class, the traditions of play, seen as the foundation for preschool, can serve as a foundation to ensure that creativity, curiosity, and exploration are sustained as important parts of practice. Children are enrolled in the first grade of school in the year when they turn seven years of age. For primary school, the curriculum states, ‘Creative and investigative activities and play are essential components of active learning. In the early years of schooling, play particularly is crucial in helping pupils to acquire knowledge’ (SNAE, 2018, p. 8). Across all these early years’ settings, the issue is to be sure that gifted children—who have a different perspective to play than their age peers— actually encounter experiences and play opportunities that enable them to acquire new learning and knowledge.

Mandate for Action: Preschool Curriculum and Policy Sweden is a signatory party to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (United Nations, 1989), especially articles 6, 18, and 29. Article 29.1a of the convention states, ‘Parties agree that the education of the child shall be directed to the development of the child’s personality, talents, and mental and physical abilities to their fullest potential’ (p. 9). Inclusion is also the main goal of UN sustainable development goal four, and inclusion is defined as non-discriminatory quality education for all. Sweden also has a commitment to the Salamanca Convention (UNESCO, 1994), which states that gifted children should be accommodated. In the

48

V. Margrain and J. van Bommel

Swedish translated document, the term ‘gifted’ was deleted and replaced with ‘other’. Subsuming gifted children under generic references to ‘other children’ risks them becoming invisible and limits the awareness of teachers to this group of children. The Swedish early childhood curriculum states that education should build on the children’s previous knowledge and experience; provide continuous challenge, new discoveries and knowledge; and give additional support and stimulation to the children who need it (SNAE, 2018). An analysis of the previous (2010) Swedish early childhood curriculum text (Margrain & Lundqvist, 2019) confirmed an absence of explicit reference to giftedness and gifted children. However, the research identified a great deal of implicit attention and support for gifted children in curriculum text. For example: ‘Children who occasionally or on a more permanent basis need more support and stimulation than others should receive such support regarding their needs and circumstances so that they can develop as soon as possible’ (SNAE, 2011, p. 5). Examples of curriculum text include references to the following terms and number of times mentioned: develop (103), learn (56), ability (35), stimulate (17), challenge (9), and to equity (9) (Margrain & Lundqvist, 2019). These terms all provide scope for teachers to attend to the needs of gifted children within the frame of curriculum intent for all children. Failing to provide appropriate stimulation and support for gifted children to develop their individual potential means that the early childhood curriculum intent for children’s learning is ignored, and equity is absent. The challenge for teachers is that gifted children and their needs are invisible in Swedish curriculum. Despite this challenge, Swedish inclusive education offers opportunities for gifted children, as we will describe in the next section.

I nclusive Gifted Education Practice Possibilities in the Early Years Teachers have a crucial impact on children’s experience of being gifted, and this starts in the earliest years of learning. This section shares some practical approaches to curriculum adaptation and differentiation, as recommended in the international literature.

Responsive and Inclusive Teaching Many of the strategies that early years’ teachers use in their everyday practice are strategies that support young, gifted children. These include play-based learning, use of open-ended questions, diverse and stimulating resources, listening, careful

4  Implicit and Inclusive Early Education for Gifted Children Swedish Policy…

49

observation, insightful pedagogical documentation, consultation with parents, and other professionals, and recognition of children’s competence (Margrain et  al., 2015). Recognising gifted children is part of the same capacity to notice exceptionality that teachers apply to other children with special learning needs.

Individualisation Strategies Apart from using common strategies as abovementioned, teaching has to be adapted to each child’s circumstances and needs to promote the child’s further learning and acquisition of knowledge based on children’s backgrounds, earlier experience, language and knowledge. The Swedish Education Act stipulates that the education provided in each school form and in school-age EduCare should be equivalent, regardless of where in the country it is provided. National goals specify the norms for equivalence, which does not mean that education should be the same everywhere or that the resources of the school must be allocated equally as account should be taken of the varying circumstances and needs of children. Specific strategies that help teachers individualise teaching and learning include curriculum differentiation, higher-order questioning, and opportunities to work with like-minded peers (Delaune, 2015; Riley & White, 2016; Silverman, 2013). It also follows that rote learning or activities where the whole class does the same thing are rarely challenging activities for gifted children. Differentiation of the curriculum means drawing on the same planning used for the class but adapting it to accommodate the children who perform above or below the majority of children. Differentiation for gifted children may be to provide extension (wider learning) and enrichment (deeper learning) and are approaches that support broader and deeper learning of curriculum content (Gagné, 2015; Silverman, 2013). For young children, this means there should be materials that can be used in many ways, complex puzzles and challenges, non-fiction books in areas of interest to the children, opportunities for children to take leadership and decision-making, and to meet with like-minded peers. Truly, open-ended play in a richly resourced learning environment is an appropriate early-years approach. Higher-order questioning has been identified as an effective strategy for supporting cognitive development when working with young children (Walsh et al., 2017). In Palmér and van Bommel’s (2018) study with 145 preschool class children, they posed the question: ‘How many cubes do you need to build the block tower?’ (Fig. 4.1). Few children managed by using only the picture of the tower. While the other children were provided with other models, the children who got the right answer from the start got several follow-up questions (What if the tower would have two more layers? Can there be alternative answers with blocks hidden behind the tower?), enabling differentiation by deepening the mathematical content and stimulating higher order thinking.

50

V. Margrain and J. van Bommel

Fig. 4.1  How many cubes do you need to build the block tower?

Like-Minded Peers and Peer Grouping Gifted children need the opportunity to work with like-minded peers, regardless of chronological age (Riley & White, 2016). Swedish research by Williams and Sheridan (2010) shows that meeting like-minded peers can give a context where children find others who think the same way, are not afraid to use advanced vocabulary, and who relish ‘constructive competition’. A study of New Zealand advanced early readers who transitioned to school at age five (Margrain, 2005) showed that peer grouping can happen in various ways to support gifted children. One child had an accelerated advanced classroom placement with children between one and two years older, another child had a home class with children the same age but changed classes to work with older ability peers in his areas of academic strength—literacy and mathematics. Regular meetings with a cluster of variously aged gifted children to work on problem-solving activities and to play chess was another strategy for supporting the meeting of like-minded peers. Other children were exclusively in classes with same-aged children but had individual differentiated curriculum programmes at school and then had their like-­ minded peer support needs supported by out-of-school contact with gifted children through family and organisational networks. All these various options worked differently; the point is that preschools and schools can work in partnership with parents and by consulting children directly to explore ways to find and connect with like-minded peers. These examples of creative groupings have potential for application in Sweden and other countries.

Partnership and Consultation The core to early childhood professional practice is both partnership and consultation; children’s development and learning is a shared responsibility and opportunity. As articulated in Reggio Emilia’s early childhood education (ECE) philosophy (see

4  Implicit and Inclusive Early Education for Gifted Children Swedish Policy…

51

Dahlberg et al., 2013), ‘it takes a village to raise a child’. Partnerships exist between and amongst parents, teachers, specialists, and children. For all of these partnerships, the opportunity to learn from and respect for each other is important and will influence classroom practice. There are occasions where a specialist with complementary diagnostic expertise is consulted—always discussing with parents and often in partnership with early years’ leaders/principals. One reason for formal psychological testing, such as an IQ test, would be to support an application for accelerated school placement, or alternative course of study, as was eventually provided following diagnostic testing for a Swedish who reported ‘I was told to wait for my classmates and was very under-stimulated …’ I became depressed and felt I did not fit in anywhere. (Öhagen, 2019, p. 1). Further support for gifted children/youths and their families can be found in private organisations, such as Brainpool or Mensa. In a study of gifted Mensa-member adolescents in Sweden, Lindberg and Kaill (2012) stated: If those who work in school would listen to this youth when they say what they need instead of trying to get them to be and act ‘normal’, it would probably make them more satisfied with school. Many know how they prefer to learn, and most do indeed want to, and long to, learn more. Adults just need to ask them. (Lindberg & Kaill, 2012, p. 29)

Consultation of children and their parents might be partnerships that have been explored differently in Sweden than in some other countries. We can draw on the Reggio Emelia notion of the competent child to frame consultation and partnership directly with the children themselves (Dahlberg et al., 2013). Attention to the competent child and respecting the child’s own decision-making are important elements of postmodernist early childhood practice. Furthermore, research states that parents are more accurate than teachers at recognising giftedness in young children (Daglioglu & Suveren, 2013). Parents are also the ones who witness their children’s pain, rejection, and frustration, yet when parents advocate for their children, they can be negatively labelled as ‘pushy’ and interfering. It is therefore critical that teachers do not default to ‘telling’ parents what is best for the child, but instead, they focus on listening, learning, sharing, and collaborating (Margrain, 2010).

Method: Narrative and the SPARK Framework Here, we share the method used for data collection and explain the framework for analysis— SPARK.

Narrative and Exploratory Research The purpose of narrative research is to describe, explore, and conceptualise human experience. Narrative research is necessarily qualitative. Use of narrative was an appropriate method in this study that sought to illustrate a particular lived

52

V. Margrain and J. van Bommel

experience, while indicating potential wider experiences. Willis (2018) proposed advantages by using composite narratives, where a single story is constructed to describe a generally representative experience of many individuals. A further advantage of composite narrative is that it can help protect the confidentiality of vulnerable individuals. A composite narrative, ‘Peter’s circles’, was used to capture the essence of experiences and perspectives, offering an authentic representation of a specific situation (Willis, 2018). Confidentiality was considered in creating the narrative and ethical guidelines valid then, and were followed and checked against present regulations (Swedish Research Council, 2017). Participants in the narrative were pseudonymised. Stebbins (2001) describes exploratory research as being useful for the inductive work involved in exploring ‘partially known phenomena’ and model-building (p. 6). Exploratory research is an applicable approach for this study, as the field of gifted education is relatively undeveloped in Sweden and the Nordic region and is particularly relevant to examine a framework recently created and, as yet, not formally evaluated.

SPARK—A Framework for Gifted Education in the Early Years Connecting previous research in early childhood with research on gifted education induced creating a framework for engaging with gifted education in the early years titled SPARK, with the elements support, policy, awareness, relationships, and knowledge (Margrain, 2021). The framework was created as a way of highlighting important elements for responding to gifted children in inclusive early years contexts in Sweden. This article explores SPARK usage as a framework for the analysis of the narrative Peter’s Circles. The name of the SPARK framework was inspired by a Swedish kick-sled (called a spark in Swedish) and the English-language spark as two metaphors illustrating momentum and important catalysts for ‘igniting’ learning potential.

Results Peter’s Circles—A Composite Narrative This Swedish narrative illustrates the early mathematical and linguistic achievement of a three-year-old child. Opportunities for early interests to be extended—at home and in ECE—are illustrated, and connections between these contexts. Peter, almost 3 years old, and his mother are walking to preschool. On their way, they saw a well-cap and Peter said ‘It is round’. His mother confirmed, ‘Yes, it is round’ and continued by saying that it is called a circle when it is perfectly round. They looked for other

4  Implicit and Inclusive Early Education for Gifted Children Swedish Policy…

53

things that might be called a circle and when they passed a ‘round’ traffic sign, Peter pointed and said ‘Circle’. At the other side of the street, some pipes lay on the ground and Peter said with a questioning tone in his voice ‘circle?’ His mother laughed, ‘Yes, well it has the shape of a circle has not it, but when a circle has a height, when you can grab it, it is called a cylinder’. Later that day when Peter is picked up from preschool, the preschool teacher informed Peters’ mother about the exiting breakfast-time they had that day and how they all had discovered shapes. While having breakfast, a child had asked Peter to hand her a glass, in which Peter had responded, ‘Do you mean this cylinder-shaped glass?’ The remaining time of the breakfast, they had explored all kind of shapes, both two- and three-dimensional ones. During play time, Peter chooses to build with blocks and the teacher had overheard him and another child saying that a cylinder only had two sides to stack, the square [Cuboid] had six sides to stack. Examining a cone, they concluded that it was only one side to stack and it would be the end of the tower. The teacher then had asked if they knew that the square actually was called a cuboid, Peter had looked and said, ‘Oh, like a circle and a cylinder, because I cannot grab a square!’ Some days later, at home, Peter cuts out a circle that his mother had drawn on a paper, just before finishing cutting the circle, he shouts ‘Mom!!! Mom!! You drew a circle, but I cut out a cylinder’.

Analysis of the Narrative Using the SPARK Framework The composed narrative above will be discussed using the elements of the previously mentioned SPARK framework (Margrain, 2021, in press). Peter had the Support of his teachers and parents, opportunities for rich conversation, open-ended resources, including building and construction materials, and time to explore his own interests. The preschool curriculum (SNAE, 2018) and localised Policy valued him as a competent learner and participant in a Swedish preschool, which becomes evident when the preschool teacher opens up for a conversation on shapes during breakfast. Both parents and teachers were aware of his interests and had an instinctive Awareness of the next step in proximal learning. Peter’s mother for instance, provided Peter with a correct vocabulary and knew that Peter, despite being only three years old, would be interested and capable of distinguishing a circle and a cylinder. This Awareness of Peter’s individual competence is an example of a parent not being limited by developmental norms (Daglioglu & Suveren, 2013). The talk between the teacher and the parent evidences Relationships between adults through observation-sharing, and through this talk the particular capacity which parents of gifted children often have (Daglioglu & Suveren, 2013) to recognise characteristics of giftedness (Silverman, 2013). In the open-ended play interaction, the peer Relationships between children become evident. When Peter had started that day by introducing the word cylinder during breakfast, it had apparently inspired another child to join Peter in stacking blocks and explore the criteria of the different blocks. Here, Peter was fortunate to have an age peer with a shared interest; more

54

V. Margrain and J. van Bommel

commonly creative solutions would be needed to look outside the classroom and across different age groups (Riley & White, 2016). The narrative also explains the partnership between preschool and home. Peter’s learning environment is not only bounded to formal learning situations, but also intertwined with other activities in his life, such as walking on the street, or cutting things at home. The interest and capacity young children have for learning mathematics starts long before formal schooling begins (Palmér & van Bommel, 2018), as with science, literacy, the arts, and wider curriculum. Peter’s parents had Knowledge of different learning environments, his teachers had Knowledge of atypical child development, and Peter himself had newly assimilated specific mathematical Knowledge that he brought to preschool. He adjusted his terminology from round to circle. Furthermore, when given the criteria for two-­ and three-dimensional objects, he distinguished between the two objects, to use correct terminology and to implement these in conversation (cylinder-shaped glass) and during play. Whereas sorting activities at preschool are often connected to colour or shape, the sorting Peter and his friend were engaged in was based on some stacking areas, which is a very advanced mathematical criterion for 2-year-olds. The mathematics visible in free play is, at times, more advanced than expected (Björklund, 2007; Ginsburg, 2009). When cutting out shapes, Peter seemed to realise that a cylinder can be very flat with a small height, and it is the height that distinguishes a cylinder from a circle. Providing opportunities within the programme for Peter and others to learn according to their individual capacity is an important aspect of differentiated practice. Opportunity however is limited, adding would be open-ended and enrichment resources (Margrain et al., 2015) and higher-­ order questioning (Walsh et al., 2017).

Discussion The analysis of Peter’s Circles narrative suggests that SPARK can provide a framework that helps illuminate important issues for learning. For the framework element support, research on responsive and inclusive education has been of importance, with the element of policy reiterates a mandate within the curriculum for teachers’ work with gifted children. To meet policy intent, however, teachers need awareness of individual diversity, and specific knowledge to identify giftedness characteristics. Partnerships are integral, as parents, teachers, and other professionals have differing knowledge and expertise. It is reassuring that we can see SPARK elements inclusively integrated in the everyday context of a Swedish preschool that caters for children with various abilities and needs, as we showed through the narrative of Peter. This reinforces the idea that gifted education is part of every class teacher’s regular work. The vision of gifted education being part of inclusive education, wherein every child’s right to learn is supported (United Nations, 1989), and every classroom is a space that caters for all (SNAE, 2018). Home and preschool were two complementary contexts of

4  Implicit and Inclusive Early Education for Gifted Children Swedish Policy…

55

ECE where Peter was recognised, supported, and respected. In the narrative, observation and response to Peter’s interests and competencies were independent of any formal identification of giftedness. However, there is great opportunity for early years’ education in Sweden and other countries to make a very positive difference for children by drawing on pedagogical skills and by using such approaches as curriculum differentiation, higher-­ level questioning, and engagement with like-minded peers. The five elements of SPARK (Margrain, 2021 in press) provided a framework that supports us in reflecting on gifted education practice in the early years and can fit well in inclusive Nordic contexts. We want all possible good outcomes for gifted children inherent in the metaphor of spark—catalysts and momentum. Responsiveness to young gifted children includes attention to their individual SEN, both advanced learning needs and social-emotional support. Teachers are critical in the opportunity that gifted children have to realise their potential. We hold the assumption that teachers engage in the profession of teaching to make a positive difference. Early years teachers create a classroom climate that can be inclusive, supportive, and stimulating and can provide a positive learning context for young gifted children. The policy context in Sweden provides an implicit mandate for teachers to engage with gifted education; however, it is insufficient to simply have curriculum and policy discourse. Teachers need knowledge, resources, support, encouragement, and time to meet children’s needs of all abilities, and to partner with families and specialists.

Conclusion To conclude, gifted education is the work of all Swedish preschool teachers, and gifted children can potentially be found in any Swedish preschool or school classroom. To support this position, this chapter included discussion of giftedness and gifted children, policy mandate for attention to young, gifted children in Sweden, approaches that teachers use in early years education, and illustrations of children and practice. Sweden’s case described in this chapter can inform other contexts and address the intent of UN (1989) and UNICEF inclusion policies (1998, 2009). Swedish and Nordic and international policy has a strong mandate that education meets the needs of all, with an implicit mandate for gifted education connected to child rights and competence. However, the work with all needs to be sure to consciously include all, as giftedness is not often explicitly identified as a special learning need. If gifted children are excluded from the attention we give to SEN, they can experience negative outcomes, including stress and lack of learning momentum. There are many possibilities for early years practice, and exciting ways to ignite learning potential, yet much is still to achieve before the special needs of gifted children are explicitly recognised. The elements support, policy, awareness, relationships, and knowledge, forming the SPARK framework for engaging with gifted

56

V. Margrain and J. van Bommel

education in the early years, can serve as a framework in other settings outside Sweden, both in supporting and analysing education for all, with a focus on gifted education practice in the early years.

References Axelsson, A., Lundqvist, J., & Sandström, M. (2017). Tre mammor berättar om sina barns tid i förskola och förskoleklass samt övergången däremellan [Three mothers talk about their children’s time in preschool and preschool class, as well as the transition between]. In A.  Garpelin & A. Sandberg (Eds.), Barn och unga i skola och samhälle [Children and young people in school and society] (pp. 28–51). Mälardalen Studies in Educational Sciences. Björklund, C. (2007). Hållpunkter för lärande. Småbarns möten med matematik. [Critical conditions of learning. Toddlers encountering mathematics]. Abo Akademi University Press. Daglioglu, H. E., & Suveren, S. (2013). The role of teacher and family opinions in identifying gifted kindergarten children and the consistence of these views with children’s actual performance. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 13(1), 444–453. Dahlberg, G., Moss, P., & Pence, A. (2013). Beyond quality in early childhood education and care: Languages of evaluation (3rd ed.). Routledge. Daniels, S., & Meckstroth, E. (2009). Nurturing the sensitivity, intensity, and the developmental potential of young gifted children. In S. Daniels & M. M. Piechowski (Eds.), Living with intensity (pp. 33–56). Great Potential Press. Delaune, A. M. (2015). Gifted education for infants and toddlers in Aotearoa New Zealand: An insight into exemplary practice. http://ir.canterbury.ac.nz:80/handle/10092/11352 Gagné, F. (2015). From genes to talent: The DMGT/CMTD perspective. Revista de Educacion, 368–289. https://doi.org/10.4438/1988-­592X-­RE-­2015-­368-­289 Ginsburg, H.  P. (2009). Early mathematics education and how to do it. In O.  A. Barbarin & B. H. Wasik (Eds.), Handbook of child development and early education: Research to practice (pp. 403–428). The Guilford Press. Liljedahl, M. (2018). Särskilt begåvade barn: Förskolans utmaning och möjlighet. Gothia Fortbildning. Lindberg, B., & Kaill, K.  M. (2012). Life experiences of gifted adolescents in Sweden. Örebro University. http://www.diva-­portal.org/smash/get/diva2:530631/FULLTEXT01 Margrain, V. G. (2005). Precocious readers: Case studies of spontaneous learning, self-­regulation and social support in the early years. Unpublished PhD thesis: Victoria University of Wellington. Margrain, V. (2010). Parent-teacher partnership for gifted early readers in New Zealand. International Journal about Parents in Education, 4(1), 39–48. Margrain, V. (2021). Bright sparks - att nära gnistor i svensk förskola [Bright sparks in Swedish preschools]. In C. Sims (Ed.), Särskild begåvning i praktik och forskning [Giftedness in practice and research] (pp. 121–143). Liber. Margrain, V., & Farquhar, S. (2012). The education of gifted children in the early years: A first survey of views, teaching practices, resourcing and administration issues. APEX: The New Zealand Journal of Gifted Education, 17(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.21307/apex-­2012-­005 Margrain, V., & Lundqvist, J. (2019). Talent development in preschool curriculum and policies: Implicit recognition of young gifted children. In V.  Margrain, A.  Löfdahl Hultman, & A. (Eds.), Challenging democracy in early childhood: Engagement in changing global contexts (pp. 41–55). Springer. http://doi-­org-­443.webvpn.fjmu.edu.cn/10.1007/978-­981-­13-­7771-­6_4 Margrain, V., Murphy, C., & Dean, J. (Eds.). (2015). Giftedness in the early years: Informing, learning & teaching. NZCER Press.

4  Implicit and Inclusive Early Education for Gifted Children Swedish Policy…

57

Missett, T.  C., Price Azano, A., Callahan, C.  M., & Landrum, K. (2016). The influence of teacher expectations about twice-exceptional students on the use of high-quality gifted curriculum: A case study approach. Exceptionality, 24(1), 18–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/0936283 5.2014.986611 Öhagen, A. (2019, August 10). Anton var för begåvad för skolan – blev hemmasittare. Aftonbladet. Retrieved November 15, 2020, from https://www.aftonbladet.se/svenskahjaltar/a/zGkmmK/ anton-­var-­for-­begavad-­for-­skolan%2D%2Dblev-­hemmasittare Palmér, H., & van Bommel, J. (2018). Problem solving in early mathematics teaching —A way to promote creativity? Creative Education, 9, 1775–1793. https://doi.org/10.4236/ce.2018.912129 Riley, T.  L., & White, V. (2016). Developing a sense of belonging through engagement with like-minded peers: A matter of equity. New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies, 51(2), 211–225. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40841-­016-­0065-­9 Rydelius, P. A. (2006). Om barn- och ungdomspsykiatri och några neuropsykiatriska frågeställningar [Child and adolescent psychiatry and some neuropsychiatric issues]. In T. Lindberg & H. Lagercrantz (Eds.), Barnmedicin [Child health] (3rd ed., pp. 498–528). Studentlitteratur. Silverman, L. K. (2013). Giftedness 101. Springer. Stålnacke, J. (2015). Särskilt begåvade elever. 1.2 Särskilt begåvade barn i skolan [Gifted students 1.2 Gifted children in school]. Skolverket. Stebbins, R. A. (2001). What is exploration? In R. A. Stebbins (Ed.), Exploratory research in the social sciences. SAGE. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412984249.n1 Swedish National Agency for Education. (SNAE). (2011). Curriculum for the preschool Lpfö 1998, Rev. 2010. Skolverket. Swedish National Agency for Education. (SNAE). (2017). Skolverkets lägesbedömning 2017, Rapport 455. [National statistics from SNAE 2017 Report 455]. Skolverket. Swedish National Agency for Education. (SNAE). (2018). Curriculum for the compulsory school, preschool class and school-age educare (rev.). Skolverket. Swedish Research Council. (2017). Good custom in research. Vetenskapsradet. United Nations. (1989). Convention on the rights of the child. http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/ ProfessionalInterest/crc.pdf United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation [UNESCO]. (1994). The Salamanca statement and framework for action on special education. UNESCO. Walsh, R., Bowes, J., & Sweller, N. (2017). Why would you say goodnight to the moon? Response of young intellectually gifted children to lower and higher order questions during storybook reading. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 40(3), 220–246. https://doi. org/10.1177/0162353217717032 Williams, P., & Sheridan, S. (2010). Conditions for collaborative learning and constructive competition in school. Educational Research, 52(4), 335–350. https://doi.org/10.1080/0013188 1.2010.524748 Willis, R. (2018). The use of composite narratives to present interview findings. Qualitative Research, 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794118787711

Chapter 5

Gaps in Care: (E)quality ECEC in Nordic Early Childhoods Charlotte Ringsmose

Abstract  This chapter indicates the importance of quality care using Denmark as an example where (e)quality is still a considerable challenge. Despite a year-long political focus, the (dis)advantaged home area and children’s family backgrounds still have a major impact on development and performance throughout the school years, beginning at an early age. With the knowledge of the importance of quality environments, ECEC practices can prevent children from disadvantaged backgrounds from developing special needs, making high-quality ECEC a prerequisite for a more inclusive school system. This study examines the quality of 12 ECEC centres in six municipalities. The method is both qualitative and quantitative. The quantitative data were used for the selection procedure. The qualitative data show that children’s language development is connected to (dis)advantaged backgrounds. Other studies of children’s development reveal this as well. This study adds to the literature by looking at the environmental quality of the centres; here, the centres with high language scores have high environmental quality, and the centres with low language scores have lower environmental quality. This is critical to children coming from disadvantaged backgrounds because these children need high-quality ECEC to close achievement gaps. The children are faced with gaps in achievements (low language scores) and care (low ECEC environmental quality). Keywords  Equality · Quality · Denmark · Special education · Early childhood

C. Ringsmose (*) Department of Culture and Learning, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 H. Harju-Luukkainen et al. (eds.), Special Education in the Early Years, International Perspectives on Early Childhood Education and Development 36, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-91297-0_5

59

60

C. Ringsmose

Introduction Globally, there is an increasing focus on the quality of early childhood education and care (ECEC), which reflects the growing political awareness that education starts prior to primary school and that the quality of the ECEC the child receives impacts child development in the long term. Thus, ECEC years are considered an important period in children’s lives and development, forming the basis for further development (Vandenbroeck et al., 2018, OECD, 2006). Research has shown that a high-quality early environment positively affects children’s learning, motivation, and school readiness, enabling them to gain more from schooling over time (Vandenbroeck et  al., 2018; Taggart et  al., 2015; Burger, 2010; Heckman, 2006; OECD, 2006; Sylva et al., 2003). The cognitive, linguistic, social, and emotional development of the child is closely linked to and deeply intertwined with a child’s experiences while growing up. At a young age, children are particularly susceptible to influences that can induce an increase or decrease in educational life chances. International research has pinpointed the quality of ECEC settings as particularly important for children growing up in families and communities with low socioeconomic status (Vandenbroeck et  al., 2018; Taggart et  al., 2015; Burger, 2010; Heckman, 2006; OECD, 2006; Sylva et al., 2003); hence, ECEC settings are significant in preparing children for primary school and supporting children’s development and learning. High-quality care has been demonstrated to have well-documented effects on disadvantaged preschool children’s development (Heckman, 2006; Taggart et  al., 2015; Vandenbroeck et al., 2018). Preschool provision provides an effective means of reducing social exclusion, preventing children from falling behind, and making them less vulnerable to school failure. According to Minervino (2014), low-quality care has a particularly harmful effect on children from disadvantaged backgrounds. Medium quality has no effect. Only high-quality ECEC induces better development, school readiness, skills development, and emotional and social gains. Thus, high-quality ECEC is defined here as ECECs providing children from disadvantaged backgrounds with better pathways for development, which begins when the child is young. ECEC settings are considered high quality regarding their inclusiveness when they provide children from a lower socioeconomic status with equal opportunities for cognitive, emotional, and social development (Ringsmose & Svinth, 2019). Using the example of Denmark and based on the knowledge that the early years are important in creating and eliminating gaps in development between children of different backgrounds, this study reveals the importance of ECEC practices in supporting the overall development of the child and in providing children from disadvantaged backgrounds with better school experiences and pathways through the education system. This study views child development in the possibilities for development present in the surroundings and the importance of early childhood experiences. The aim is to challenge the gaps in care that children from disadvantaged backgrounds face. Other countries can learn from the Danish experience, with a

5  Gaps in Care: (E)quality ECEC in Nordic Early Childhoods

61

long history of the majority of children in formal care. High quality ECEC is a prerequisite for a more inclusive educational system.

Developmental Perspectives on Learning and Development From a sociocultural perspective, learning and development are understood as the processes that occur when children participate in social practices (Dreier, 1999; Svinth, 2017). Participation is influenced by the opportunities and constraints provided by the context and by co-action with one’s surroundings. Based on sociocultural theory, children develop and learn through active participation in the society and culture in which they are born. Children are born into a specific historical, societal, and cultural context, and humans learn and develop in close interaction with other individuals, cultures, and societies. Development involves acquiring the skills and knowledge that are important in the society and culture in which a child is born and lives (Vygotsky, 2004). Through participation in traditions, daily routines, and rituals in family and childcare, the child gains an understanding and constructs the meaning of society. The developing child actively participates and acquires the skills and tools that he or she needs, following the specific culture in which the child grows up. Children growing up in stimulating and rich environments show better development (National Scientific Council on the Developing Child, 2010; Vygotsky, 1982). Intelligence and higher psychological functions are susceptible to the environment (Kok et al., 2015); indeed, the brain develops at a high speed during a child’s first years of life. As the brain continues to grow and develop, the child experiences, learns, processes, thinks, and relates to the world around him or her in different ways (Kok et al., 2015). Therefore, what happens when a child is young is imperative. Bronfenbrenner (1979) introduced the ecological systems theory to describe how different sociocultural systems interactively influence children’s development. This model also aids our understanding of how children’s development and learning are influenced by society and culture, from the macro level to the micro levels. The microsystems represent the child’s closest relations: parents, siblings, relatives, neighbours, and peers. Mesosystems refer to the relations between two or more microsystems in which the child is an active participant. The exosystem refers to social relations that are important to the parents and indirectly influence the child, including workplaces, local businesses, colleges, friends, media, etc. Finally, the macrosystem refers to societal systems: government, administration, legislation, rules, and values. These systems interact and, as such, influence a child’s development. From an overall perspective, children growing up in Nordic countries grow up in societies that provide them and their parents with good opportunities. The countries have long maternal and paternal leave periods. All families have access to the same level of quality childcare facilities. The countries have low levels of poverty, which is vital for children’s growth, and the countries present a higher investment in GDP

62

C. Ringsmose

in ECEC than most other countries (UNICEF, 2007). The accessibility of childcare because of the economic subsidies given to the child care sector—along with measures that promote equality to guarantee that all families have a certain level of income—ensures that all children have access to good healthcare, housing, a certain standard of living, and that everyone has access to education starting in early childhood; this is significant for children’s learning and development. A country’s economy and people gain from a more equal society, such as in the Nordic countries (Wilkinson & Pickett, 2009), which can be seen here in providing children and families with protective factors and good opportunities for growth. Prioritising the early years is not only connected to the wealth of the country but also concerns values and priorities. When analysing the ranking of early education (Economist Intelligence Unit, 2012), several high-income countries rank poorly because the focus is not on wealth but rather on the learning that is presumed to occur through children’s participation in ECEC. The countries that rank well in the study have the following characteristics (Economist Intelligence Unit, 2012): • A comprehensive early childhood development and promotion strategy backed up by a legal right to such education. • Universal enrolment of children in at least a year of preschool at ages five or six, with nearly universal enrolment between the ages of three and five. • Subsidies to ensure access for underprivileged families. • Where provision is privatised, the cost of such care is affordable about average wages. • A high bar for preschool educators here with specific qualification requirements. This is often backed up by commensurate wages and low student—teacher ratios. • A well-defined preschool curriculum, along with clear health and safety standards. • Clear parental involvement and outreach. • A broad socioeconomic environment that ensures that children are healthy and well-nourished when they enter preschool. In general, the Nordic countries were ranked high in the abovementioned study. Finland, Sweden, and Norway rank first, second, and third, respectively, and Denmark ranks sixth. Several rich countries have low rankings, for example, regarding accessibility, and some countries with financial challenges have high rankings in the study. The Czech Republic ranks 17, Chile ranks 20, the United States ranks 24, and Canada 26. The study critiques the fact that countries with good economies do not prioritise early childhood. Overall, growing up in a welfare-state system provides children with good opportunities for development. With these perspectives on learning and development, child development can be seen as embedded in the family; however, child development can be seen as a type of coaction anchored in ECEC in a social, cultural, and historical context. This forms the frame of reference for development for each child. An analytical view of the child’s possibilities in coaction contributes to the understanding of child development within a contextual frame.

5  Gaps in Care: (E)quality ECEC in Nordic Early Childhoods

63

Although ECEC practices differ across cultures (Ringsmose, 2020; Ringsmose & Brogaard Clausen, 2017; Ringsmose & Kragh-Müller, 2014), researchers agree that quality in ECEC is linked to the relationship between structural factors and interaction quality. Structural factors are level and types of knowledge, skills, and competencies that ECEC staff have received, child staff ratio, group sizes, etc. Interaction quality is staff involvement in interactions and activities that are presumably beneficial for children’s learning and development. Interaction quality is linked to the quality of a child’s development (Vandell et al., 2010).

(E)Quality in Danish Early Years Nordic countries have a longer history of access to pre-primary education than many other countries (Lazzari & Vandenbroeck, 2013). Universal childcare is an integrated part of the welfare state society, and it is part of one’s normal childhood to participate in full-time care. Among the OECD countries, Denmark has the highest enrolment of 0–3-year-olds, and the youngest children spend more hours in care in Denmark than in any other country (Lazzari & Vandenbroeck, 2013). In Denmark, access to early education is secured for all children through the universal care system. Historically, the need for childcare in Denmark developed from its history of more women entering the workforce, along with the concurrent development of the welfare state; this meant that the state gradually took responsibility for establishing professional childcare guidelines and the resources for childcare (Kristensen et  al., 2015). The investments made through the welfare model have produced higher numbers of educated professionals in childcare than in most countries (60% have a degree). ECEC has become a right for all parents and children, and the state provides public funding and subsidies for all, regardless of income. Because of the welfare state, parents only have to pay a maximum of 25% of the cost, and less than 5% of nurseries are privately run (Pedersen, 2011). The average weekly opening hours are 51.7 hours (Glavind & Pade, 2011). This does not imply that all children are in childcare for 50 hours a week; instead, the long opening hours simply provide the flexibility that working parents need. The levels of both men and women in the Danish workforce are one of the highest in the world (OECD, 2016). Families from disadvantaged family backgrounds are subsidised so that they can gain access to ECEC; for some families, ECEC is mandatory (Børneog Undervisningsministeriet, 2018). The Danish Ministry of Education has a strong focus on high-quality ECEC settings to create more equal opportunities (The Ministry of Children, Gender Equality, Integration, and Social Affairs). Therefore, the government (2013) notes that ‘the ECEC settings have a specific task regarding those children who are either socially disadvantaged or at risk of becoming so. The early childhood intervention and care provided in ECEC settings is an important element to ensure equal opportunities in life for all’ (p. 9). Having introduced some laws in Danish ECEC in recent years, a focus has emerged on general pedagogical practices and how they address

64

C. Ringsmose

disadvantaged children. An increased focus on the importance of supporting inclusive practices in ECEC can also be identified in this legislation and other politically driven initiatives, most notably in the Law about Learning Plans, which are laws affecting pedagogical work in ECEC settings enormously, and that focus on working with disadvantaged children. The Law on Social Services, Law about Learning Plans, and Law on Childcare identify some mandatory tasks highlighting that ECEC settings—more significantly than previously—are required to develop specific strategies in their work with children from disadvantaged backgrounds. In Denmark, equal access to childcare is considered significant for creating a more equal society.

Earlier Danish Research Based on the knowledge of the importance of high-quality ECEC as a way to provide children from disadvantaged backgrounds with better pathways at an early age, securing high-quality education and care for young children is an urgent area of development. Despite a year-long political focus, unfortunately, research has revealed that the quality of the care children from disadvantaged backgrounds receive is not always high enough to ensure that the children have a strong pathway from their early years throughout schooling years (Formandskabet til Rådet for Børns Læring, 2017). For the past 10 years, research focusing on disadvantaged children and ECEC settings has been conducted in Denmark, and these studies have revealed that ECEC practices do not break the cycle of disadvantage as it is (Ringsmose, 2020; Ringsmose & Svinth, 2019; Lindqvist et  al., 2012; Formandskabet til Rådet for Børns Læring, 2017). In addition, the challenges regarding social inclusion are increasing. ECEC settings do not provide children with more equal opportunities; rather, they sometimes further amplify existing inequality (Svinth, 2012). At the age of three, differences in social background are apparent in language development (Danmarks Evalueringsinstitut, 2010). A study by Jensen et al. (2009) showed that children’s social and personal competences, and ability to engage in friendships and play with other children were connected to the duration of parents’ education. The same study linked the child’s motivation, ability, and willingness to engage in and finish activities. Children with parents with long educations are less likely to tease other children, get into fights, and to become restless. Children from low SES backgrounds are likelier to engage in conflicts with teachers and their peers, and they often have difficulty paying attention (Ploug, 2005, p. 31). Throughout the school years, SES background has a continuous influence on learning. Children from high SES backgrounds can readily acquire and adapt to school norms. They work with increased interest in schoolwork, and they have parents who support the school and make efforts to help their children do schoolwork. However, according to teachers, children from low SES backgrounds make more noise, are less concentrated, and disturb teaching. Their parents show little interest in school, and they do not support their children with schoolwork (Mehlby &

5  Gaps in Care: (E)quality ECEC in Nordic Early Childhoods

65

Ringsmose, 2004). Children who have well-educated parents, and who live in an area with children of similar backgrounds, have a good chance of attaining high marks at school and a good education (Formandskabet til Rådet for Børns Læring, 2017). Meanwhile, children whose parents have little education, and who grow up in areas with children with similar backgrounds are likely to get poor marks, be assigned to special education, and be diagnosed (Deloitte, 2010). To understand the background for the gaps between children from different backgrounds, we need to focus more on the quality of the care that children from low socioeconomic backgrounds receive. To provide children with better opportunities, quality must be high. This study seeks to gain insights into the possibility children have for developing in ECEC.

Method and Results This study is based on quantitative and qualitative analyses. The quantitative data were used for selection procedures; this was followed by interviews and observations. The quantitative data were collected by SePU, Høgskolen I Innlandet, and Aalborg University in weeks 38–41, 2019, as part of a larger research study in the six municipalities (Nordahl et al., 2020). Overall, data were collected from five different informant groups: the centre’s 4–6-year-old children, contact educators, educational staff, parents, and management. Table 5.1 presents the number of invited, answered, and response rates for the whole study. The mapping was to provide the centres with data from different perspectives, illuminating quality and areas for development using the primary target groups— the parents and children and the professionals working to provide quality care. Through the data, correlations between different areas of quality care and child development could be found. The design is quasi-experimental, which is a weaker design than the randomised control group design. This design was chosen because this study’s purpose is quality development, allowing each centre to obtain insights into the centre’s quality and develop the centre further. The data are based on what is perceived by children, parents, educators, and management. The high response rates are satisfying for this kind of study, indicating that the mappings are representative of the 170 centres participating. Overall, this study aims to map what can be considered the central areas of quality in ECEC centres. Within the study, the Table 5.1  Informants and Response Rates for the Study Informants Children Contact educator Parents (children 0–6) Educational staff Management

Invited 5216 5216 10,250 2381 241

respondents 4944 5105 7086 2240 234

Percent 94.8% 97.9% 69.1% 94.1% 97.1%

66

C. Ringsmose

contact educators rated the children’s development in different areas on rating scales developed for the purpose. The contact educator was the educator who knew the individual child. The questionnaires were developed to map the different areas of child development (Table 5.2). In Table 5.2, the results of the different areas from the reliability analysis of Cronbach’s alpha are presented. For this study’s purpose, language development in childcare was used (Gresham & Elliott, 1990, 2008; Lamer & Hauge, 2006). Language function was rated based on 18 statements on a scale from 1 = never or seldom, 2 = now and then, 3 = often, or 4 = very often, with the highest score of 4 indicating high language function. The question examples are like the Danish National Language Test: Language comprehension, vocabulary, and communicative strategies. For this study, the language scores were chosen for further selection because children’s language development brings together several key development areas that point in the direction of the qualities in the child’s learning and development opportunities regarding the environment and, thus, the child’s possibilities for development in the surroundings. Also, correlation analyses reveal a very strong correlation between social and linguistic skills (Sunnevåg et al., 1018). Language function is a marker of the child’s development in other areas as well. From this sample, the centres with the highest and lowest scores in children’s language development in each of the six municipalities were identified for further research (Table 5.3). The results for Cohen’s show the differences between the two centres, with each end representing the municipality, and thereby, a standardised expression of the differences between ECEC centres within the same municipality, alongside the differences between municipalities. Municipality 1 has the lowest difference with Cohen’s Table 5.2  Reliability Analysis Contact Educator Variables Social functioning Child externalised behaviour Child internalised behaviour Language function Motor function

Alpha T1 .955 .761 .669 .966 .905

Alpha T2 .958 .860 .741 .966 .899

Alpha T3 .959 .861 .752 .966 .901

The reliability scores are considered good (>.700). Table 5.3  Highest and Lowest Language Scores in the Centres in Six Municipalities Highest score Lowest score Cohens d

Municipality 1 Centre 1 3.43 Centre 2 3.00 0.63

Municipality 2 Centre 3 3.57 Centre 4 2.61 1.69

Municipality 3 Centre 5 3.61 Centre 6 2.07 2.18

Highest score Lowest score Cohens d

Municipality 4 Centre 7 3.95 Centre 8 2.24 4.26

Municipality 5 Centre 9 3.71 Centre 10 2.81 1.94

Municipality 6 Centre 11 3.73 Centre 12 2.34 2.07

5  Gaps in Care: (E)quality ECEC in Nordic Early Childhoods

67

d = 0.63. Municipality 4 has the highest with 4.26. This shows us that the conditions for providing children with good language skills are very different across the municipalities. The centres were asked to participate in interviews and observations based on the aim of the study and gave their written consent. The purpose of the interviews was to better understand what lies behind these high and low scores (Ringsmose, 2020). In each centre, the researchers interviewed the managers and staff in semi-­structured focus group interviews. 1. One-hour focus group interviews with management 2. One-and-a-half-hour focus group interview with four pedagogues 3. Observations over one day (seven hours) The observers and interviewers were unaware of the centres’ profiles, whether they had a high or low language score. The interview data were analysed to identify important themes across the 12 centres. One of the results from interviews 1 and 2 of the above was that when the management and pedagogues were asked about the characteristics of the families and children attending the centres, the centres with high scores were situated in areas of high socioeconomic backgrounds. The managers and educators described the families from which the children came as resourceful, high socio-economy, and high-income families. The six centres with the lowest language scores were described as having high numbers of children with low socioeconomic backgrounds, situated in social housing areas, children from many nationalities (e.g. 20 different non-Western backgrounds), and one centre where 80% of the children were from vulnerable or disadvantaged backgrounds. For this purpose, we wanted to know more about the background of the variation in scores that we found between the highest and lowest scoring centres in the municipalities. Therefore, data through observations were gathered in the 12 centres using the KIDS tool (Ringsmose & Kragh-Müller, 2014). KIDS is designed to evaluate the educational quality present in the environment in three general areas: relationships, physical surroundings, and play and activities. KIDS is structured so that quality can be evaluated regarding some statements. Some examples of statements for physical surroundings include the following: activities can be conducted without disturbances from other people’s activities; preparations have been made for the day ahead; toys and materials are presented appealingly to inspire the children to play and engage in activities; and sufficient good play areas are available for the number of children. Examples of relationships include the following: interaction between the teachers and children, where the educators talk to the children about their experiences and ideas; time spent together is characterised by interest in the children; the educator’s attention is given to all the children participating, where the educator is aware and also helps children in vulnerable positions to join in; and the educators’ communication with the children follows each child’s age and stage of development. An example of adult-initiated activities includes the following: the educators offer the children different activities. The statements were rated based on the centre’s practices in the given area on a scale of one to five: 1  =  Rarely, 2  =  Now,

68

C. Ringsmose

100 90 80 70 Physical surrondings Relationships Play and activities

60 50 40 30 20 10 0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12 13 14

Fig. 5.1  Environmental Qualities in Centres of High and Low Scores on Language Scores, Socioeconomic Background and Environmental Quality

3 = Regularly, 4 = Often. and 5 = As a rule. KIDS has been validated as a tool for studying environmental qualities (Ringsmose & Kragh-Müller, 2020). This figure shows the observations in the six high and six low centres (high socioeconomics/high language scores, low socioeconomics/low language scores). Figure 5.1 shows the score of the ‘low centres’ (low socioeconomics/low language scores) and adds another low factor: a low environmental quality score. The opposite is done for the high centres. This study reveals that centres with children from advantaged backgrounds show better language scores and have a higher environmental quality, whereas centres with children from disadvantaged backgrounds show low language scores, and the centres have lower environmental quality. The children are faced with gaps in achievements (low language scores) and care (low ECEC environmental quality). This is critical following the possibilities that high-quality ECEC have for children in vulnerable positions. High-quality practices in ECEC can improve opportunities for disadvantaged children, but it seems that the likelihood of a disadvantaged child getting their needed care is not high enough.

Discussion and Conclusion Based on the knowledge that children’s early years are important in creating and eliminating gaps, the aim has been to study and pinpoint the opportunities that children from disadvantaged backgrounds have for development in ECEC systems

5  Gaps in Care: (E)quality ECEC in Nordic Early Childhoods

69

based on their knowledge of how important ECEC practices are in the creation of equal opportunities for children. In this chapter, Danish ECEC has been used as an example of how a child’s early years need to be granted more interest and that the growing number of children in professional care must be of great political interest. Given the goal of inclusive and high-quality education for all, we need to examine the quality of early childhood development, care, and pre-primary education, and assess the possibilities that ECEC can offer children. The results of this study indicate that children with disadvantages are not granted the opportunities needed to succeed. ECEC is a context for co-action with the surroundings, potentially providing the child with better opportunities than the child’s disadvantaged background would normally allow for. The environmental qualities need to be high to reduce social exclusion, prevent children from falling behind, and become victims of school failure. Although Denmark has a long history of universal childcare, policies must still supplement the child-rearing resources available to disadvantaged families if inequalities are to be reduced. Children from disadvantaged backgrounds also need to be targeted in universal care systems, with a growing number of children in care in many countries (UNICEF, 2007). UNICEF touches on the great changes in children’s upbringing in the world’s economically advanced countries moving from predominantly private, family care to a significant degree of out-of-home care with governments and private enterprises involved. This move into professional care for a high number of children can also be seen as an opportunity to provide children from disadvantaged backgrounds with better opportunities. With the example of Denmark, access to care is insufficient to provide better opportunities for children with disadvantage, although the centres are provided with the same standard of professional’s education, and economy in the ECEC setting quality in care varies, leaving children with disadvantage with gaps in care. In Denmark, research indicates that the quality of care children have in childcare differs across centres. Indeed, data from this study show that vulnerable children are at risk of low quality. High-quality centres successfully support (e)quality and inclusive practices in areas with high numbers of children from low socioeconomic backgrounds. Because almost all Danish children attend preschool centres, these centres also play an important role in children’s development because children learn in every setting where they participate. Both family and preschool centres influence how children develop personal and social skills and their attitudes towards school and their later careers. In preschool centres, both preschool teachers and other children are involved in this process; therefore, it is essential to focus on how preschool centres can produce the best possible development and learning opportunities for children. Achievement gaps because of socioeconomics are found in every country (Carnoy & Rothstein, 2013). What is interesting is that some countries (Finland) are more successful than others in closing the gaps. Achievement gaps are not the laws of nature. High-quality ECEC experiences lay the foundations for wellbeing, learning, and future education for children in disadvantaged positions; therefore, they have been recognised to be of fundamental importance to inclusion and equality.

70

C. Ringsmose

This chapter has taken the perspective of inclusion by considering not only the context of children’s access but also the importance of high-quality environments in early years. The perspective on early years focuses on how high-quality practices can create more equal opportunities for children and eliminate the gaps in children’s development, preventing learning disabilities and creating more equal opportunities starting from a young age. This is a developmental inclusive approach to SE in that if the quality is not high enough, the likelihood of exclusion is high. This perspective views child development as related to the context and quality of development. The UN development goal of access to quality early childhood development, care, and pre-primary education is intended to ensure that children are ready for primary education (United Nations, 2015). Consequently, children from disadvantaged backgrounds need to benefit more from the education and care they receive at an early age. High-quality ECEC was defined by ECECs as providing children from disadvantaged backgrounds with better pathways for development, here beginning when the child is young. Regarding their inclusiveness, ECEC settings are considered high quality when they provide children from a lower socioeconomic status with equal opportunities for cognitive, emotional, and social development. To better understand the conditions for professionals working in childcare centres with high numbers of children from low socioeconomic backgrounds, we need to address the fact that this will also entail working with many children with special needs simultaneously, which implies urgent action to reach high quality. Overall, from experience with a global childcare system such as the Danish, the provision of ECEC alone is insufficient. Children in disadvantaged positions need to be provided with the highest quality of care. It is necessary to provide centres with many children who are in disadvantaged positions with good opportunities, much professional attention, and a good education to provide better opportunities for the children. Otherwise, we will continuously repeat the patterns of neglecting the needs of children growing up in disadvantaged positions. For further research, it would be interesting to study ECEC practices and child development at a young age. Numerous studies have focused on the school years by comparing child performances across countries (e.g. the PISA studies). However, research has shown that what happens when a child is young is more important, so we need to pay much attention to ECEC qualities in children’s early years.

References Børne- og Undervisningsministeriet. (2018). Obligatoriske læringstilbud til 1-årige. https://www. uvm.dk/dagtilbud/love-­og-­regler%2D%2Dformaal-­og-­aftaler/aftalen-­om-­parallelsamfund/ om-­aftalen. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Harvard University Press. Burger, K. (2010). How does early childhood care and education affect cognitive development? An international review of the effects of early interventions for children from different social backgrounds. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 25, 140–165.

5  Gaps in Care: (E)quality ECEC in Nordic Early Childhoods

71

Carnoy, M. & Rothstein, R. (2013). International tests show achievement gaps in all countries. Economic Policy Institute. Danmarks Evalueringsinstitut. (2010). Sprogvurderinger på dagtilbudsområdet og børnenes resul-tater. Danmarks Evalueringsinstitut. http://www.eva.dk/projekter/2009/ sprogvurderinger-­af-­tre-­aarige-­2009/rapporter/sprogvurderinger-­paa-­dagtilbudsomraadetog-­boernenes-­resultater Deloitte. (2010). Analyse af specialundervisningen i folkeskolen. Deloitte Business Consulting A/S. Dreier, O. (1999). Læring som ændring af personlig deltagelse i sociale kontekster. In K. Nielsen & S. Kvale (Eds.), Mesterlære – læring som social praksis. Hans Reitzel Publisher. Economist Intelligence Unit. (2012). Starting well: Benchmarking early education across the world. http://www.lienfoundation.org/pdf/publications/sw_report.pdf Formandskabet for Rådet for Børns Læring. (2017). Fokus på Ulighed. Beretning fra formandskabet. https://www.xn%2D%2Dbrns-­lring-­i6a4s.dk/materialer Gresham, F. M., & Elliott, S. N. (1990). Social skills rating system. Manual. Circle Pines, American Guidance Service. Gresham, F. M., & Elliott, S. N. (2008). Social skills improvement system – Rating scales. Minneapolis, Minnesota: Pearssons Assessments. Glavind, N., & Pade, S. (2011). Dagtilbud som investering. The Bur, 2000. Heckman, J. (2006). Skill formation and the economics of investing in disadvantaged children. Science, 312, 1900–1902. Jensen, B., Holm, A., Allerup, P., & Kragh, A. (2009). Effekter af indsatser for socialt udsatte børn i daginstitutioner. Aarhus Universitetsforlag. Kok, R., Thijssen, S., Bakermans-Kranburg, M.  J., Jaddoe, V.  W., Verhulst, F.  C., White, T., Van Ijzendoorn, M. H., & Tiemeier, H. (2015). Normal variation in early parental sensitivity predicts child structural brain development. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 54(10), 824–831. Kristensen, J. E., Hamre, B., & Bayer, S. (2015). The history of the pedagogue. U-Press. Lamer, K., & Hauge, S. (2006). Fra rammeprogram til handling: Implementering av rammeprogrammet “Du og jeg og vi to!”, med fokus på veiledningsprosesser i personalet, sosial kompetanseutvikling. Lazzari, A., & Vandenbroeck, M. (2013). The impact of early childhood education and care on cognitive and non-cognitive development. A review of European studies. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236347063_The_impact_of_Early_Childhood_Education_and_Care_on_ cognitive_and_non--cognitive_development_A_review_of_European_studies. Lindqvist, D. W. A. L., Allerup, P., & Ringsmose, C. (2012). Kvalitet i det sproglige læringsmiljø i børnehaven. In L.  Svinth & C.  Ringsmose (Eds.), Læring og udvikling i daginstitutioner. Dansk Psykologisk forlag. Mehlby, & Ringsmose, C. (2004). De gode eksempler. AKF Forlaget. Minervino, J. (2014). Lessons from research and the classroom. Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. https://docs.gatesfoundation.org/documents/lessons%20from%20research%20and%20 the%20Classroom_September%202014.pdf National Scientific Council on the Developing Child. (2010). Early experiences can alter gene expression and affect long-term development (Working Paper No. 10). Lokaliseret den 24. juli 2019 på: https://developingchild.harvard.edu/resources/ early-­experiences-­can-­alter-­gene-­expression-­and-­affect-­long-­term-­development/ Nordahl, T., Hansen, L.  S., Ringsmose, C., & Drugli M.  B. (2020). Systematisk arbejde over tid betaler sig: Resultater fra Program for læringsledelse  – dagtilbud. (1 udg.) Aalborg Universitetsforlag. FULM: Forskningsinformeret udvikling af læringsmiljøer. OECD. (2006). Starting Strong 11. Early Childhood Education and Care. OECD. http://www. oecd.org/dataoecd/23/36/31672150.pdf OECD. (2016). Labour Force Participation Rate (indicator). https://data.oecd.org/emp/labour-­ force-­participation-­rate.htm Pedersen, H. (2011). Høringssvar om ændring af dagtilbudsloven. BUPL.

72

C. Ringsmose

Ploug, N. (2005). Social Arv, sammenfatning. Socialforskningsinstituttet. Ringsmose, C. (2020). Perspektiver på kvalitet i daginstitutioner. Aalborg Universitetsforlag. Ringsmose, & Brogaard Clausen. (2017). Comparative perspectives on early childhood: choices and values. In C. Ringsmose & G. Kragh-Müller (Eds.), Nordic social pedagogical approach to early years. Springer series International perspectives on early childhood education and development, 15, 73–92. Ringsmose, C., & Kragh-Müller, G. (2014). KIDS  – Kvalitet i Daginstitutioner. Dansk Psykologisk Forlag. Ringsmose, C., & Kragh-Müller, G. (2020). KIDS – Kvalitet i Daginstitutioner. 2. udgave. Dansk Psykologisk Forlag. Ringsmose, C., & Svinth, L. (2019). Virkningsfuldt pædagogisk arbejde i dagtilbud. Danmarks Pædagogiske Universitetsforlag. Svinth, L. (2012). Children in daycare, and their influence in activities in a sociocultural perspective. In L. Svinth & C. Ringsmose (Eds.), Læring og udvikling i daginstitutioner. Dansk Psykologisk Forlag. Svinth, L. (2017). Børnehavebørns medbestemmelse i pædagogisk tilrettelagte aktiviteter: analyseret i et sociokulturelt læringsperspektiv. In C.  Ringsmose & G.  Kragh-Müller (Eds.), The Nordic social pedagogical approach to early years. Springer. Sylva, K., Melhuish, E., Sammons, P., Siraj-Blatchford, I., Taggart, B., & Elliot. K. (2003). The effective provision of pre-school education (EPPE) project: Findings from the pre-school period. Institute of Education, University of London and Sure Start. Taggart, B., Sylva, K., Melhuish, E., Sammons, P., & Siraj, I. (2015). Effective pre-school, primary and secondary education project (EPPSE 3–16+). UCL Institute of Education, University College London, Birkbeck, University of London, University of Oxford. https://www.gov. uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/455670/RB455_Effective_pre-­ school_primary_and_secondary_education_project.pdf.pdf UNICEF. (2007). Child poverty in perspective. An overview of child well-being in rich countries. A Comprehensive Assessment of the Lives and Well-Being of Children and Adolescents in the Economically Advanced Nations. Innocenti Research Centre. Report Card 7. United Nations. (2015). Sustainable development goals. https://www.un.org/ sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-­development-­goals/ Vandell, D. L., Belsky, J., Burhinal, M., Steinberg, L., Vandergrift, N., & NICHD ECCRN. (2010). Do effects of early child care extend to age 15 years? Results from the NICHD study of early child care and youth development. Child development, 82, 737–756. Vandenbroeck, M., Lenaerts, K., & Beblavý, M. (2018). Benefits of early childhood education and care, and the conditions for obtaining them (EENEE Analytical Report No. 32). European Commission. Vygotskij, L. S. (2004). Pædagogisk psykologi. In G. Lindqvist (Ed.), Vygotskij om læring som udviklingsvilkår. Klim. Vygotsky, L.  S. (1982). Om barnets psykiske udvikling. en artikelsamling. Nyt Nordisk Forlag Arnold Busck. Wilkinson, R., & Pickett, K. (2009). The spirit level: Why more equal societies almost always do better. Allen Lane.

Chapter 6

Autism and Young Children in Sweden Amanda Webster, Susanne Garvis, and Gunilla Westman Andersson

Abstract  This chapter provides a summary of the current Swedish literature and educational policies around autism and young children’s preschool and schooling. In preschool and schooling, the number of children diagnosed with autism has increased in the past 10 years. Autism is characterised by deficits in social communication skills alongside restricted and repetitive behaviour and interests. Children on the autism spectrum experience some difficulties in preschools/schools and often need support to overcome the potential problems of preschool/school environments. Swedish studies have shown that preschool and school teachers struggle to meet the needs of children on the autism spectrum. The chapter concludes with key reflections to enhance collaboration between educators and parents to support children on the autism spectrum. Keywords  Autism · Sweden · Early chilhdood

Introduction The rapid rise in diagnosis rates of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) over the past 20 years has induced a corresponding increase in the number of cases on the autism spectrum enrolling in Swedish early childhood and school programs. Autism is

A. Webster (*) University of Wollongong, Wollongong, Australia e-mail: [email protected] S. Garvis Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne, Australia e-mail: [email protected] G. W. Andersson University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 H. Harju-Luukkainen et al. (eds.), Special Education in the Early Years, International Perspectives on Early Childhood Education and Development 36, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-91297-0_6

73

74

A. Webster et al.

characterised by deficits or differences in social communication skills alongside restricted and repetitive behaviours and interests (American Psychiatric Association, 2013). Children on the autism spectrum may demonstrate strengths and difficulties in various areas but mostly exhibit challenges in communicating with others, navigating social situations, and dealing with changes and transitions (Baric et  al., 2017). Research across the world suggests that individuals on the autism spectrum often experience poorer academic outcomes than their typically developing peers (Mayes & Calhoun, 2007), alongside high levels of health problems and social isolation (Feldhaus et al., 2015), particularly as they enter adulthood (Billstedt et al., 2011; Costley et al., 2016). This has increased the demand for services and support from both school and health services. International (Anglim et al., 2018; Emam & Farrell, 2009) and Swedish studies (Meynert, 2014; O’Brien, 2007) have found that schools and educators are struggling to meet the needs of students on the autism spectrum. Teachers and educators report that the increasing number of students diagnosed with ASD in combination with other school priorities has presented them with some challenges, including finding ways to teach that meet these children’s learning and communication needs and addressing behavioural problems commonly exhibited by children on the autism spectrum (Roberts & Simpson, 2016). Educators report that they lack the requisite knowledge and skills to identify both the essence of students’ needs and the most appropriate strategies to support these students in mainstream school programmes (Able et al., 2015; Segall & Campbell, 2012). Current research has shown that early intervention enhances later outcomes for children on the autism spectrum (Zwaigenbaum et al., 2015). In Sweden, a large percentage of the population attends preschool, which extends from ages 1 to 6. During these years, children with a diagnosis of ASD are also eligible to receive therapeutic support, such as speech pathology and occupational therapy, from local habilitation centres. These habilitation centres work closely with families and, in some cases, with early childhood programmes. However, once a child enters formal schooling, these services are only available in some regions of Sweden (e.g. the region of Västra G’taland) if the child has received a diagnosis of ASD with comorbid intellectual disability. According to the Swedish Education Act (SFS 2010:800), all children in preschool and compulsory school have the right to receive adequate support for their development. Although Sweden has been commended for its inclusive approach, research and reports of educators and families indicate that these education policies are open to a great deal of interpretation (Göransson et al., 2011). In addition, the children’s specific needs are often not addressed despite being in mainstream programs. This is usually the case because educators struggle to employ individualised strategies within class-wide programmes and curriculum. However, the Swedish Discrimination Act makes it clear that everyone should have equal rights regardless of, for example, disability (SFS 2008:567). This means that reasonable adjustments should be made to achieve accessibility in society. However, there are no specific regulations for children with autism when these are in the frame of all children in need of special support.

6  Autism and Young Children in Sweden

75

Focus of Study In this chapter, we provide a systematic literature review of ASD among young children in Sweden. The purpose is to identify key themes across the current literature regarding early childhood education. We also have a specific focus on trying to understand how government educational policies are enacted, as demonstrated through research on teacher practice and beliefs. The intent is to create a detailed understanding of the current state of research on autism and young children in Sweden before making suggestions for the direction of future research.

Methods A review of the research was conducted to examine the current research on Swedish school and preschool experiences of young children on the autism spectrum, their families and teachers. This included children’s experiences in preschool programmes and those within the first years of primary school that are included in early childhood education. To ensure that all relevant studies were obtained, a search was conducted of four databases: Taylor and Francis, ERIC, Psych Info, and Scopus. Search terms included a combination of autism/Asperger, school/preschool, and Sweden. Studies were included if they focused on students diagnosed with ASD or a related condition (e.g. AS, autism, PDD-NOS, early childhood disintegrative disorder); gathered data specifically about programmes and practices in Swedish schools or preschools; included children in preschool or years K-3 or teachers who worked with children of that age; and was published in English after 2008. The year 2008 was determined to be a cut-­ off, as this coincides with the publication of current anti-discrimination law in Sweden. Older studies were not included, as it was felt that they would not reflect current policy or practice. Studies were also excluded if they focused generally on inclusion or disability support in schools but did not specifically examine beliefs or practices related to students on the autism spectrum. Due to the scarcity of studies in school settings, studies were also included if they focused on students in grades K–3, even if they also focused on children or teachers working in upper primary grades. Similarly, studies were not included if they focused solely on the prevalence of autism in schools and did not include measures of belief, perceptions, or practice. Lastly, studies that focused solely on clinical interventions or treatments of preschool or school-aged children were not included, although studies were included if these were carried across into preschool or school environments. The initial search revealed a total of 738 articles related to preschool and 2036 related to school across the four databases. An initial scan of titles and abstracts and the removal of duplicates resulted in 25 articles. A more detailed review of these articles eliminated an additional 10 articles, as they did not meet the inclusion criteria. Eight of these studies focused on preschool, six on school settings, and one included both (see Table 6.1).

Fernell et al. (2011).

Olsson and Roll-­Pettersson (2020)

Roll-­Pettersson et al. (2016)

Bejno et al. (2019)

Authors’ Title Engstrand and Roll-­Pettersson (2014)

Aim Examine the relations between preschool teachers’ (1) attitudes towards the inclusion of children with autism and demographic variables. Adapt the autism Programme environment rating scale – Preschool (APERS-PE) for use with preschool programmes in Sweden in which children with ASD are enrolled. Examined proximal and distal barriers and supports within the Swedish service system that may affect the implementation of early and intensive behavioural intervention (EIBI) for children with autism. The purpose of this study is to use the three cornerstones of the didactic triangle (student, teacher, subject)) to examine negotiations and collaborations between organizations regarding learning when children with ASD receive IBI in mainstream Swedish preschools. The aims were to examine the outcome of early intervention regarding adaptive functioning in ASD over two years and relate this to type and intensity of the intervention. The content validity index (CVI) is a procedure used to quantify content validity. APERS rates the preschool teaching environment for students on the autism spectrum. Case study approach using multiple sources including participant observations, direct observations, semi-structured interviews with key informants and focus group.

Data were collected during a 12-month period through participant observations, direct observations, a focus group interview, and semi-structured individual interviews. Parents also contributed data.

Children were comprehensively assessed by a research team before the onset of intervention, and then, again, 2 years later. Change in Vineland adaptive behaviour scales composite scores from intake (T1) to leaving the study (T2) was set as the primary outcome variable.

Nine independent experts from habilitation centres, preschools and other relevant educational and clinical constituents rated the content validity of the adaptation.

Two preschools exemplifying ‘high-quality practice and including at least one child diagnosed with autism.

192 children, aged 20–54 months, with a clinical diagnosis of ASD who fell into three cognitive subgroups: One with a learning disability, one with developmental delay, and one with normal intellectual functioning. Interventions based on ABA

Two preschools exemplifying high quality practice were studied. Paraprofessionals, parents, special educators, habilitation specialists

Data collection Autism attitude scale for teachers, teacher efficacy scale and a demographic survey.

Participants Preschool teachers

Table 6.1  Review of research—Swedish special education in early childhood for students on the autism spectrum

76 A. Webster et al.

The aim of the study was to gain a deeper understanding of immigrant parents’ experiences of having their child diagnosed with ASD and participating in the community intervention Programme. The objective of this study was to investigate how accurate preschool staff are at reporting difficulties in SCI and RRBs in young children.

This study aimed to compare parents’ and preschool staff’s ratings of autistic symptoms in young children in relation both to diagnostic assessments and to a gold standard diagnostic instrument (the ADOS-2). Linton et al. (2016) This study examines and compares the social representations (SR) concerning the inclusion of students with AS among principals, school health professionals, and teachers. Sjödin (2015) This study describes how the learner autonomy of a student diagnosed with high-functioning autism is regarded in regular education in a longitudinal perspective and how her educational strategies are managed by school representatives.

Nilsson Jobs et al. (2019b)

Nilsson Jobs et al. (2019a)

Niles et al. (2019)

Unstructured interviews with the student and educational personnel, and passive observations in the classroom. Conversations with Alice and interviews with parents and other school staff for validation.

Described Alice (ASD) at 8, 11 and 13

(continued)

56 participants who were 3 years old. The sample comprised 32 (18 girls) participants with high-risk-­for-ASD with no diagnosis); 10 (5 girls) with high-risk-for-ASD with ASD diagnosis; and 14 (7 girls) children with low risk for ASD. Web-based questionnaire (N = 229). An 163 teachers, 27 principals, and 39 SHP association task was conducted to obtain working in mainstream schools in six data municipalities in the central part of Sweden (229 total).

The DSM-5 SCI domain was operationalised and measured by preschool ratings on the SRS-2 SCI subscale. The DSM-5 RRB domain was operationalised and measured by preschool ratings on the RBS-R and the SRS-2 RRB subscale. ADOS, Mullens and Vineland also used ADOS, Mullens. ASEBA and Vineland also used

64 children who were 3-years old in mainstream preschool. The sample consisted of 36 (20 girls) children with high-risk-for-­ ASD with no diagnosis; 12 (6 girls) with high-risk-for-­ASD with ASD diagnosis, and 16 (7 girls) with low risk for ASD controls.

Semi-structured interviews were conducted Parents of 11 children aged 3–5, who had been diagnosed with autism and participated in the community intervention programme for at least 1 year.

6  Autism and Young Children in Sweden 77

Eikeseth et al. (2012)

Westman Andersson et al. (2017)

Anonymous web-based questionnaire of 19 questions that explored parental perspectives of school absence regarding approved grades, challenges, demands, and obstacles in education for children with ASD.

1799 parents with children aged 6–21 years attending primary or secondary school and diagnosed with ASD – 1799 completed the questionnaire. 76% of children were in primary school, although specific ages were not explored. 56 parents whose preschool children (4 years of age) had been assessed for ASD about 6 years prior in Gothenburg, Sweden.

Treatment was conducted in the children’s local preschools or kindergartens. Independent variables were the adaptive behaviour subscales and the maladaptive behaviour subscale from the Vineland adaptive behaviour scales.

Web-based questionnaire with an association task was used to obtain data on teachers’ SR and the content and structure of the SR.

A semi-structured questionnaire.

Data collection Web-based questionnaire, which included an association task where the participants were asked to produce up to five words or phrases for the stimulus phrase ‘student with Asperger diagnosis’

Participants Teachers in mainstream schools in Sweden (N = 170). 30% taught in k-3 with majority being women..

This study uses 153 teachers. A total of 76.8% of the teachers included in the current analysis were women and the average age was 46, 9 (SD = 10.3). 43 respondents were in grades K-3. This study was a comparison–controlled 35 participants (6 girls). A comparison group trial designed to assess the effectiveness of 24 children (4 girls) was included of community school-­based EIBI, conducted in mainstream preschool and kindergarten settings using the school’s staff as therapists..

To provide a rich description of how parents experience support and interventions 6 years after their child was assessed for suspected ASD? Linton et al. (2015) To explore the relationship between experience and teachers’ SR of students with AS.

Authors’ Title Aim Linton et al. (2013) To elucidate mainstream teachers’ representations of students with AS using the theoretical framework of social representation theory and particularly considering the effects of the sex of the teacher, grade level being taught and when the teachers received training themselves. Anderson (2020) This study explores parental perspectives of school absence regarding goal fulfilment, challenges, demands, and obstacles in education for children with ASD.

Table 6.1 (continued)

78 A. Webster et al.

6  Autism and Young Children in Sweden

79

All studies included in this literature review were published in the past 10 years, with the majority published in the last 5 years. This will ensure that the information is up-to-date and follows the most recent classifications. Participants included parents, teachers, clinicians, teacher aids, principals, and program directors. Furthermore, in one study (Sjödin, 2015), the data is provided directly from students on the autism spectrum. This study examined the experiences and practices used to support a girl on the autism spectrum at three time points (i.e. 8, 11, and 13 years of age). Westman Andersson, Miniscalco, and Gillberg (2017) also took a reflective approach to examining parents’ perceptions of support over the 6 years since their child received a diagnosis of ASD before age 4. All the six studies that focused on school included other age groups, with the result that none of these studies focused exclusively on participants in or working with children in grades K-3. In addition to educators, researchers collected data from experts in habilitation centres (Bejno et al., 2019; Roll-Pettersson et al., 2016), school health professionals (Linton et  al., 2016) and parents (Anderson, 2020; Nilses, et  al., 2019; Olsson & Roll-­ Pettersson, 2020; Roll-Pettersson et al., 2016; Sjödin, 2015; Westman Andersson et al., 2017). The majority of the studies utilised quantitative methods. These included the use of standardised assessments to examine outcomes for students (Eikeseth et  al., 2012; Fernell et al., 2011; Nilsson Jobs et al., 2019a, 2019b {Eikeseth, 2012 #8), surveys to measure participant’s perceptions and relationships between variables (Anderson, 2020; Engstrand & Roll-Pettersson, 2014; Linton et  al., 2013, 2015, 2016; Westman Andersson et al., 2017), and validity rating index to examine content validity of the APERS-PE (Bejno et al., 2019). Qualitative measures were used to gather a more in-depth understanding of the factors and issues in four studies. Two studies utilised a case study approach (Olsson & Roll-Pettersson, 2020; Roll-­ Pettersson et  al., 2016), while two others conducted interviews with participants (Nilses et al., 2019; Sjödin, 2015). The researchers in the studies reviewed focused on numerous aims and research questions. Six studies (Engstrand & Roll-Pettersson, 2014; Linton et  al., 2013, 2016; Linton et al., 2015; Nilsson Jobs et al., 2019a, 2019b) examined staff’s attitudes and knowledge and the links between these and the respondents’ characteristics or background. Three studies (Anderson, 2020; Nilses et al., 2019; Westman Andersson et al., 2017) examined parents’ experiences and included factors related to school absence, access to support, and particular challenges encountered by immigrant parents. Two studies focused on aspects of education programs. One examined educators’ beliefs and practices that could prevent students from developing autonomy (Sjödin, 2015), while the other adapted and assessed the validity of the Autism Programme Environment Rating Scale (APERS-PE) for evaluating Swedish preschool programmes. Another two studies assessed the outcomes of early intervention programmes that had been implemented in preschool settings (Eikeseth et al., 2012; Fernell et al., 2011). The final two studies (Olsson & Roll-­ Pettersson, 2020) examined the perceptions of stakeholders about the ways that multiple services and stakeholders worked together to support effective practice for students on the autism spectrum in schools.

80

A. Webster et al.

Given the diverse aims of the studies included, few patterns were identified in the findings across the studies. In some cases, a group of researchers published different aspects of their findings across two to three papers that highlighted different aspects of a topic, but no aspect of early childhood education for students on the autism spectrum has been studied in any depth. Consequently, it could be argued that Swedish research in this area is in its infancy, a suggestion that is reinforced by the fact that 11 of the 15 studies were published in just the past 5 years. However, the number of studies published at this time is an optimistic finding as it suggests that research in this area is rapidly increasing. If this trend continues, it would be expected that some of the aspects of early childhood education that have only just been explored would be the focus of more research in the coming years. Moreover, the reviewed studies encompassed some aims. Analysis does reveal some findings about the current knowledge and practice in Swedish schools and preschools to support children on the autism spectrum in early childhood. The majority of findings related to children in preschool settings. Analysis of these findings reveal three primary themes: teachers’ knowledge and attitudes towards children on the autism spectrum; barriers to and outcomes of early intervention practice; and a coordinated and collaborative approach to support.

Findings The first theme, preschool teachers’ knowledge and attitudes, was examined in three studies, two of which were conducted by the same researchers. In the first study, Engstrand and Roll-Pettersson (2014) surveyed teachers and found that they were generally positive about children on the autism spectrum but were more neutral in their feelings about including these students in preschool programmes. Generally, teachers who had previous special education training appeared to be more positive about inclusion, although there were little relationships between their attitudes towards inclusion and their feelings of self-efficacy to teach children on the autism spectrum. In the other two studies, a group of researchers (Nilsson Jobs et al., 2019a, 2019b) investigated whether preschool teachers could discern the key autism characteristics in students on the autism spectrum as compared to children who had a sibling diagnosed with ASD and another group of students with a low risk of ASD. Their findings suggest that preschool teachers were more adept at discerning social communication issues and using these to differentiate students with a diagnosis of ASD than they were in identifying restrictive and repetitive behaviours. They also discovered that teachers’ ratings more often corresponded to the characteristics identified by clinicians during diagnosis. The researchers concluded that with the right information and training, preschool teachers are valuable in the early identification of students who would benefit from further diagnostic assessment. The next theme was related to the implementation of early intervention practices. Fernell et al. (2011) compared outcomes for students involved in an intensive model of early intervention with those achieved by students involved in a non-intensive

6  Autism and Young Children in Sweden

81

intervention model. Both interventions were based on the principles of applied behaviour analysis (ABA) and were implemented in designated centres for children on the autism spectrum. They found little difference between the two groups, but that both groups had demonstrated significant increase in functional behaviours, while no child in either group had eliminated all difficulties at the 2 year follow up. Fernell et al. concluded that their findings opposed the use of intensive models of ABA-based interventions. In another study, Eikeseth et al. (2012) found that children in an early intensive behaviour programme that was implemented as part of their regular preschool and home settings achieved much higher levels of adaptive behaviour and lower levels of maladaptive behaviours than did students who just received normal preschool support. These differences continued, although to a lesser extent, in the second year of intervention. Rather than examining specific practices, Bejno et al. (2019) focused on ascertaining the validity of the Autism Programme Evaluation Scale (APERS-PE) for teachers and directors to evaluate their preschool programme against research on evidence-based practice for students on the autism spectrum. The tool was adapted from the Original developed in the USA for use in Swedish settings, which focused more on play than structured activities and encompasses a wider age range. Findings suggested that participants found the tool useful, both in confirming those strategies they were using that would help students on the autism spectrum and suggesting strategies they could implement. Participants did feel that many preschools would score pretty low, but it would enable them start. Their findings also revealed a need for preschools to have tools that would allow for the difference in staff training and the frequent fluctuation of trained and untrained staff. As mentioned previously, in Sweden, young children on the autism spectrum often receive services and support from some providers, including habilitation centres, clinics, and preschools. Findings from several studies examined in this book chapter highlight the importance of an interdisciplinary approach in supporting the target group, and implementing the best possible intervention. Nilses et al. (2019) explored the experiences of immigrant parents whose children attended community intervention programs. They found that, following diagnosis, parents often lacked knowledge about community resources and services. They found it difficult to navigate the service delivery system, which involved multiple agencies and individuals. However, they did appreciate the provision of community-based interventions close to their homes. In addition, community multidisciplinary team helped them to understand their child’s diagnosis and provided training to their child’s preschool on the use of practices associated with the Early Start Denver Model. Although, the multidisciplinary team approach was unique to this area and thus might not be available to the majority of parents in Sweden. In two other studies, a team of researchers (Olsson & Roll-Pettersson, 2020; Roll-Pettersson et al., 2016) worked with preschool staff to explore how the Swedish system of service delivery impacted the use of ABA practices to support children on the autism spectrum in preschool settings. They concluded that the current system involved a complex web of variables related to the student, staff, and programme that influenced the practices implemented and outcomes achieved. This included

82

A. Webster et al.

tensions or collaborations between organisations and professionals, competence of staff and the role of the preschool director. The researchers concluded that interorganisational collaboration was critical. They also highlighted a gap in current service provision as children moved from preschool to school, which induced a loss of or inability to utilise skills previously learned.

Key Reflections for Future Research Overall, a review of the research reveals several key implications for future research and practice. First, there is little knowledge about how current pedagogies and practices implemented in Swedish schools and preschools can support the needs of students on the autism spectrum. Although many of the issues, such as difficulties with service coordination and lack of staff training, are also common in other countries, Sweden poses a unique opportunity to examine a system in which almost all children access an early childhood programme and do not transition to formal school until a later age. Many of the studies that have been conducted so far have examined the use of explicit and additional strategies in preschool settings. This suggests that training and support, alongside intensive early intervention models, can be implemented in natural environmental contexts. However, it does not provide information on what types of practices that are intrinsic in a quality play-based curriculum would provide support or pose a particular issue for students on the autism spectrum. Sweden, with its almost universal access to preschools, offers real potential in this area. The second implication involves the scarcity of studies on children in the first years of school. All studies included children in early childhood and upper elementary grades, and no study actually examined practices implemented by schools or teachers. This is particularly concerning, given the findings of Olsson and Roll-­ Pettersson (2020), that few practices implemented in preschools were carried over in school settings. Together with the findings of Sjödin (2015) that school staff and contexts often discouraged and devaluated the learning styles and interests of students on the autism spectrum, it is clear that increased focus needs to be placed on school practices, particularly in the early years when students are learning to navigate the school environment and curriculum. This is also a time when many children on the autism spectrum may lose access to additional support provided by habilitation centres and early intervention programmes, as designated in the Health Care Act (SFS 2017:30). Thus, research in school settings is sorely needed. Finally, a more integrated focus with early childhood and school curricula and settings for children on the autism spectrum is needed. Specifically, children on the autism spectrum with intellectual disabilities have the right to follow the curriculum for compulsory schooling. An integrated approach would allow teachers and support staff to work more closely together and share and discuss suitable approaches. Likewise, an integrated approach would also provide a smoother transition for

6  Autism and Young Children in Sweden

83

children moving across educational systems (such as transitioning from preschool to school) and would allow children and their families to be supported in the transition.

Conclusion In this chapter, we provided a systematic review of current literature in Sweden on autism regarding young children. We found that there has been increased growth in research in the area in the past 5 years, especially around the three themes identified. We hope that the research field continues to grow, but also look at filling in gaps that we have identified in the review—namely the types of practices that are intrinsic in a quality played-based curriculum that could be utilised for early intervention and the lack of research on children in the early years of school. Given the strong focus on universal access and education for all in Swedish early childhood, there is real potential to bring about change for children with autism. We conclude our chapter by pointing out that Sweden, like other Nordic countries, encompasses public systems, which protect the rights of people with disabilities—including children on the autism spectrum—to participate fully in their communities (SFS 1993:387) and to access quality education (SFS 2010:800), health, and medical services (SFS 1982:763). However, realising this intent in practice is more complicated. A review of the research suggests that Nordic contexts, which place a high priority on the provision of universal early childhood programmes (Karila, 2012), provide a unique opportunity to examine the factors that support children on the autism spectrum in their early years. Most Swedish children attend preschool from 1 to 5 years of age, which provides researchers with a natural inclusive context for employing and examining supports for children on the autism spectrum. This includes practices employed by early childhood educators as well as allied health professionals and educators working together in an interdisciplinary approach. Most importantly, the universal acces to early childhood provides a foundation for exploring how this impacts children on the autism spectrum over the long term into formal schooling and home life.

References Able, H., Sreckovic, M. A., Schultz, T. R., Garwood, J. D., & Sherman, J. (2015). Views from the trenches: Teacher and student supports needed for full inclusion of students with ASD. Teacher Education and Special Education, 38(1), 44–57. American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (DSM-5®). American Psychiatric Pub. Anderson, L. (2020). Schooling for pupils with autism Spectrum disorder: Parents' perspectives. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-­020-­04496-­2

84

A. Webster et al.

Anglim, J., Prendeville, P., & Kinsella, W. (2018). The self-efficacy of primary teachers in supporting the inclusion of children with autism Spectrum disorder. Educational Psychology in Practice, 34(1), 73–88. Baric, V. B., Hemmingsson, H., Hellberg, K., & Kjellberg, A. (2017). The occupational transition process to upper secondary school, further education and/or work in Sweden: As described by young adults with Asperger syndrome and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 47(3), 667–679. Bejno, H., Roll-Pettersson, L., Klintwall, L., Langh, U., Odom, S.  L., & Bolte, S. (2019). Cross-cultural content validity of the autism program environment rating scale in Sweden. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 49(5), 1853–1862. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10803-­018-­03870-­5 Billstedt, E., Gillberg, I. C., & Gillberg, C. (2011). Aspects of quality of life in adults diagnosed with autism in childhood: A population-based study. Autism, 15(1), 7–20. Costley, D., Baldwin, S., Bruck, S., Haas, K., & Ritzrow, K. (2016). Shining a light on the autism spectrum: Experiences and aspirations of adults. Taylor & Francis. Eikeseth, S., Klintwall, L., Jahr, E., & Karlsson, P. (2012). Outcome for children with autism receiving early and intensive behavioral intervention in mainstream preschool and kindergarten settings. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 6(2), 829–835. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. rasd.2011.09.002 Emam, M. M., & Farrell, P. (2009). Tensions experienced by teachers and their views of support for pupils with autism Spectrum disorders in mainstream schools. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 24(4), 407–422. Engstrand, R.  Z., & Roll-Pettersson, L. (2014). Inclusion of preschool children with autism in Sweden: Attitudes and perceived efficacy of preschool teachers. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 14(3), 170–179. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-­3802.2012.01252.x Falkmer, M. (2013). From eye to us: Prerequisites for and levels of participation in mainstream school of persons with autism spectrum conditions. PhD diss., School of Education and Communication. Falkmer, Marita, Mats Granlund, Claes Nilholm, and Torbjörn Falkmer. "From My Perspective– Perceived Participation in Mainstream Schools in Students with Autism Spectrum Conditions. Developmental Neurorehabilitation 15, no. 3 (2012): 191–201. Feldhaus, C., Koglin, U., Devermann, J., Logemann, H., & Lorenz, A. (2015). Students with autism spectrum disorders and their neuro-typical peers–differences and influences of loneliness, stress and self-efficacy on life satisfaction. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 3(6), 375–381. Fernell, E., Hedvall, A., Westerlund, J., Hoglund Carlsson, L., Eriksson, M., Barnevik Olsson, M., … Gillberg, C. (2011). Early intervention in 208 Swedish preschoolers with autism spectrum disorder. A prospective naturalistic study. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 32(6), 2092–2101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2011.08.002 Göransson, K., Nilholm, C., & Karlsson, K. (2011). Inclusive education in Sweden? A critical analysis. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 15(5), 541–555. Holmström, M. R., Olofsson, N., Asplund, K., & Kristiansen, L. (2014). Transitions in the Swedish school system and the impact on Student’s positive self-reported-health. BMC Public Health, 14(1), 1045. Humphrey, N., & Symes, W. (2010). Perceptions of social support and experience of bullying among pupils with autistic spectrum disorders in mainstream secondary schools. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 25(1), 77–91. Karila, K. (2012). A Nordic perspective on early childhood education and care policy. European Journal of Education, 47(4), 584–595. Linton, A.-C., Germundsson, P., Heimann, M., & Danermark, B. (2013). Teachers’ social representation of students with Asperger diagnosis. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 28(4), 392–412. https://doi.org/10.1080/08856257.2013.812404

6  Autism and Young Children in Sweden

85

Linton, A.-C., Germundsson, P., Heimann, M., Danermark, B., & Lee, J. C. K. (2015). The role of experience in teachers’ social representation of students with autism spectrum diagnosis (Asperger). Cogent. Education, 2(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186x.2014.994584 Linton, A.-C., Germundsson, P., Heimann, M., & Danermark, B. (2016). School staff’s social representation of inclusion of students with autism spectrum disorder (Asperger). Journal of Education and Social Policy, 3(5), 82–95. Mayes, S. D., & Calhoun, S. L. (2007). Learning, attention, writing, and processing speed in typical children and children with ADHD, autism, anxiety, depression, and oppositional-defiant disorder. Child Neuropsychology, 13(6), 469–493. Meynert, M. J. (2014). Inclusive education and perceptions of learning facilitators of children with Special Needs in a School in Sweden. International Journal of Special Education, 29(2), 35–52. National board of health and welfare (Socialstyrelsen). (2020.): https://www.kunskapsguiden.se/ barn-­och-­unga/Teman/autismspektrumtillstånd/Sidor/Utredning-­och-­diagnos.aspx Nilses, A., Jingrot, M., Linnsand, P., Gillberg, C., & Nygren, G. (2019). Experiences of immigrant parents in Sweden participating in a community assessment and intervention program for preschool children with autism. Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment, 15, 3397–3410. https:// doi.org/10.2147/NDT.S221908 Nilsson Jobs, E., Bolte, S., & Falck-Ytter, T. (2019a). Preschool staff spot social communication difficulties, but not restricted and repetitive behaviors in young autistic children. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 49(5), 1928–1936. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10803-­018-­03867-­0 Nilsson Jobs, E., Bolte, S., & Falck-Ytter, T. (2019b). Spotting signs of autism in 3-year-olds: Comparing information from parents and preschool staff. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 49(3), 1232–1241. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-­018-­3821-­5 Nuske, Joy, H., Hassrick, E. M. G., Bronstein, B., Hauptman, L., Aponte, C., Levato, L., Stahmer, A., et al. (2019). Broken bridges—new school transitions for students with autism spectrum disorder: A systematic review on difficulties and strategies for success. Autism, 23(2), 306–325. O’brien, L. M. (2007). A school for everyone? The Swedish school system's struggles to reconcile societal goals with school and classroom practices. Childhood Education, 83(6), 374–379. Olsson, I., & Roll-Pettersson, L. (2020). A didactic perspective on negotiations and collaborations between different actors within the Swedish support system: Children with autism spectrum disorders included in community-based preschool settings. Nordic Journal of Studies in Educational Policy, 6(1), 58–68. https://doi.org/10.1080/20020317.2020.1711561 Roberts, J., & Simpson, K. (2016). A review of research into stakeholder perspectives on inclusion of students with autism in mainstream schools. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 20(10), 1084–1096. Roll-Pettersson, L., Olsson, I., & Ala”I-Rosales, S. (2016). Bridging the research to practice gap: A case study approach to understanding EIBI supports and barriers in Swedish preschools. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 9(2), 317–336. Saggers, B., Klug, D., Harper-Hill, K., Ashburner, J., Costley, D., Clark, T., Bruck, S., Trembath, D., Webster, A. A., & Carrington, S. (2015). Australian autism educational needs analysis–what are the needs of schools, parents and students on the autism spectrum? Executive Summary. Segall, M. J., & Campbell, J. M. (2012). Factors relating to education professionals’ classroom practices for the inclusion of students with autism spectrum disorders. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 6(3), 1156–1167. SFS (1982:763). Hälso-och sjukvårdslagen (Health Care Act]. Stockholm: Socialdepartementet; 1982. Swedish. SFS (1993:387). Lag om Stöd och Service till vissa funktionshindrade [Law regulating support and service to persons with certain functional disabilities (LSS)]. Stockholm: Socialdepartementet; 1993. Swedish. SFS (2008:567). Discrimination Act. Stockholm: Sverigens Riksdag. SFS (2010:800). Skollagen [The Education Act]. Stockholm: Swedish Code of Statutes. SFS (2017:30). Hälso-och sjukvårdslagen [Health Care Act]. Stockholm: Socialdepartementet. Sweden.

86

A. Webster et al.

Sjödin, S. (2015). Negotiating learner autonomy: A case study on the autonomy of a learner with high-functioning autism. Nordic journal of studies. Educational Policy, 2015(2). https://doi. org/10.3402/nstep.v1.28483 Sterling-Turner, H. E., & Jordan, S. S. (2007). Interventions addressing transition difficulties for individuals with autism. Psychology in the Schools, 44(7), 681–690. Westman Andersson, G., Miniscalco, C., & Gillberg, N. (2017). A 6-year follow-up of children assessed for suspected autism spectrum disorder: parents' experiences of society's support. Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment, 13, 1783–1796. https://doi.org/10.2147/ NDT.S134165 Zwaigenbaum, L., Bauman, M., Choueiri, R., Fein, D., Kasari, C., & Pierce, K.,... Wetherby, A. (2015). Early identification and interventions for autism Spectrum disorder: Executive summary. Pediatrics, 136(Supplement), S1–S9.

Chapter 7

Swedish Early Childhood Preservice Teachers and Inclusive Education Susanne Garvis, Liisa Uusimaki, and Umesh Sharma

Abstract  Inclusive education is an important foundation of Nordic society. It is considered a key pillar in the ‘education for all’ policy and has become an important foundation for shaping pedagogy and practice. This chapter shows how inclusive education is taught and enacted in Swedish early childhood teacher education. A specific focus lies on local legislation documents as a precursor for actions. A case study is shared from a study of Swedish early childhood preservice teachers’ beliefs to include all children in Swedish classrooms to show current understanding of these practices. Consideration is also given to raising concerns of segregation in Swedish education in terms of socioeconomic status, immigrant background and special education. The rapidly changing profile of society in Sweden requires that the teacher education sector be reformed to prepare educators who are competent in including all learners. The key points for consideration for future teacher education policy and practice are given. Keywords  Sweden · Inclusion · Early childhood · Higher education · Teacher education

S. Garvis (*) Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne, Australia e-mail: [email protected] L. Uusimaki University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden e-mail: [email protected] U. Sharma Monash University, Melbourne, Australia e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 H. Harju-Luukkainen et al. (eds.), Special Education in the Early Years, International Perspectives on Early Childhood Education and Development 36, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-91297-0_7

87

88

S. Garvis et al.

Introduction High-quality preschools are important for the learning and development of all children to support positive life trajectories. In Swedish preschools, inclusion is embraced as the right of every child (see the Swedish Education Act, 2010, p. 800); this means that children with and without special educational needs attend the same preschool setting. However, inclusive practices also mean that preschool teachers need skills and knowledge to work with all children so that all members of the preschool group can develop and learn to their fullest potential. The idea is further confirmed from the European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education (EADSNE, 2010, p. 10), who stated that ‘for teachers to work effectively in inclusive settings, they need to have the appropriate values and attitudes, skills and competences, knowledge and understanding’. We believe that training begins in teacher education. Hence, in this chapter, we explore how inclusive education is taught and enacted in Swedish early childhood teacher education. Our specific research question is as follows: How is inclusive education taught and enacted in Swedish early childhood teacher education? We begin by making specific references to the key documents that inform Swedish preschools and requirements for teachers (and subsequently teacher education). In Sweden, terms such as inclusive education are not explicitly used in preschool policy (Swedish Education Act, 2010, p. 800), but instead, it is stated that every child has the right to participation and learning. Rather, there are holistic documents about education for all that will be presented. A case study is shared from published research about Swedish early childhood preservice teachers’ beliefs to include all children in preschools. The case study also helps recognise the current gaps and support structures needed to further support inclusive practices and pedagogies in Swedish early childhood teacher education. We also discuss the current problems of increased diversity of children attending preschool and the growth of underqualified staff working in preschools. From this, we create considerations for future ways forward to enhance and support the development of inclusive practices and pedagogies in early childhood teacher education within Sweden. We suggest that a framework of the heart, hand and head will support and strengthen Swedish early childhood teacher education.

Review of Literature The Swedish school system, similar to each of the Nordic countries’ educational systems (Norway, Denmark, Finland and Iceland), is recognised in international comparisons for its policies on inclusion that are closely related to the welfare state (e.g., EADSNE, 2010; OECD, 2011). Inclusion is part of the identity of each of the Nordic countries and is linked to the values of democracy, freedom, equal rights and participation (Ahlberg, 2013). Although there are shared values and a commitment to the welfare state among the Nordic countries, this does not mean that there are no variations among the countries’ educational systems or approaches to education. Each Nordic country has

7  Swedish Early Childhood Preservice Teachers and Inclusive Education

89

its own political, geographic and economic history that has formed—and continues to form—its national education policies and pedagogical practices. In Sweden, inclusive education is related to the idea of ‘a school for all’, where all children have equal rights to participate in quality learning opportunities in schooling. Regardless of race, gender, disability or socioeconomic background. On January 1, 2020, the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) became law in Sweden. The incorporation of the CRC in Sweden makes clear that any legislation (e.g., Children and Parents Code, the Aliens Act, the Education Act, the Act concerning Support and Service for Persons with Certain Functional Impairments and the Social Services Act) must be interpreted based on the CRC in its entirety (Ministry of Employment, 2020). The Nordic model for Early Childhood and Care (ECEC) is based on humanistic values; this model is a child-centred, holistic approach with an emphasis on children’s and parents’ participation, democracy, autonomy and freedom (Karila, 2017). Also—and common to the Nordic countries—schools present extensive opening hours, relatively low fees and a large participation of children (Palla, 2018). The pedagogical approaches essential to children’s development and in line with the CRC is supporting ideas about respecting human rights, encouraging curiosity and love for learning that involves play through meaningful activities coconstructed by both the children and ECEC teachers. In Sweden, the first phase of inclusion to schooling begins at the preschool age between the ages of one and five. Preschool is not available free for children under the age of one because of the generous maternity leave offered by the states. Here, 84% of all Swedish children between the ages of 1 and 5 attend mainstream preschool, including children with diverse and special needs (Uusimaki et al., 2018; Zakirova Engstrand & Roll-Pettersson, 2012). There are limited statistics available on the number of children with special needs attending Swedish preschools; however, research has suggested that that every fourth child attending a Swedish preschool is in need of special support (Gustafsson et al., 2017). One reason for this relates to the fact that diagnosing young children is still uncommon in Swedish preschool settings. There are no laws requiring children to be formally diagnosed, nor is there a law requiring that preschool teachers and childcare workers have the necessary training required to support children with special needs (Almqvist et al., 2018). There is, however, an expectation that preschool teachers—together with other childcare workers—have the necessary abilities to adapt everyday activities in the preschool to meet the needs of children with special needs (National Agency for Education, 2015). The identification and referral of children with special needs relate to preschool staff’s and parents’ reporting, which is often based on observations, for example, children experiencing difficulties relating to other children or the preschool environment/context. Children who have been tested and evaluated by a health team (e.g., nurse, psychologist, medical doctor, special needs teacher) and have a disorder identified will have an individual learning plan developed for them. The purpose of the individual learning plan is to support both parents and preschool teachers in developing the skills needed to support the child. Interesting here is that during the development of the individual learning plan by the health team, the preschool teacher’s knowledge of the child in the

90

S. Garvis et al.

preschool environment is not considered. Surely, implementing all individual learning plans in preschools cannot be achieved without realising the importance of the relationships between the health team specialists, parents and preschool teachers. There is a growing sense of uncertainty whether the inclusive approach stipulated by Swedish school law can be met for children in need of special support (Swedish Schools Inspectorate, 2017). The support offered to preschool teachers caring for a growing number of children with special needs include external professional development available through the preschools’ local community child health services and through the National Agency for Special Needs Education and Schools (2020). Examples of the resources available include a wide range of special needs resources, literature, videos and consultation and advice. The second phase of inclusion found in Sweden is the introduction to compulsory schooling for 6-year-olds, also known as preschool class. Preschool class was introduced in 2018 to provide children a good start to schooling. In this chapter, however, we focus on the first phase of inclusion within the preschool context and the important role of the preschool teacher.

Swedish Context The current challenge faced by Sweden is the lack of qualified preschool teachers. Currently, over a quarter of teachers in Sweden are unqualified or without qualifications (Karlsson, 2017), with an expected shortage of 45,000 full-time positions needed to be filled within the next5 ears (Skolverket, 2018). Cited reasons include the high intake of refugees in 2015 and the retirement of qualified teachers. To address this looming concern, immediate action has taken place, and some of the changes implemented include a fast-track programme to support foreign qualified teachers to register with the Swedish National Agency for Education, as well as providing part-time study opportunities for teacher assistants working in preschools to have their skills upgraded for registration purposes (Uusimaki et al., 2018). To become a preschool teacher in Sweden (working with children aged 1–5 years) usually takes three and a half years of full-time study at a university, while working as a childcare assistant requires two years of study at an upper secondary vocational school. To work in the area of special needs in Sweden requires a postgraduate degree, which teachers can apply for after three years of teaching in a classroom. Special needs is an area of specialisation, and there are two roles associated with this: working as a special needs teacher or working as a special needs pedagogue. A special needs teacher has expertise supporting students one on one, while the role of a special pedagogue is to lead in the organisation of special needs support of schools and often work across several schools in the municipal area. However—and what needs to be understood—is that attending a special programme or special needs school is voluntary. In line with the CRC (Ministry of Employment, 2020), if the child does not want to attend a special programme or special needs school, they then attend the mainstream school with support from a special needs teacher and are

7  Swedish Early Childhood Preservice Teachers and Inclusive Education

91

provided with an individual learning plan (National Agency for Special Needs Education and Schools, 2020).

University of Gothenburg Because the authors work at the University of Gothenburg, we provide a snapshot of the early childhood teacher education programme there. The University of Gothenburg—similar to most early childhood teacher education programmes in Sweden—runs a programme that lasts for three and a half years and leads to certification and eligibility to teach children between 1 and 5  years old in a preschool setting, as well as children in the preschool class (Göteborgs Universitet, 2019). The early childhood teacher education programme at the University of Gothenburg involves 210 credit points accumulated from three major areas of study. These include the following: • Educational sciences. The courses offered within this theme include the following: learning, development and didactics; curriculum theory, organisation, follow-­up and analysis; leadership, special needs pedagogy, social relations and conflict resolution; and science theory and research methodology, evaluation and development work (60 credit points). • Professional experience. This involves courses preparing preschool preservice teachers for 20 days of work experience during the programme at a preschool and preschool class. The courses cover areas such as learning about the preschool as an organisation, steering documents and planning and implementing curriculum documents. Further areas include investigating how the preschool setting uses digital tools to support children’s learning and development, exploring equality and equity in children’s development and learning (30 credit points). • Studies in early childhood pedagogy. The courses offered include the following: children’s play; communication, languages and literacy; mathematics in early childhood; learning and care; collaboration with guardians, preschool class, leisure centres and school; art and aesthetics; learning and nature; environment and technology. Includes an independent research thesis (15 credit points) (120 credit points). • Electives offered. Sustainable development and global perspectives; development of intercultural perspectives; organisational development; understanding governing systems; monitoring; and analysis of steering documents. (Göteborgs Universitet, 2019) The role of teacher educators in Sweden is to support preservice early childhood teachers’ development in their content knowledge and teaching practices. Teacher educators provide a support role in helping each preservice teacher. There are no common overarching frameworks for teacher education in Sweden, with each university offering different programmes for preservice teachers. Inclusion is also considered an overarching belief that should run across all courses in the teacher

92

S. Garvis et al.

education program, which means inclusive practices should be embedded throughout the early childhood teacher education programme.

International Context for Inclusive Education Over the past two decades, research examining the skills and knowledge required to teach in inclusive classrooms has gained significant attention internationally. Prior to discussing what makes an effective inclusive education teacher, it is important to reach a consensus on what is inclusive education. Internationally, inclusion is defined in various ways. Göransson and Nilholm (2014) identified four distinct ways to understand inclusion. The first aspect of inclusion mainly focuses on the placement of students with special educational needs in mainstream or regular classrooms. The second aspect relates to individual-focused inclusion aimed at addressing the academic and social needs of students with special education needs. The third aspect of inclusion is wider and requires schools to meet the needs of all students. The last key aspect of inclusion relates to building a community in schools and classrooms. Unless the system has a clear understanding of inclusion, it is unlikely that educators will be able to implement inclusive practices. There are variations in the way inclusion is understood in the Nordic countries, including Sweden. The purpose of this chapter is not to dig deep into and analyse what differences exist in the way inclusion is conceptualised across Nordic countries but to reach a consensus about how it should be conceptualised in Sweden, with a key objective being to prepare our future generation of educators to teach in inclusive classrooms. Consistency and clarity in conceptualising the concept could also assist the teacher education programmes across the country, helping them bring uniformity to the programmes. For the purpose of our chapter, we have defined inclusion as a means to address the barriers to learning of all individuals, including those who have a disability. We also believe inclusion is not possible in classrooms and schools if teachers are not well supported and if they do not have the commitment, skills and knowledge to address diversity in their classrooms. We believe inclusion is an opportunity rather than a burden for school educators. When teachers learn to include students with a range of diversities, including those with special educational needs, in their classrooms, not only students with identified diversity, but all students benefit because they have access to rich curriculum and teaching activities. The question that arises now is as follows: How do we prepare teachers for inclusion? A number of authors have written on this aspect, including EADSNE (2010), Essex et al. (2019), Florian and Rouse (2009), Massouti (2019), Robinson (2017), Sharma (2018) and Symeonidou (2017). In their exploratory study of science preservice teachers in two initial teacher education programmes in England, Essex et al. (2019) were keen to understand the conceptions of inclusion among preservice teachers and to examine the relationship between inclusion and teacher education. They found that the participants in their study were generally positive about the idea of inclusion, but they had a very superficial understanding about inclusion. The

7  Swedish Early Childhood Preservice Teachers and Inclusive Education

93

participants were mainly interested in applying a ‘surface’ application of inclusion principles during their teaching practicums, as outlined in the relevant teacher standards. ‘The need to “teach to standards” and “teach to the test” dominated their thinking about inclusion’ (Essex, et al., 2019, p. 15); they also noted that the theoretical aspects of inclusion covered in university programmes tended not to be sustained in schools during their teaching practice if the school used practices that were not aligned with the teacher education programmes. The preservice teachers prioritised the practices observed in the schools without questioning their effectiveness for the diverse student population. Symeonidou (2017) undertook an in-depth review of studies published between 2004 and 2014, focusing on how universities prepare teachers for inclusion and the impact of various programmes. They examined three kinds of university programmes: single unit, content infused and school placement/experience approaches. The review made some insightful observations. First, it is not the type of delivery that makes a significant impact on the attitude and competence of preservice teachers; rather, it is the type of content covered in the programme that is the most critical. For example, it has been argued that too much emphasis on the different types of disability and impairments in the teacher education programmes could be counterproductive. Teacher education programmes could cover information about the different types of disability and impairment, but they must talk about differences as one aspect of diversity rather than overemphasise the differences and disabling conditions (Sharma, 2018). Second, Sharma highlighted the need for teacher educators to be introspective and reflect on their practices. At the same, it is critical that preservice teachers also acquire the skills to be reflective enough to teach in inclusive classrooms. Finally, the author talked about paying particular attention to the context, stating that teacher education programmes need to be context relevant and should pay close attention to the distinct features of a country. Indeed, the idea of importing inclusive teacher education content from one country where it has been highly successful and disseminating it into another country may not produce the desired results. It seems we need a robust framework rather than fine-grained teacher education content that could be used across different countries. One framework to prepare regular classroom teachers that could have applicability in different contexts was originally proposed by Shulman (2004); his framework has since been applied to the preparation of inclusive classroom teachers by Florian and Rouse (2009) and Sharma (2018). The framework might be applicable to the preparation of teachers in Nordic countries, including Sweden. It is proposed that for any teacher to teach in an inclusive classroom, he or she needs to have three things: the heart, the head and the hands. The heart relates to a teacher’s commitment to include all learners, irrespective of the nature of diversity the learner has. The head relates to the specific set of knowledge and skills the teacher needs to have to teach the learner in a particular context. These knowledge and skills may vary slightly from one context to another but would ensure that the teacher has the competence to include diverse learners. The hands relate to a teacher’s ability to translate their commitment and knowledge and skills in real-life inclusive practices. Sharma (2018) proposed that teacher education programmes should ideally cover information that first builds

94

S. Garvis et al.

preservice teachers’ commitment (heart) to teach in inclusive classrooms before covering the knowledge and skills required to teach in inclusive classrooms (head). Once teachers are committed to include all learners, it is easier to impart the new set of skills to include diverse learners. Preservice teachers with a high degree of commitment to include learners are likely to acquire new knowledge and demonstrate their commitment when given an opportunity to practice inclusion. It is important to highlight that even when preservice teachers have the heart, head and hands of an inclusive educator, they may not be able to include learners with a disability if they teach in a school that is not supportive of inclusive education. School leaders and mentor teachers need to provide adequate support to preservice teachers to teach all learners, including those who may have a disability. In her review of initial teacher education programmes, Symeonidou (2017) found that when looking at the impact of inclusive teacher education programmes (either through a single unit or infused programme), researchers have mainly focused on the commitment of teachers or teacher efficacy beliefs. Research examining the impact of inclusive teacher education programmes on all three aspects together, that is, the heart (i.e., commitment), head (i.e., knowledge and/or efficacy) and hands (i.e., actual classroom practices) is urgently needed but is largely lacking (Sharma, 2018).

The Case Study A single case study was created. A case study is defined as ‘an empirical inquiry that investigates a contemporary phenomenon in depth and within its real-life context, especially when the boundaries between phenomenon and context are not clearly evident’ (Yin, 2009, p. 49). To complete the single-case study, a legitimate method of research is needed, drawing on the call from Yin (2002, p. 14) for a ‘comprehensive research strategy’. Our research strategy for the case study is outlined below. Research examining the preparation of early childhood educators to teach in inclusive classrooms in Sweden is limited. We made an attempt to examine how well early childhood educators are prepared to teach in inclusive classrooms in earlier research (Uusimaki et al., 2018), in which we examined all three aspects of the heart, head and hands for a sample of Swedish preservice teachers. We examined 97 Swedish early childhood educators’ preparedness to teach in inclusive classrooms by looking at their heart (i.e., their attitudes to inclusion and their concerns about inclusion), their head (i.e., teacher efficacy to teach in inclusive classrooms) and their hands (i.e., use of inclusive practices). We used internationally valid scales to measure their concerns about inclusive education (Sharma & Desai, 2002), teaching efficacy for inclusion (Sharma et al., 2012) and attitudes to inclusion (Sharma & Jacobs, 2016) to measure their preparedness to teach inclusive classrooms. Each of the three scales provide a total score. Higher scores on attitude and efficacy are indicative of positive attitudes and a high level of teaching efficacy to teach in inclusive classrooms. Higher scores on the concern scales suggest that the participants have a high degree of concerns

7  Swedish Early Childhood Preservice Teachers and Inclusive Education

95

regarding teaching in inclusive classrooms. The Inclusive Practices scale was a modified scale which was largely based on the past work done by Sharma and Sokal (2016) in Canada; this scale allows teachers to self-report how frequently they employ inclusive teaching practices. A total score is obtained, where a higher score is indicative that the teachers report more use of inclusive practices. More details about these three scales is available in Uuimaki et al. (2018). We recruited our participants from students in the final year of their teacher education programmes. It could be safely assumed that the participants had acquired the majority of content related to inclusive education by that time in the programme. We did not observe the use of inclusive practices but inferred this from the participants’ responses on the Inclusive Practices scale. We found that the participants were generally in favour of inclusion (as suggested by their attitude mean score) and that they had a minor degree of concerns about inclusion (as suggested by their lower mean concern scores). They had a reasonably high degree of teaching efficacy to teach in inclusive classrooms. The future preschool teachers had a mean inclusive practice score of 2.88 (the scores here can range from 1 = novice to 4 = expert), which suggested that they were already using inclusive practices relatively frequently. We were keen to determine three independent (attitudes, concerns and teaching efficacy) variables that influenced the participants’ teaching intentions. We found that teaching efficacy and attitudes were indeed significant predictors of the participants’ intentions to teach in inclusive classrooms. It clearly suggested that the participants need to have positive commitment (i.e., heart) and knowledge of skills (i.e., head or teaching efficacy) to positively influence their intentions to teach learners with diversities, including those with a disability. Finally, we were interested in examining what factors could predict the use of inclusive practices of the sample of preservice teachers. We found that attitudes, efficacy and intentions were strong predictors of their actual use of inclusive teaching practices. We also found that the participants who had better knowledge of local legislation that supported inclusive education in Sweden were also significantly more likely to use inclusive practices. Other demographic variables such as age, gender and level of special education training did not influence the participants’ inclusive practices scores. Our major recommendation emerging from this study was that additional courses in special needs pedagogy and inclusive practices is necessary for Swedish educators. We also recommended that teacher education programmes should explicitly cover content that could enhance educators’ commitment towards inclusion and build their teaching efficacy to teach in inclusive classrooms because we know that when teachers have a high degree of commitment and relevant knowledge to include all learners, they tend to have a high degree of intention, which translates into actual inclusive practices that benefit all learners. We hope our study will stimulate more research in the Swedish context to examine preservice teachers’ holistic preparation to teach in inclusive classrooms by focusing on all three key aspects of the heart, head and hands. Clearly, more observational studies are needed in the local context.

96

S. Garvis et al.

Moving Forward—Key Points for Consideration Given the predicted shortage of early childhood teachers within Swedish preschools, concerns have arisen about equality and how inclusive policies are implemented to ensure all children’s equal rights to participation. Although the Swedish system is based on the foundations of democracy, where all children have a right to education, this can only be achieved by having highly educated staff who know how to support all children. This is achieved through suitable training that develops the knowledge and skills needed for inclusive education. As we have previously suggested from the case study, we call on the future development of additional special needs pedagogy and inclusive practices in early childhood teacher education programmes, as well as professional learning among preschool teachers, to support the workforce in implementing Swedish educational policy. Although early childhood teacher education programmes are intended to have inclusive practices embedded in them, we suggest that specific courses on inclusive and special needs practices would develop suitable knowledge for working with all young children. This is necessary to allow a strong understanding of how early childhood pedagogy and practices can be used, deepening preservice teachers’ understanding and providing dedicated time in a preschool teacher education programme that can focus on inclusive pedagogies. We believe a stronger focus will enhance teacher efficacy towards inclusive classrooms, leading to more positive self-beliefs about working with all children and their families. We especially suggest the need for curriculum renewal in early childhood teacher education with the development of a framework that can support the development of inclusive practices. We suggest an approach like the heart, head and hand framework, which would improve the knowledge and skills of future preschool teachers; the framework is holistic and provides key ways to develop attitudes, efficacy and practices to support positive inclusion across and within all courses. The need for curriculum renewal is especially important given the influx of immigrants and refugees in Sweden since 2015, showing increasing diversity among children and their families. This has meant that around 20% of children in preschools have a foreign background, speaking a language other than Swedish. As such, there is a growing need for future preschool teachers to have a strong understanding about working with children and families from foreign backgrounds to ensure all children’s equal participation in preschools. There are several cultural differences between the Swedish culture and those of newly arrived immigrants and refugee families, whether relating language differences or perceptions about teaching and learning, all of which can understandably cause misunderstandings between preschool teachers and families. Language is central to identity and knowledge building among children (Skolverket, 2018). A unique feature in Sweden and regulated in the Education Act is that all children whose first language is not Swedish are encouraged and supported in learning their mother tongue and in learning Swedish (Skolverket, 2018). Although the municipalities are responsible for the employment of mother tongue teachers, it is up to the director of the preschool whether and when mother tongue tuition is offered at the

7  Swedish Early Childhood Preservice Teachers and Inclusive Education

97

preschool. Again, however, this requires preschool staff to have adequate skills and knowledge about working with children from different language backgrounds and a strong understanding of how to work with the different municipalities in supporting the language needs of children. More attention is perhaps necessary in early childhood teacher education to develop adequate skills and knowledge of local contexts for policies and provision of language support for all children. In addition to languages, many immigrant families come from cultures vastly different from that found in Sweden. Traditional teaching and child rearing practices as found in Syria, Iran and Somalia, for example, are vastly different and unacceptable in the Swedish context. For many of these families, the implementation of the CRC as law (Ministry of Employment, 2020) may seem imposing; hence, the challenge for all preschool teachers is about informing parents of its content and how it applies to the work in a preschool setting. There is a need for early childhood preservice teachers to be provided with an understanding of the meaning of CRC and how it applies to their work in preschool settings. Second, courses relating to an intercultural understanding with a special focus on learning about the cultures from where most of the immigrants and refugees originate can provide a way forward for both the preschool teacher and parent in their relationship building. The study also highlighted the importance of local knowledge around legislation for future teachers. Preservice teachers who understood local policy documents around inclusion were more likely to engage with inclusive teaching practices. As such, we suggest the importance of local professionalised learning hubs to develop inclusive practices that are specific to the local community. The local professionalised learning hubs could be run within each community in Sweden from universities, hence allowing preschool teachers to share and discuss effective strategies in supporting holistic inclusive practices in their preschools. These strategies could also be shared and discussed with teacher educators, future teachers and preschool class teachers (second phase of inclusion in Sweden). By involving preschool class teachers, a level of continuity in inclusive strategies can be implemented across transitions (from preschool to preschool class), providing stronger support for children and their families. A key consideration for early childhood teacher education is the current lack of observational research to highlight effective inclusive practices in Swedish preschools. If more studies were available, they could help inform Swedish early childhood teacher education with local and national examples. These could support the development of actual practices and help build self-efficacy towards implementing inclusive education, here with a focus on the key elements of the heart, head and hand framework. Researchers and teacher educators in the field should look towards collecting examples of inclusive practices through grounded research approaches to help build a strong understanding of what is currently being done in preschools and how this can be replicated in other preschools. Support for such important work must also come from local government agencies to allow funding and access to support the development of localised inclusive practices and to show how inclusion policy can be aligned.

98

S. Garvis et al.

Conclusion The Swedish school system, like each of the Nordic countries educational systems (Norway, Denmark, Finland and Iceland), is recognised in international comparisons for its policies on inclusion being closely related to the welfare state. Inclusion is part of the identity of each of the Nordic countries and is linked to the values of democracy, freedom, equal rights and participation. In our chapter, we have discussed some of the continuous challenges that the Swedish early childhood education and care sector has been grappling with given the predicted shortage of early childhood teachers for Swedish preschools and the concerns about equality and early childhood teacher knowledge about how inclusive policies are implemented to ensure all children’s equal rights to participation. We offer a way forward discussing how inclusion should be conceptualised in Sweden to prepare future generations of early childhood educators to teach in inclusive classrooms. This chapter has provided a snapshot of inclusion education and Swedish early childhood teacher education. A specific focus has highlighted the key educational policy documents before providing a study from a Swedish early childhood teacher education programme. The findings suggest that more development is needed to allow practice to match policy intention within Swedish early childhood teacher education. We suggest a starting point could be the approach of the head, hand and heart framework to create a strong basis for inclusive beliefs and practices. Although the preservice teachers in the case study were supportive of inclusive practices, a stronger focus is needed on providing the actual skills and knowledges needed to support the holistic development of inclusive education in Swedish preschools. We also noted that preservice teachers who did have a stronger understanding of local inclusive policies were more likely to engage with inclusive practices. As such, we also suggest that professional learning hubs are useful for developing local knowledge about inclusive policies and that they can provide spaces for sharing of inclusive practices in early childhood education to continue sustaining and further developing inclusive classrooms by focusing on the heart, head and hands framework. The need to develop such learning hubs is now more pressing than ever given the changing nature of Swedish society with the growing number of children from foreign backgrounds. Inclusive preschool education involves future teachers who can provide suitable pedagogy and practices for all children to continue the Swedish approach of ‘education for all’.

References Ahlberg, A. (2013). Specialpedagogik i ideologi, teori och praktik- att bygga broar [Special education in ideology, theory and practice]. Liber. Almqvist, L., Sjöman, M., Golsäter, M., & Granlund, M. (2018). Special support for behavior difficulties and engagement in Swedish preschools. Frontiers in Education. https://doi.org/10.3389/ feduc.2018.00035

7  Swedish Early Childhood Preservice Teachers and Inclusive Education

99

Essex, J., Alexiadou, N., & Zwozdiak-Myers, P. (2019). Understanding inclusion in teacher education – A view from student teachers in England. International Journal of Inclusive Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2019.1614232 European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education (EADSNE). (2010). Teacher education for inclusion: International literature review. European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education. Florian, L., & Rouse, M. (2009). The inclusive practice project in Scotland: Teacher education for inclusive education. Teacher and Teaching Education, 25(4), 594–601. Göransson, K., & Nilholm, C. (2014). Conceptual diversities and empirical shortcomings – A critical analysis of research on inclusive education. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 29(3). https://doi.org/10.1080/08856257.2014.933545 Göteborgs Universitet (2019). Förskollelärarprogrammet. https://lararutbildning.gu.se/utbildning/ forskollararprogrammet Gustafsson, B.  M., Proczkowska-Björklund M., & Gustafsson, P.  A. (2017). Emotional and behavioural problems in Swedish preschool children rated by preschool teachers with the strengths and difficulties questionnaire (SDQ). https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/ PMC5401349/. Karila, K. (2017). ECEC pedagogy in the Nordic countries  – Its roots and current challenges. Report pedagogy in ECEC. Nordic challenges and solutions. file:///C:/Users/xuusli/Downloads/ PEDAGOGYINECEC.pdf. Karlsson Lohmander M. (2017). Sweden  – ECEC workforce profile. In P.  Oberhuemer & I.  Schreyer (Eds.), Workforce profiles in systems of early childhood education and care in Europe. www.seepro.eu/English/Country_Reports.htm Massouti, A. (2019). Rethinking teacher education for inclusion: A literature review. Canadian Journal for New Scholars in Education, 10(1), 1–9. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/ee67/ c011b6d9b90e34adfa11d4a0f6f3f80103bd.pdf Ministry of Employment. (2020). Questions and answers about incorporating UN convention on the rights of the child into Swedish law. Government offices of Sweden. https://www.government.se/articles/2018/04/questions-­and-­answers-­about-­incorporating-­un-­convention-­on-­the-­ rights-­of-­the-­child-­into-­swedish-­law/. National Agency for Education. (2015). Beskrivande data 2015 [Descriptive statistics 2015]. National Agency for Education. National Agency for Special Needs Education and Schools. (2020). Special needs education (SNE) in Sweden. https://www.spsm.se/om-­oss/english/the-­swedish-­education-­system/ laws-­and-­rights-­in-­swedish-­schools/special-­needs-­education-­sne-­in-­sweden/. OECD. (2011). Social justice in the OECD: How do the member states compare? Sustainable governance indicators 2011. Bertelsmann Stiftung. Palla, L. (2018). Characteristics of Nordic research on special education in preschool: A review with special focus on Swedish conditions. International Journal of Inclusive Education. https:// doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2018.1441337 Robinson, D. (2017). Effective inclusive teacher education for special educational needs and disabilities: Some more thoughts on the way forward. Teacher and Teaching Education, 61(2), 164–178. Sharma, U. (2018). Preparing to teach in inclusive classrooms. In Oxford research encyclopedia of education. https://oxfordre.com/education/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.001.0001/ acrefore-­9780190264093-­e-­113. Sharma, U., & Desai, I. (2002). Measuring concerns about integrated education in India. Asia and Pacific Journal on Disability, 5(1), 2–14. Sharma, U., & Jacobs, K. E. (2016). Predicting in-service educators’ intentions to teach in inclusive classrooms in India and Australia. Teaching and Teacher Education, 55, 13–23. Sharma, U., & Sokal, L. (2016). Can teachers’ self-reported efficacy, concerns, and attitudes toward inclusion scores predict their actual inclusive classroom practices? Australasian Journal of Special Education, 40(1), 21–38.

100

S. Garvis et al.

Sharma, U., Loreman, T., & Forlin, C. (2012). Measuring teacher efficacy to implement inclusive practices. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 12(1), 12–21. Shulman, L.  S. (2004). The wisdom of practice: Essays on teaching, learning and learning to teach. Jossey-Bass. Skolverket. (2018). Curriculum for the preschool Lpfö 18. Norstedts Juridik kundservice. https:// www.skolverket.se/getFile?file=4049 Skolverket. (2020). Ny prognos: Fortsatt mycket stort behov av fler lärare. https://www. skolverket.se/om-­oss/press/pressmeddelanden/pressmeddelanden/2019-­12-­09-­ny-­prognosfortsatt-­mycket-­stort-­behov-­av-­fler-­larare Skolverket (Swedish National Agency for Education). (2015). Beskrivande data 2013. Förskola, skola och vuxenutbildning. Skolverket. Swedish Education Act. (2010:800). Stockholm: Swedish Code of Statutes. Swedish Schools Inspectorate. (2017). Förskolans Arbete Med Barn i Behov av Särskilt Stöd. [Preschools work with children in need of special support]. Schools Inspectorate. Symeonidou, S. (2017). Initial teacher education for inclusion: A review of the literature. Disability & Society, 32(3), 401–422. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2017.1298992 Uusimaki, L., Garvis, S., & Sharma, U. (2018). Swedish early childhood preservice teachers’ intensions, attitudes and concerns for engagement in inclusive classrooms. International Journal of Special Needs Education, 22(2), 1–10. Volmari, K. (2019). Basic education in the Nordic region. Similar values, different policies. Finnish National Agency for Education. Reports and Surveys 2019, 4 https://www.oph.fi/sites/default/ files/documents/30955454_basic_education_in_the_nordic_region_netti_19_04_08_0.pdf Yin, R. K. (2002). Case study research: Design and methods. SAGE Publications. Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed.). Sage. Zakirova Engstrand, R., & Roll-Pettersson, L. (2012). Inclusion of preschool children with autism in Sweden: Attitudes and perceived efficacy of preschool teachers. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 14(3), 1–10.

Part II

Practice Perspectives

Chapter 8

Developing Inclusive Learning Environments – When Collaboration Is (Not) the Answer Charlotte Riis Jensen, Mette Molbæk, Maria Christina Secher Schmidt, and Janne Hedegaard

Abstract This chapter focuses on how collaboration within special education needs (SEN) and inclusionary practices in broader early years education takes place in—and across—early education and early care (ECEC). Recently, there has been a focus on how collaboration between professionals can have an impact on the development of pedagogical inclusionary practice. The purpose of this chapter is to argue that collaboration in and of itself does not solve the challenges of developing inclusive environments but that it requires more focus on how to collaborate to develop inclusionary practices. Our research shows that the traditional understanding of SEN is dominate in collaborative processes, that the general understanding of professional work related to SEN is mainly directed at strategies targeting and compensating for the needs of the individual child and that these strategies seldom involve changes in the actual professional practice of educators and social workers, including their collaborative methods. Unintended collaborative processes may result in an exclusion process rather than inclusive one if collaboration is understand as a harmonic and resourceful place for consensus and not a place for negotiations and conflicting perspectives that can develop practice. Based on the findings from the research project ‘Approaching Inclusion’ (2016–2020) (Hansen et  al., Samarbejdsprocesser om inklusion og eksklusion [Collaboration processes on inclusion and exclusion]. NUBU (National Research Center for Children and Youth

C. R. Jensen (*) · J. Hedegaard Copenhagen University College, Denmark, Copenhagen, Denmark e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] M. Molbæk VIA University College, Aarhus, Denmark e-mail: [email protected] M. C. S. Schmidt University College Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 H. Harju-Luukkainen et al. (eds.), Special Education in the Early Years, International Perspectives on Early Childhood Education and Development 36, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-91297-0_8

103

104

C. R. Jensen et al.

at High Risk), 2020b), we propose an understanding of collaboration that succeeds in creating new spaces and places for all children. Keywords  Inclusion · Practices · Collaboration · Special education

Introduction In Denmark, practice and legislation focusing on special education needs (SEN) and inclusion have been rethought over the last decade. Through the Inclusion Law (2013), Special Education Law (2012), Reform of the Public School (2014) and the Daycare Law (2018), inclusion that encompasses a wider diversity of children has become a general claim in Danish institutions. In Denmark, early education and early care (ECEC) is divided into daycare (ages 0–6) and preschool (ages 6–8), and these institutions rarely share the same location. In this chapter, ECEC will be explored for these two institutions. These laws have implied that in Denmark, the development of inclusive environments has been highly prioritised at both the higher government and lower municipal levels and in the field of pedagogical and didactic practices in ECEC. This becomes significant in relation to the professionals who work with and collaborate on how to meet all children’s needs. This has entailed the employment of different types of consultants who, in collaboration with educators, are obligated to support the development of inclusive environments. In this chapter, we use the term ‘consultant’ because their focus is on counselling and supporting professional development and increasing the quality of practical professional practice.

 ational Strategies for Special Education N and Inclusive Education In a Danish context, in 2012, international inclusion demands (e.g., Salamanca Statement) led to a legislation law regarding SEN and inclusion. In the late summer of 2012, an amendment to the act on inclusive learning environments in Danish schools was adopted (Baviskar et al., 2013; KL, 2013; UVM, 2012). Furthermore, an agreement was implemented in 2013, stating that all 98 municipalities in Denmark must work towards the goal of including as many children as possible and ensuring they are educated to the highest level possible. In addition, this agreement pointed out that the well-being of children must be maintained with the increased inclusion of all children.

8  Developing Inclusive Learning Environments – When Collaboration Is (Not)…

105

Developing inclusive environments in early education and early care (ECEC) was supported by a financial agreement made in 2016, where funds were allocated during the period of 2016–2019 to a team of pedagogical practice supervisors working in the field to develop inclusive environments through professional collaboration. A study of inclusion efforts in early education and early care institutions indicates that the efforts have been aimed at supporting all children to develop in the best way possible, regardless of their special needs, and are focused primarily on children’s learning, well-being and social development (Ejrnæs & Moesby-­ Jensen, 2019). In 2017, the most recent political agreement regarding early education ad early care was introduced: ‘Strong Day Care - All Children Must Join the Community’ (Ministry of Children and Social Affairs, 2017). Subsequently, a revised daycare law was brought about in July 2018. The changes came with legal requirements for work with a reinforced pedagogical curriculum (Aabro, 2019; Mortensen & Næsby, 2018); this includes a recommendation that encourages professionals to specifically focus on children in vulnerable positions, parental cooperation in children’s learning and a connection to ECEC, thus focusing on a more coherent child policy. In ECEC, the number of children who are 6 years old and under and placed in special institutions is very low. Hence, inclusive learning in this age group implies that the educators have a significant role in relation to identifying children in vulnerable positions and difficulties. Professional experts in the field emphasise that qualified work with and for the inclusion of children in difficulties requires that the educators in the institutions collaborate with other professionals to make decisions (Kjær, 2009; EVA, 2014). The Danish National Service Act (2020) suggests that educators should focus on preventing negative social heritage and exclusionary practice and ‘that the pedagogical services are an integral part of both the municipality’s overall general services for children and young people and of the preventive and supportive efforts including children and young people with mental and physical disabilities’ (UVM, 2020). To fulfil the Service Act (2020), the 98 municipalities in Denmark formulated a coherent child policy that describes that early education and early care institutions should have a significant role in the prevention efforts against negative social heritage and exclusion. The act also recommends the municipalities ensure that children, including those with physical or mental disabilities, receive the necessary support, care and learning in these services (UVM, 2020).

Implications in Implementation Strategies Danish policy requires that inclusive practice focus on how to develop a more inclusive learning environment to ensure children’s right to participate in the local ECEC and to meet all children’s special needs in an inclusive environment. Research in inclusive education in Denmark shows an enormous variation in practice, though. The Salamanca Statement makes it clear that collaboration across institutions and

106

C. R. Jensen et al.

professionals is essential for promoting inclusion and that exclusionary practices appear when professionals instead work independently (Ejrnæs & Moesby-Jensen, 2019). Although there has been a focus on developing inclusive environments, as well as on children’s well-being and development in ECEC through collaboration, professionals still point out that they face many challenges in their daily practice (Jensen, 2017). In a report from the Danish Evaluation Institute (EVA, 2014), 59% of teachers, 57% of leaders, 53% of special educators and 43% of educators experienced obstacles to practising inclusive pedagogy. Despite the municipalities offering possibilities for collaboration, for example, with special educators and consultants, teachers and other educators still experience great challenges in working towards a more inclusive practice (EVA, 2014). This indicates that they need other ways to collaborate and that the form in which collaboration takes place is not the answer to the challenges facing the development of inclusive learning environments. The understanding of inclusive practice and how it takes place in practice fluctuates greatly. Municipalities develop their own definition of inclusive learning environments, and the way to practice inclusion in ECEC does not necessarily follow this definition in their strategies and daily work (EVA, 2014; Hansen et al., 2020b; UVM, 2020). In short, various initiatives have been undertaken to meet the political goals and legislative recommendations, including supporting educators by educating them in working with children’s special needs and supporting inclusive settings. Also, a strengthened focus on collaboration between professionals representing special education and general education has been highlighted as a part of the answer for meeting all children’s needs. Thus, in the ECEC area, 70% of the general institutions receive a form of special resources by employing trained consultants, such as speech educators, psychologists and inclusion consultants. Corresponding with this, 62% of general schools receive special resources via inclusion consultants attached to the school (BUPL, 2010). In general, the tendency in Denmark has been to build extensive support systems around educators’ practices, such as internal and external consultants and the employment of, for instance, educational consultants, inclusion consultants, reading educators and so forth, which is a practice that presupposes that educators and internal and external consultants collaborate to develop inclusive environments to meet all children’s needs. Although consultants with specialised knowledge of inclusion, diagnoses or different kinds of difficulties and special needs are involved in ECEC, there are indications that these collaborations do not sufficiently contribute to develop inclusive learning environments (Hansen et al., 2020b).

8  Developing Inclusive Learning Environments – When Collaboration Is (Not)…

107

Implications for Inclusive Practice and Collaboration As a pedagogical and organisational principle, inclusion constitutes a paradigm shift—a radical breakthrough with established traditions and forms of organisation; it creates change in existing professional roles, identities and relationships (Kjær, 2007; Kjær, 2010; Kjær, 2013) and requires new developments regarding how to adapt to a more inclusive practice with the aim of including all children. In the research project ‘Approaching Inclusion’, which investigated cross-­ professional collaboration and its impact on developing more inclusive schools (Hansen et al., 2020b; Molbæk et al., 2019; Schmidt et al., 2018), we started by understanding inclusion and exclusion as two interrelated and constitutive mechanisms of society (Bjerre, 2015; Hansen, 2016; Laclau, 1996). From a sociological perspective, all communities need to place limits on what can be included and what must be excluded to secure their own existence (Hansen, 2012; Hansen et al., 2018). On the one hand, communities are characterised by some degree of diversity, while on the other hand, there needs to be a limit to how much diversity a community can accommodate without it posing a threat to the cohesion of the community. From this perspective, inclusion as a concept cannot be considered by excluding the otherness exclusion (Hansen, 2012, 2016; Laclau, 1996). It is also not possible to define a normative or moral limit to inclusion, nor to avoid limits and make them unambiguous. When we consider inclusion and exclusion as constitutive mechanisms of all communities, inclusive education becomes a question of the rights and obligations for the individual and collective. Thus, it is an issue that also revolves around the right to participate, the obligation to adapt to the social order, the need to put limits on diversity and the obligation to ensure that all students participate (Hansen et al., 2020b). Following this, the challenge for developing inclusive learning environments is to balance between the differences of the individuals while simultaneously setting limits on how much diversity can be accommodated before it destroys the social structure in the inclusive environment. From this perspective, collaboration should contribute to support children to learn to be able to participate and make the necessary changes in the inclusive environment. Based on analysis of our fieldwork of how collaboration takes place in a school context, we offer an understanding of collaboration as a negotiation between different and conflicting perspectives, practices and understandings, all of which contribute to transform the social structure and underlying assumptions (Hansen et  al., 2020a, b; Latour, 2005). With inspiration from Feldman’s (2003) concept of subroutines, we assume that school practice consists of several subpractices that are interrelated and interdependent. In cross-professional collaborative processes, professionals represent different subpractices, perspectives and positions; these subpractices contain different roles, functions and main goals, which the professionals focus on in their specific practice (Feldman, 2003).

108

C. R. Jensen et al.

Research Focus and Design This chapter is based on the findings from the research project Approaching Inclusion (2016–2019), which investigated how collaborative processes between teachers and other educators have an impact on inclusive school development (Hansen et  al., 2020b; Molbæk et  al., 2019; Schmidt et  al., 2018). The overall research question focuses on how interdisciplinary collaboration can develop inclusive learning environments that support the learning and development of all children within a social practice while managing the processes of inclusion and exclusion. Based on our understanding of inclusion and exclusion as constitutive mechanisms of communities, we have investigated how collaboration takes place between teachers and other educators. How do they collaborate? What are they doing? Where? About what? Our data include one week of video observations and field notes from 12 classes in six different schools. Also, we attended different types of meetings between different professionals, for example, teachers, consultants, psychologists, school leaders, social workers and so forth. (n = 72). The meetings were audio recorded and then transcribed. Third, we conducted 37 focus group interviews with students (n  =  12), teachers (n  =  12) and internal and external consultants (n  =  13). Our approach to the fieldwork and analysis was mainly influenced by ethnomethodology (Goffman, 2014), grounded theory (Clarke, 2005) and actor–network theory (ANT) (Latour, 2005). In the process of analysis, we used a situational analysis (Clarke, 2018), which supports a data-driven and exploratory approach through mappings of the central themes, here with an emphasis on social practice, complexity, variations and silence in the data. This research project was conducted in accordance with the Human Research Ethics Committees’ guidelines. In addition to focusing on anonymity, we also emphasised involving the informants and other researchers in the validation of our findings through seminars and workshops where we presented our work and results. We have worked through inductive processes to reach more abductive processes, starting with constructing the data to investigate how collaboration takes place. Based on our analysis of the data, the project offers a complex and sensitive understanding of cross-professional collaboration, showing how it is influenced by many different mechanisms and factors that interact and affect each other and no factors alone.

Findings Our research has highlighted the basic and very important fact that professionals in collaborative processes represent different understandings and approaches to inclusion, inclusive environments, inclusive practice, SNE and so forth. The interest in and goals for collaboration are also different from each other. In our analysis, we identified the different positions undertaken by professionals in their work and

8  Developing Inclusive Learning Environments – When Collaboration Is (Not)…

109

collaboration on supporting children’s learning and development. The following positional map (Clarke, 2018) of positions illustrates different understandings of inclusion in collaborative processes, showing the major positions identified in the analysis of these processes (Hansen et al., 2020b; Molbæk et al., 2019). The model (Fig. 8.1) presents the four positions representing the professionals’ perspectives of their practice and, thus, their understanding of how to support a child’s (special) needs. With a narrow perspective and focusing on individuality, the professionals focused on the individual child’s special needs and how to compensate for these needs, for example, by giving individual social training outside the classroom. Focusing on collectivity in a narrower perspective refers to the professionals focusing on groups of children and their specific challenges. For example, the educator may divide the children into groups according to their academic level, gender, ethnicity and so forth to meet the specific needs this group has. In a wider perspective with a focus on the individual, the professionals focused on both the community and individual’s needs. Here, the professionals differentiated to meet all children’s individual needs and right to participate by supporting and developing a learning environment with multiple ways to participate. Focusing on the collectivity in a wider perspective means that the professionals were focusing on the community as a whole, without giving known differences any specific attention; the professionals presupposed that all children can adapt to social practices and, thereby, primarily focus on all children’s rights and obligation to participate without necessarily supporting each child to be able to participate. The four positions that are presented were found to be represented and negotiated in the professionals’ collaborative processes when they were working to support the children’s opportunities for participation. Based on our analysis, we find that the negotiations between these different positions led to very different outcomes when a child needs support to participate in the social and academic activities in ECEC. Our findings show that despite these differences, the strategies mostly focused on compensation and treatment based on the individual children’s special needs and placed limits on diversity.

Fig. 8.1  Positions in collaborative processes

110

C. R. Jensen et al.

Following this, one of the first and most important tasks in SEN and inclusive education is to identify and discuss how the professionals positioned themselves and their reasoning for this. We argue that to succeed in ensuring all children’s different needs are met, the team around the individual child must work within all the above positions.

When Collaboration Becomes Decoration Although we have identified different positions in professional collaboration work that are centred around children, it becomes evident that the primary focus is on the individual child and his or her special educational needs (Hansen et al., 2020b). If the work and collaboration on supporting a child’s opportunities is only focused on by compensating for the child’s special needs (lower left corner on the positional map), this means that a child’s needs and barriers to participate are often only understood from an individual and biological/psychological perspective, leaving more contextual considerations out of the professionals’ scope when understanding and handling barriers to participation. This, together with our finding regarding the fact that professionals are often seeking consensus (Molbæk et al., 2019), means that practice is not transformed, and neither are the underlying assumptions of the culture and practice, as well as the construction and understanding of differences. To develop inclusive settings that have room for all children’s needs, all four positions must be considered and reflected on but with different weights, depending on a specific situation and context. Sometimes, compensation provides support that can enable the child to participate. Sometimes, the educator needs to group children to improve their learning. In other situations, working within the cultural and social order is relevant, as well as creating more flexible ways of participation through differentiated learning activities. In other words, meeting children’s often very different needs is not a recipe or specific strategy. Instead, it requires a broad variation and consideration of approaches to both the individual child and community. In addition, our analysis on collaborative processes based on inclusive education shows that professionals’ collaboration does not ensure more and differentiated opportunities for participation in learning and social activities (Hansen et al., 2020b; Jensen, 2017; Molbæk, 2016; Schmidt, 2016). In fact, sometimes, collaboration can be seen as decoration rather than transformation in the sense that professionals’ primary focus on one position (visualised in Fig. 8.1) and their way of collaborating is neither discussed nor developed, leading to a lack of further opportunities for the children’s participation. Thus, collaboration becomes a way of documenting how the professionals ‘are doing something’ more than being a space for analysing and transforming practice to help all children receive the best possible opportunities to participate.

8  Developing Inclusive Learning Environments – When Collaboration Is (Not)…

111

Missing Links One major barrier to change is what we call the ‘missing links’ between the professionals’ subpractices, leading to a thin description of the child and their needs, which implies the solutions often focus on the child’s needs instead of the overall practices. Based on analyses of seven cases where professionals collaborated on supporting a child’s special needs and participation, we found that the missing links between the subpractices, as the model below illustrates (Fig. 8.2), have an impact on the development of the inclusive environment. The figure shows how professional knowledge and skills circulate through collaborative processes and how the significance these processes have for the solution models are decided upon, which relates to the child’s opportunities for participation. Based on the seven cases, we find that important professional knowledge in the collaborative process is filtered from the classroom practice into meeting practice and vice versa. These processes also have an impact on the understanding of a child’s needs and how the relationship between inclusion and exclusion are constructed. The following is an example that focuses on a specific case where the professionals were concerned for a child and her lack of participation in the learning activities: In our observations in the classroom we see a very noisy and active class culture. We also see a girl who participates but at the same time makes a nuisance of herself. She uses a lot of time and energy to focus on and comment on her peers and is oriented towards being social and tries to participate in the activities with her peers. She also often comments on the teacher's work.In the meetings, however, we find the professionals talking about both a problematic culture where three to five children are taking up the most time and space, as well as the professionals’ focus on the girl, who they characterise as disruptive. One teacher tells their other colleagues that he sees her like a volcano. In their discussions on how to

Fig. 8.2  Missing links in collaborative processes

112

C. R. Jensen et al.

understand the girl’s special needs, the professionals find the main cause to be problems in the girl’s home situation. After a couple of meetings, the professionals agree on a solution, where the four most disruptive children are pulled out of the classroom to work with the community in another class. The argument is that the other children in the class will be able to include these four children in the future, if they succeed in developing a stronger sense of community. Meanwhile the four children work in a small group with close guidance undertaking both social and academic activities. The girl is a part of this little group. She is also given a toy to assist her in calming down so she can focus more on the learning activities.

In this and the other six cases, we found that there is important knowledge from the classroom practice that is not discussed in the meeting subpractice between all professionals, leading to what we call missing links between practice, the professionals’ collaboration and solutions. In relation to the professionals’ work with the girl’s (special) needs, our findings suggest that she was seen with inherent and individual/family problems (e.g., her unrest, her family situation) and that her strengths (e.g., that she participates, has good relations with her peers and is very observant) were not taken into account when the professionals planned their work and collaboration to support her opportunities for participation. Hence, this resulted in solutions focusing on the individual child and compensating for the (special) need, for example, with a toy. Thus, the solution took on a predominantly individual focus while there were only a few attempts to make changes in the community or the professionals’ practice. This highlights the challenges in professional work within collaboration on supporting children’s special needs in a way that enables them and the community to develop new practices where professionals work with both the individual child’s rights and their obligations to participate. Therefore, we argue that the professionals’ work and collaboration bypass the original aim for collaboration by reinforcing an individual focus instead of including the context when supporting a child’s special needs.

How Collaboration Supports Transformation Based on our findings of the barriers in ensuring children’s needs and rights to participation are met, regardless of their level of special requirements, we argue for a new approach toward professional collaboration in the professional’s effort that ensures all children’s opportunities for participation. Collaboration and collaborative processes are characterised as complex and different factors interacting and affecting each other. The factors in collaborative processes vary depending on the situation and process, and they interact and influence each other in different ways and with a different amount of force. Collaborators represent different perspectives, understandings and professionalism, and the force in collaboration should be aimed to negotiate and handle different and conflicting issues to ensure transformation. With reference to our positional map (Fig. 8.1), the professionals became more aware of which position or perspective they were taking and deliberately positioned themselves within a different perspective in their analysis of practice. This led to a

8  Developing Inclusive Learning Environments – When Collaboration Is (Not)…

113

more nuanced understanding of a given challenge, thereby creating changes in their practice. If the professionals succeed in this method of collaboration, it can support the necessary changes in the classical distinction between special and general education. Often, an understanding of problems and strategies that only draws on the medical view of disability will appear as too simple. This perspective can, of course, provide support to enable a child, but a child also needs support through the professionals’ general work with participation in the inclusive practice (Hansen et al., 2020a). Involving both special and general education perspectives requires all professionals to collaborate, thereby handling and negotiating differences and conflicting perspectives. If they succeed in this, they can enable the development of both the individual child and the development of inclusive practices, pushing the boundary between inclusion and exclusion. To make this transformation towards inclusive education, collaborative processes between different professionals need to be based on challenging underlying assumptions, existing practices and dominant positions. Here, disagreements and the expansion of perspectives can be a resource to transform the existing practice and underlying assumptions and support new learning and innovation (Hansen et al., 2020b; Sundqvist et al., 2014; Sundqvist & Ström, 2015; Takala & Uusitalo-Malmivaara, 2012). This form of collaboration calls for a type of collaborative professionalism that holds a continuous focus on how to handle and negotiate differences and conflicting perspectives with the aim of transforming practice together and developing opportunities and participation for all children (Hargreaves & O’Connor, 2018). When the professionals are being supported in this form of collaboration, new links between the different and often separated subpractices are created, which can lead to more nuanced understandings and practices when working within SEN and inclusion.

Discussion Our analysis has explored how professionals find it difficult to work in environments with great diversity, and in their struggle to live up to political goals, they experience frustration and powerlessness over not being able to handle the situation. This experience leaves them with a feeling of uncertainty about how to work with inclusive environments and support children’s special needs (Allan, 2008; Hansen et al., 2020b; Jensen, 2017; Molbæk, 2016). Our analysis highlights that instead of supporting the child’s participation in the social and academic activities in the classroom—and thereby pushing the boundary between inclusion and exclusion—educators’ collaborative processes mostly end up with strategies targeting the child and seldom the actual practice (Hansen et al., 2020b). These findings underpin the fact that there are no easy solutions regarding how inclusive learning environments can be developed, but there is a need for a reflective and persistent process of cocreation if professionals are to overcome the challenges they experience when developing inclusive practices (Jensen, 2017; Molbæk, 2016; von Ahlefeld Nisser, 2017).

114

C. R. Jensen et al.

Based on this, we suggest an understanding and practice of collaboration as ‘a practice where professionals handle and negotiate different understandings of problems and solutions and thereby transform the existing social order’ (Hansen et al., 2020b, p. 33). We understand collaboration as the actions and negotiations that take place between the professionals and the subpractices that the professionals are a part of and the positionings that the professionals take or are offered. The latter suggests that collaboration is about creating new spaces and places for all children instead of only focusing on existing practices and filling a space (Andrews et al., 2017). In our understanding of collaboration, it is crucial that it supports the links between the subpractices and creates real transformations of the social order, ensuring more opportunities for participation. In this process, it is necessary to examine and reflect on the routines, norms and meanings prevailing in one’s own subpractices while examining (e.g., with help from the position map) which understandings of problems and solutions are seen as meaningful and which are not. In relation to special education and inclusion, this also means that the questions that govern the professionals’ work and collaboration must become more focused on identifying new ways of handling diversity and children’s different needs rather than identifying ways of compensating for a child’s special needs. As Deleuze pointed out, ‘Diversity is given, but difference is that by which the given is given’ (as cited in Allan, 2008, p. 66). Therefore, it becomes crucial to discuss how we can identify those differences that make a child’s needs so special that we can address these special needs and the child as more special than other children’s needs. If we focus more on becoming than being, this helps us keep in mind that professionals’ actions and negotiations can be seen and understood as a continuous, complicated and collaborative process, one where the focus should be on actions and negotiations rather than only on essence and individuals’ different needs (Allan, 2008; Hansen et al., 2020b). In this work, the professionals’ collaboration can either hinder or facilitate new ways of understanding a child’s (special) needs and the opportunities to change their practice.

Conclusion In this chapter, we have offered an understanding of collaboration as a joint venture, where different kinds of professionals represent different and conflicting but equally important perspectives that are handled and negotiated to transform the social structure and underlying assumptions, hence developing a balance between individuality and collectivity to develop inclusive learning environments. We argue that we need to move away from an ideal of collaboration as harmonic and resourceful and as a place for a consensus to an understanding of collaboration as a place for negotiations and conflicting perspectives; this can be the starting point for developing inclusive environments with more room for children’s different needs. If we, in Denmark, succeed in changing the understanding and practice of collaboration, we

8  Developing Inclusive Learning Environments – When Collaboration Is (Not)…

115

will be able to better support a more nuanced language and practice for SEN, leading to institutions that are more inclusive. In general, the tendency in Denmark has been to build extensive support systems around educators’ practices, such as internal and external consultants and the employment of, for instance, educational consultants, inclusion consultants, reading educators and so forth. Although consultants with specialised knowledge of inclusion, diagnoses or different kinds of difficulties and special needs are involved in ECEC, there are indications that this collaboration does not sufficiently contribute to developing inclusive learning environments (Hansen et al., 2020b). Despite the municipalities in Denmark offering possibilities for collaboration, for example, with special educators and consultants, teachers and other educators still experience challenges in working towards a more inclusive practice (EVA, 2014). To meet these challenges, we argue that we need to understand collaboration as a practice in and of itself by focusing on development through negotiations and conflicting perspectives, which can be the starting point for developing inclusive environments with more room for children’s different needs. Hence, we suggest an understanding and practice of collaboration as ‘a practice where professionals handle and negotiate different understandings of problems and solutions and thereby transform the existing social order’ (Hansen et al., 2020b, p. 33).

References Aabro, C. (Ed.) (2019). Den styrkede pædagogiske læreplan: Baggrund, perspektiver og dilemmaer. [The strengthened pedagogical curriculum: Background, perspectives and dilemmas]. Samfundslitteratur. Allan, J. (2008). Rethinking inclusive education—The philosophers of difference in practice. Springer. Andrews, M., Pritchett, L., & Woolcock, M. (2017). Building state capability - Evidence, analysis, action. Oxford University Press. Baviskar, S., Dyssegaard, C., Egelund, N., Lausten, M., Lynggaard, M., & Tetler, S. (2013). Dokumentationsprojektet: Kommunernes omstilling til øget inklusion. [The documentation project: The municipalities’ transition to increased inclusion]. Institut for Uddannelse og Pædagogik (DPU), Aarhus University. Bjerre, J. (2015). Inklusion: Fra Sociologisk Begreb til Performativ Selvmodsigelse. [Inclusion: From a sociological concept to a performative contradiction in terms]. Cursiv, 15, 125–142. BUPL. (2010). Gråzonebørn - Undersøgelse af vilkårene i de almene daginstitutioner om arbejdet med børn og unge, der har særlige behov. [Children in the grey zone – A study of the conditions in daycare with the work on children with special needs]. BUPL. Clarke, A. (2005). Situational analysis. Sage. Clarke, A. (2018). Situational analysis, grounded theory after the postmodern turn. Sage Publications. Ejrnæs, M., & Moesby-Jensen, C. K. (2019). Fagprofessionelles arbejde med inklusionsfremmende tiltag på børne- og ungeområdet. [Professionals’ work with inclusion-promoting initiatives in the area of children and young people]. In K. E. Petersen & J. Hedegaard Hansen. Inklusion og ekslusion – en grundbog. [Inclusion and exclusion a basic book. Hans Reiztels forlag.

116

C. R. Jensen et al.

EVA. (2014). Inklusion i dagtilbud - Kortlægning af arbejdet med inklusion i daginstitutioner og dagpleje. [Inclusion in day care - Mapping of the work with inclusion in day care institutions and day care]. EVA. Feldman, M. S. (2003). A performative perspective on stability and change in organizational routines. Industrial and Corporate Change, 12(4), 727–752. https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/12.4.727 Goffman, E. (2014). Stigma. Samfundslitteratur. Hansen, J.  H. (2012). Limits to inclusion. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 16(1), 89–98. Hansen, J. H. (2016). Social imaginaries and inclusion. In Encyclopedia of educational philosophy and theory. Springer. Hansen, J., Jensen, C., Lassen, M., Molbæk, M., & Schmidt, M. C. (2018). Approaching inclusion as social practice: Processes of inclusion and exclusion. Journal of Educational and Social Research, 8(2). Hansen, J. H., Carrington, S., Jensen, C. R., Molbæk, M., & Schmidt, M. C. S. (2020a). The collaborative practice of inclusion and exclusion. Nordic Journal of Studies in Educational Policy. Hansen, J. H., Jensen, C. R., Molbæk, M., & Schmidt, M. C. S. (2020b). Samarbejdsprocesser om inklusion og eksklusion [Collaboration processes on inclusion and exclusion]. NUBU (National Research Center for Children and Youth at High Risk). Hargreaves, A., & O’Connor, M. T. (2018). Collaborative professionalism: When teaching together means learning for all. Corwin Press. Jensen, C. R. (2017). Vejledning af lærere – En samskabende proces. Når lærere støttes i at udvikle inkluderende læringsmiljøer [Supervision with teachers  – A collaborative process: When teachers are supported to develop inclusive learning environments] [Doctoral dissertation, Aarhus University]. Kjær, B. (2007). Børn med behov for en særlig pædagogisk indsats. [Children with special educational needs]. In J. Olsen (Ed.), Når loven møder børns institutioner [When the law meets the institutions of children]. Danmarks Pædagogiske Universitets Forlag. Kjær, B. (2009). Basispladspædagogik og institutionskultur: om god praksis i pædagogisk arbejde med børn i psykosociale vanskeligheder i Københavns Kommune. [Basic place pedagogy and institutional culture: On good practice in pedagogical work with children in psychosocial difficulties in the city of Copenhagen]. Municipality of Copenhagen. Kjær, B. (2010). Inkluderende Pædagogik. God praksis og gode praktikere. [Inclusive pedagogy. Good practice and good practitioners]. Akademisk forlag. Kjær, B. (2013). Pedagogic learning plans and children with special needs: Transforming and anchoring - Or maintaining and negotiating? Arv: Nordic yearbook of folklore, 69, 61–88. KL. (2013). Pejlemærker for kompetenceudviklingen i folkeskolen UVM [Benchmarks for competence development in primary and lower secondary school]. Ministry of Children and Social Affairs. Laclau, E. (1996). Deconstruction, pragmatism, hegemony. In C. Mouffe (Ed.), Deconstruction and pragmatism (pp. 47–67). Routledge. Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social  – An introduction to actor-network theory. Oxford University Press. Ministry of Children and Education. (2017). Den styrkede pædagogiske læreplan. [The strengthened pedagogical curriculum] https://www.uvm.dk/dagtilbud/paedagogiske-­redskaber-­og-­rammer/ den-­styrkede-­paedagogiske-­laereplan Molbæk, M. (2016). Inkluderende klasse- og læringsledelse [Inclusive teaching strategies] [Doctoral dissertation, Aarhus University]. Molbæk, M., Hansen, J. H., Jensen, C. R., & Schmidt, M. C. S. (2019). Samarbejde i skolen: Når forandring forsvinder i en konsensuskultur [Collaboration in schools: When development disappears in a culture of consensus]. Forskning & Forandring, 2(2), 44–63. Mortensen, T. H., & Næsby, T. (2018). Den styrkede pædagogiske læreplan. Grundbog til dagtilbudspædagogik. [The strengthened pedagogical curriculum. Basic book for day care pedagogy]. Dafolo.

8  Developing Inclusive Learning Environments – When Collaboration Is (Not)…

117

Schmidt, M. C. S. (2016). Dyscalculia ≠ maths difficulties: An analysis of conflicting positions at a time that calls for inclusive practices. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 31(3), 407–421. Schmidt, M. C. S., Hedegaard, J., Jensen, C. R., & Molbæk, M. (2018). Skal eleven forpligte sig på fællesskabet eller fællesskabet forpligte sig på eleven [Should the student commit to the community or the community commit to the student]. Unge Pædagoger, 4, 38–52. Sundqvist, C., & Ström, K. (2015). Special education teachers as consultants: Perspectives of Finnish teachers. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 25(4), 314–338. Sundqvist, C., von Ahlefeld Nisser, D., & Ström, K. (2014). Consultation in special needs education in Sweden and Finland: A comparative approach. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 29(3), 297–312. Takala, M., & Uusitalo-Malmivaara, L. (2012). A one-year study of the development of co-­teaching in four Finnish schools. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 27(3), 373–390. UVM. (2012). Regler om inklusion [Rules on inclusion]. The Ministry of Education. UVM. (2020). The day care law. The Ministry of Education, LBK nr 2, 06/01/2020. https:// www.uvm.dk/dagtilbud/love-­o g-­r egler%2D%2Dformaal-­o g-­a ftaler/dagtilbudsloven-­o g-­ bekendtgoerelser von Ahlefeld Nisser, D. (2017). Can collaborative consultation, based on communicative theory, promote an inclusive school culture? Educational Research, 4, 874–891.

Chapter 9

How Do Children Describe Learning Self-­ Regulation Skills in the Kids’ Skills Intervention? Merja Hautakangas, Lotta Uusitalo, and Kristiina Kumpulainen

Abstract  In this chapter, 26 Finnish children between 4 and 4 years old described how they learned self-regulation skills after participating in the Kids’ Skills programme in an early childhood education (ECE) setting. Kids’ Skills is a programme aimed at developing children’s self-regulation skills in a solution-focused and narrative way (Furman, Muksuopin lumous. Luova tapa valita lapsia voittaa psyykkiset ongelmat. [The enchantment of the Kids’ Skills. A creative way to choose children to overcome mental problems]. Lyhytterapiainstituutti, 2016). The participating children were diagnosed as having difficulties in their self-regulation. Following the Kids’ Skills intervention, the children described their learning in the form of narratives and drawings. The data were analysed using a thematic content analysis framed by Hicks’ (Contextual inquires: a discourse-oriented study of classroom learning. In: D.  Hicks (ed) Discourse, learning and schooling (pp  104–141). Cambridge University Press, 1996) sociocultural model. The findings show how the children described how learning self-regulation skills created new opportunities to have playmates. The children described learning as regulating their behaviour so that their previous challenging behaviour could turn into a strength, such as their bullying behaviour turning into friendship. In addition, the children described a change in their group membership when they were accepted to participate in joint action, and they learned to express themselves more courageously. The results indicate that learning self-regulation skills is relevant to the child, and interventions to promote the child’s self-regulation skills are recommended. Keywords  Self-regulation skills · Kids’ Skills · Intervention · Early chilhdood education M. Hautakangas (*) University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland e-mail: [email protected] L. Uusitalo · K. Kumpulainen University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 H. Harju-Luukkainen et al. (eds.), Special Education in the Early Years, International Perspectives on Early Childhood Education and Development 36, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-91297-0_9

119

120

M. Hautakangas et al.

Introduction Difficulties in self-regulation and social interaction are among the more common concerns in early childhood education (Koivula & Huttunen, 2018). Self-regulation is supportive of the conditions for learning (Boekaerts, 2011), but for many children, self-regulation produces difficulties (Kurki et al., 2016; Rimm-Kaufman et al., 2000). In developing self-regulation skills, which is mentioned as an important goal of the teacher in National Core Curriculum for Early Childhood Education and Care (EDUFI, 2019) and in preprimary education (EDUFI, 2016), a child needs the support and help of a teacher. Support for preprimary child growth and learning is defined in the Finnish Basic Education Act (2010/642). The levels of support for child growth and learning include general, intensified and special support. The same principles are used in early childhood education (Eskelinen & Hjelt, 2017), even though this is not required by the Act on Early Childhood Education and Care (540/2018). The support received by the child must be flexible, long term and variable, as needed. The role of the early identification and support for growth and learning is to prevent learning difficulties and the diversification and deepening of problems (EDUFI, 2016). In the current study, we investigated the learning of self-regulation skills from the children’s perspective in the Kids’ Skills intervention. The children who participated in the intervention received general, intensified or special support to promote self-regulation skills. The principles of the Kids’ Skills programme are based on solution-focused and narrative therapy (Furman, 2016), as well as positive psychology theory of focusing on positive emotions and a child’s strengths. The children narrated and drew pictures about how they learned self-regulation skills. This study produces new research data on the effectiveness of the Kids’ Skills programme in promoting children’s self-regulation skills from a children’s perspective. The children’s narratives and drawings were analysed through a thematic content analysis framed by Hicks’ (1996) sociocultural model, which draws attention to several levels, including the personal, activity and context levels. At a personal level, our analysis investigated how children describe their own learning. At the activity level, we examined the children’s accounts of the intervention and measures assigned to them. At the context level, our analysis focused on how the children described their group in relation to learning self-regulation skills.

 he Importance of Self-Regulation Skills for a Child’s T Learning In this study, self-regulation is understood as a set of processes by which children can control their own cognition, emotions and actions (McClelland & Cameron, 2012). Self-regulation is seen as goal-oriented behaviour that requires multiple

9  How Do Children Describe Learning Self-Regulation Skills in the Kids’ Skills…

121

cognitive and social skills (Baumeister & Vohs, 2004). Learning self-regulation skills is an important developmental goal for a child (Boekaerts, 2011); the development of self-regulation skills affects relationships, social competence, cohesion, academic competence, interactions with adults, school readiness and the ability to focus on tasks (e.g., Blair & Raver, 2015; Duckworth & Seligman, 2005; Kjøbli & Ogden, 2014; Rimm-Kaufman et  al., 2000). Thus, it is particularly important to promote self-regulation skills in children during early childhood education. Self-regulation develops in social interactions. Through coregulation by teachers or guardians, a child internalises strategies, that is, the thinking, action and emotions about the values and expectations of a particular context, hence learning self-­ regulation (e.g., Kurki et al., 2016). The positive, sensitive and high-quality interactions of the teacher are related to the child’s self-regulation and cognitive skills (e.g., Kurki et  al., 2016; Lerkkanen et  al., 2016). In addition, the timely support provided by the teacher strengthens the child’s competence and relatedness and increases the child’s autonomy (see Ryan & Deci, 2009). For children, peer relationships and social cohesion are particularly important. Studies have shown that rejection experienced by children among their peers makes them sensitive to new experiences of rejection or social exclusion (van Lier & Deater-Deckard, 2016). Negative emotionality and low regulation predict behavioural problems in peer relationships (Lengua, 2003), and aggressive behaviour and a lack of self-control constitute the risks of exclusion from the child group (Laine, 2002). Thus, emotions have a significant impact on learning and sense of ability; for example, successful self-regulation leads to positive emotions (Fredrickson, 2001; Pekrun et al., 2002). Despite several studies, researchers do not agree on the definitions or effective interventions that would support the development of children’s self-regulation skills (see, e.g., Alijoki et al., 2013; Kjøbli & Ogden, 2014). According to Määttä et al. (2017), who conducted research on socioemotional skills, blind spots are related to children–teacher interactions, children’s group dynamics and interventions. The current study brings new insights into the intervention and group dynamics in children. There have been several studies of the Kids’ Skills programme (e.g., Perband & Rogner, 2019), but further research is needed on its functioning. This study can bring new research data on the effectiveness of the Kids’ Skills programme in promoting children’s self-regulation skills from children’s perspectives.

The Kids’ Skills Programme The Kids’ Skills intervention is based on the Kids’ Skills programme developed by Ben Furman, in which a child’s developmental problems are approached in a solution-­focused and narrative manner (Furman, 2016). Kids’ Skills is suitable for supporting self-regulation skills and has been widely used in Finland and other countries since the 1990s (Furman, 2016); however, there is still a lack of research (Bentner, 2014; Perband, 2016; Perband & Rogner, 2019). According to Kids’

122

M. Hautakangas et al.

Skills, children have no problems; instead, they need to develop the skills in which they need training (Furman, 2016). The Kids’ Skills programme is based on the children’s strengths and self-esteem being supported at different stages of skill learning (Furman, 2003). Thus, its theoretical basis rests on a positive psychology that emphasises an individual’s strengths, positive emotions, well-being and growth attitude (Seligman, 2000; Uusitalo-Malmivaara & Vuorinen, 2016). The Kids’ Skills programme was inspired by psychiatrist Milton H. Erickson and solution-focused thinking. Which looks at a child’s problem from a learning perspective. The starting point for the skill training is the question of what the child should learn to improve the situation. As the practice progresses, the focus is on progress and success. Kids’ Skills is a flexible programme that can be applied to the needs of both an individual child and an entire group of children as part of early childhood education pedagogy. When children practice self-regulation skills and ask for supporters, it is possible for there to be a positive effect on the child’s entire system (Furman, 2016). Kids’ Skills has small skill goals that give the child experiences of success and learning. Kids’ Skills has been developed to help with a variety of psychosocial problems such as fears, behavioural disorders, impaired concentration and eating problems (Furman, 2003). There have been a few international studies on Kids’ Skills. In Germany, two surveys were conducted to survey the opinions of trainers. Based on the results, Kids’ Skills was perceived as a useful method to increase children’s skills (Becker, 2014; Stephan, 2014). German kindergarten teachers (N = 10) were trained to use the Kids’ Skills programme for six weeks, after which they applied it to one child in their group (Perband & Rogner, 2019). The results showed that children’s behavioural challenges had improved significantly in six out of ten children. In addition, positive changes in children’s self-esteem, ability and interaction between the teacher and child were observed.

Research Questions Our aim was to understand how children describe learning self-regulation skills through the Kids’ Skills intervention and programme. The following questions were specified as research questions: 1. What changes do children describe regarding the development of self-regulation skills on a personal level? 2. How do children describe the changes of the activity level on the development of self-regulation skills? 3. What benefits do children describe in learning self-regulation skills?

9  How Do Children Describe Learning Self-Regulation Skills in the Kids’ Skills…

123

Research Methods Kids’ Skills Intervention The Kids’ Skills intervention was conducted over a 10-week period in autumn 2017. The children drew pictures and told the researcher about learning self-regulation skills in April 2018. First, the teacher agreed with the child’s guardians about the child’s skill training. Second, the teacher and child agreed on learning the skill in practice. For example, if the child was to practice the so-called ‘friend skill’, then the teacher could design pedagogical play situations for her/him and peers in which the child practices that skill. The child’s motivation to learn a skill is aroused by mapping the benefits of the skill, for example, aggressive behaviour towards peers as a ‘friend skill’. Here, the benefits of the skill were mapped through comic strip conversations. Cause-and-effect relationships were drawn for the child to see what happens when the child behaves aggressively and, accordingly, how the child makes friends. The child chooses a power creature (e.g., Superman), encouragers (e.g., the teacher) and a celebration of skill learning. How children will practice the skill and how they will be reminded if they forget the skill is agreed upon with the children. Once the children have learned the skill, the next skill may be agreed on with they (Furman, 2016). In this intervention, the teachers used comic strips in addition to the Kids’ Skills programme to motivate the child to practise self-regulation skills. The comic strips are based on Carol Gray’s (1994) the Comic Strip Conversation, which has been expanded to describe the visual clarification of everyday things through drawings or images (see Peltola, 2009). The comic strips support the children’s socioemotional skills and action management by supporting independent action and teaching understanding and internal processing of social situations. For example, if a child learns a friend skill, then the teacher will draw a comic strip for him or her about what happens when he or she is aggressive. The teacher draws the first picture depicting a challenging situation, for example, a dispute. The teacher and child then discuss the situation and what then happened to the child and peers. They then agree that the child will not behave that way and draw a cross over it on the picture. Next, the teacher and child discuss how the child gets playmates and plays games without disputes. Of these, the teacher draws a comic strip. The teacher draws the child’s desired behaviour, that is, how to play in harmony with peers and agree on the games together. In challenging situations, the teacher can draw the desired behaviour for the child, or he or she can remind the child of a behavioural strategy previously drawn. In the current study, it was agreed that the children would concentrate on learning friendship skills, patience skills and courage skills. Friendship skills are the social skills that require the ability to adjust one’s behaviour according to the situation. The children themselves had renamed these skills. For example, the skill of friendship became the ‘princess skill’ and the skill of courage became the ‘knight skill’.

124

M. Hautakangas et al.

Study Participants The study was conducted in four groups at two day care centres in Finnish ECE or preprimary education institutions. The study involved 26 children aged 4 to 14 years (15 boys and 11 girls). Of the children, 16 were in early childhood education, nine were in preprimary education and one child was in primary education. During the interview, the child was at school for an internship in the day care centre and wanted to tell the researcher about his own experiences; he was a former child of the day care centre and had practised self-regulation skills at the age of 5 or 6 in the Kids’ Skills intervention. Nine children had special or intensified support for learning or social skills. All children had a higher than normal need for support in regulating emotions or behaviour. For two children, Finnish was their second language. Table 9.1 describes the ages and genders of the children.

Data Collection The first researcher collected the data from children in the day care centres and preschool. During the intervention, teachers were responsible for implementing the Kids’ Skills programme, and the researcher observed children for 4 days in each group, so she became a person familiar to the children. Similarly, the researcher was familiar with the children’s self-regulation skills based on the observations. The children’s teacher and researcher told the children about the interview (Einarsdottir et al., 2009). In small groups around the table, the researcher and three to five children discussed learning self-regulation skills. They discussed practising the children’s self-regulation skills in the intervention. During the discussion, the children drew the learning of their chosen skill. There were 62 min of group interviews with the children. The joint discussions lasted from 10 to 15 min each. After a joint discussion and drawing, each child told the researcher alone about learning self-regulation skills and about their own drawing. All situations were videotaped. The duration of the children’s interviews ranged from 4 to 21 min, here depending on the child’s willingness to speak. The total time of the individual child interviews Table 9.1  Descriptive information of the participants Age Girls Boys Levels of support 4 2 5 3 intensified support, 4 general support, but children practised self-regulation skills intensively 5 4 5 2 intensified support, 2 general support, but children practised self-regulation skills intensively, 5 general support 6 2 5 7 general support, but children practised self-regulation skills intensively 7 1 1 2 general support, but children practised self-regulation skills intensively 14 – 1 One special support

9  How Do Children Describe Learning Self-Regulation Skills in the Kids’ Skills…

125

was 161 min. The children had the right to change their minds during the interview (Viljamaa, 2012). Two children drew pictures and then refused to tell the researcher anything. Interview studies of children have been criticised for their introductory and questioning nature (Karlsson, 2016). When interviewing the children in the current study, the aim was to avoid questions in which the child would answer according to the adult’s wishes. Most of the questions were formulated as open questions: ‘tell me something / tell me more’ (Ruusuvuori & Tiittula, 2009). The course of the interviews varied considerably, and a common understanding was built throughout (Roos & Rutanen, 2014). The aim was to end the interviews so that the child would have had a positive experience (Gollop, 2000).

Data Analysis The children’s narratives were transcribed, resulting in 57 pages of text (Arial, 12, 1.15 spacing). The children’s drawings were investigated alongside the narratives and used to support the interview (Yuen, 2004). The interview data were reduced to texts dealing with the children’s skills learning process. In looking for common themes, the resulting data were approached with a thematic content analysis. The analysis was framed by Hicks’ (1996) sociocultural model with a focus on the individual children and how they described the learning of self-regulation skills at the personal, activity and context levels. At the personal level, our analysis investigated how children describe their own learning. At the activity level, we examined the children’s accounts of the intervention and what changes in activities they described. At the context level, our analysis focused on how the children described their group in relation to learning self-regulation skills and how the children considered they had benefitted from learning self-regulation skills. Three themes emerged in the analysis: changes from challenges to child strengths, change in child behaviour and changes in child group roles and dynamics. These describe the results at the personal, activity and context levels.

Trustworthiness and Ethical Solutions The research proceeded in accordance with ethical standards. Through ethical reflection, a research method was developed in which the children were seen as valuable sources of information and participants in research at every stage of the process (Kumpulainen et  al., 2015). Undertaking research on children can bring about many challenges (Karlsson, 2012), which may be because adults often underestimate children’s ability to participate (Lansdown, 2010). The specificity and diversity of children can challenge researchers to interpret the children’s experiences of learning truthfully (Karlsson, 2016). In the current study, researcher

126

M. Hautakangas et al.

triangulation was used to critically assess the challenges related to children’s research and the researcher’s position (see Mustola et al., 2017). Permission to conduct the study was sought orally from the children, and they had the opportunity to refuse at several stages. Written permission was obtained from the children’s guardians, the leaders of the day care centres and the city’s early childhood education services. The trustworthiness of the study was assessed throughout the research process by the three authors. The first author wrote the analysis, having considered the instructions and comments of the other two authors. Based on the results, we assessed the effects of the research on supporting children’s self-regulation skills in early childhood education.

Results In this section, we discuss our results in accordance with the research questions. First, we illustrate the effects children describe on the development of self-­regulation skills at a personal level. Next, we discuss how the children described the effects of activity level on the development of self-regulation skills. We then discuss the benefits the children saw in learning self-regulation skills at the context level and how this contributed to their learning. The material citations are marked as follows: the alphabet describes the codes (A–E) and the number is the age of the child (4–14).

Learning Friendship, Patience, Courage and Tasting Skills Children were able to share their learning of self-regulation skills in a variety of ways, especially the preprimary-age children. The task allowed the children to be narrated (Einarsdottir et al., 2009), and the topic produced successful experiences for the children. At the beginning of the interview, the researcher asked the children what skill you were learning, after which the researcher used the child’s name for the skill, for example, knight skill, courage skill or patience skill. The children explained how their challenges had turned into their strengths. The difficulty of learning through experimentation and perseverance had turned into regulatory competence and learning. The children’s restlessness had turned into good manners, such as waiting their turn. Bullying other children had turned into self-regulation through compassion. The child’s selfishness had turned into considering another through empathy. The child’s inhibited regulation had turned into courage and autonomy. The difficulty of stopping play had turned into regulating one’s actions. One child had understood the importance of his activity, and he said that the teachers had helped him understand it. The transformation of the challenge into a strength was probably related to the child’s desire for success in learning the skill, as described by one child (C6).

9  How Do Children Describe Learning Self-Regulation Skills in the Kids’ Skills…

127

Changes in learning was an important goal at the personal level. As the children learned self-regulation skills, the children’s own self-image changed, for example, with courage: ‘no longer having to hesitate, as tension is a part of life’ (B7). This development is illustrated by a child’s description of his over-regulation and inhibited behaviour, which, with the skill of courage, he used to overcome his fears and was encouraged to act: to talk to peers, to play and to participate in joint activities (Fig. 9.1). This child described how learning the skill of courage would also help his peers, thereby affecting group dynamics between the children. Another child described how she had previously laughed at her peers and pushed them. Afterwards, she regulated her emotions and behaviour and did not bully her peers (D7). As the children learned to regulate their feelings and behaviours while playing and interacting with peers, peer relationships relevant to the child also improved. Learning likely affects a child’s perceived well-being and happiness (see Seligman, 2000) and sense of ability (Paananen, 2019). In the current study, some children had difficulty producing and understanding speech, which challenged both understanding the child and interpreting the results from the children’s interviews. In some narratives, the question arose as to whether the child had understood the importance of practising self-regulation skills because the joy brought by the development of self-regulation skills itself was not the focus. For one child, it was important only to get stickers as a reward (Fig. 9.2). In this example, the child had renamed the friend skill to ‘princess skill’, which could describe the six-year-old girl’s interest in princesses. In turn, the name also evokes gendered thinking, defining girls in particular as calm and kind. The question that arose was whether the princess name was of the girl’s own choosing and how the influence of teachers or guardians is reflected in it. Overall, understanding a child’s perspective is challenging because children are not always willing or do not find participation in research meaningfully. Thus, the children’s ability to understand what self-regulation skills are and what motivated them to learn is challenging. Researcher: can you tell me what skill you are learning? Child: chivalry, kind of courage Researcher: what does it mean, can you tell me more? Child: being brave in some things, not daring to do. being able to do things and not just think when I am a little scared. Researcher: why is it important to learn the skill of courage? Child: that can help friends, if someone is in trouble, then try to help Researcher: what has it been like to learn the skill of courage? Child: even if it is exciting at first, nothing, that's the kind of courage it is (B7) Fig. 9.1  Courage skill

128

M. Hautakangas et al.

Researcher: can you tell me what skill you are learning? Child: princess skills Researcher: can you tell me more about what that means? Child: charity for all… helping… hugging Researcher: what are the benefits of that skill? Child: it makes stickers Researcher: why is it important to learn the skill of charity? Child: well, otherwise you wouldn't get those stickers Researcher: can you tell us more about learning a skill? Child: if it is boring, then it can be done. if there is no playmate… then the food tastes good too. it also becomes hunger. (E6) Fig. 9.2  Princess skill

Researcher: what skill you were learning? Child: must not rampage Researcher: can you tell me more about it? Child: I can't explain… not to rage and whisper to others, but if agreed, then you can rage (C6) Fig. 9.3  Friendship skill

Changes in Children’s Behaviour as a Benefit of Activity Level The children described how their behaviour had changed as they were learning self-­ regulation skills. The children had been taught self-regulation skills through comic strip conversations and teaching cause-and-effect relationships. The children reported that their peers benefitted when their behaviour had changed, especially when regarding peer-to-peer playing skills or working together. The children also described which of their peers had learned self-regulation skills. One child drew himself as enraged and then drew a cross over this. He said he could only go on the rampage if they agreed together (Fig. 9.3). In this case, the rules of the game had been jointly agreed upon. In addition, the child described how he no longer lost his temper in shops, amusement parks or day care centres. Most of the children described a strong motivation to learn. Ten of the children mentioned positive emotions, for example, that learning self-regulation skills felt good. For three children, learning was difficult or boring. The goals set for learning self-regulation skills were generally clear to the children. Four of the children appeared to have difficulties in understanding what self-regulation skills were about,

9  How Do Children Describe Learning Self-Regulation Skills in the Kids’ Skills…

129

and in the interviews, they talked about other things, such as a hurricane. Two children drew a picture but did not want to say anything about it. Two children said they were motivated to learn self-regulation skills because of the rewards. Another child was motivated to learn self-regulation skills because she considered that they increased her confidence, making her take responsibility and affording ‘nice’ play (D7).

Changes in Child Group Roles and Dynamics Changes in the role in a group of children are a significant result, both for the child personally and for the group’s activities in general. It is important because the community plays a significant role in the development of a child’s identity and growth into a member of society (Koivula, 2010). The children reported that other children had not played with them before, but after learning self-regulation skills, they had been accepted into play. A child with poor self-regulation skills often finds him- or herself in a negative circle and stigmatised (Laine, 2002). For a child who has received negative feedback, learning self-regulation skills and succeeding in interactions are relevant. Some of the older children described learning self-regulation as a new opportunity (A14). A few children also mentioned how they could influence the learning of self-regulation skills, especially the problems that had arisen in peer relationships. One child described this as follows (Fig. 9.4). The child in question also said that she had learned to restrain herself in situations in which she had previously laughed at another child’s failure, had quarrels with peers and in which they had not played with her. As the child learned the patience skill, the other children wanted to play with her, she felt comfortable, and she gained more confidence and responsibility with her peers. The children reported that their peers benefitted when they learned self-regulation skills, especially when Researcher: what skill you were learning? Child: patience, e.g., room when you are in the queue, as here, and I'm here on the last train, so I wait there, and I do not push others or skip others in the queue just because I want to always be first. Researcher: yes Child: that's not what I did. Of course, in ECE centre I did. Researcher: have you learned that skill now? Child: it still needs to be practised. (D7) Fig. 9.4  Patience skill

130

M. Hautakangas et al.

it came to peer-to-peer playing skills or working together. The children also described which of their peers had learned self-regulation skills. Changes in the in-group dynamic are related to changes in trust, responsibility, helpfulness and kindness reported by children. The children had learned that their own actions had a bearing on the kind of interactions they had with their loved ones. Helping other people had produced better games and well-being. A child’s understanding of increased responsibility and confidence is significant and necessary as the child transitions to primary education, where expectations for self-direction are higher than in preprimary education (see Ryan & Deci, 2009). The children also described how their understanding of social relationships had developed. The understanding of change in a child’s behaviour was manifested by considering another child and the effects of one’s own behaviour for oneself and peers, for example. One child described how practising skills helped him learn that other children are similar and do not think only selfishly (A14). The children also said that teachers benefit as they learn self-regulation skills.

Discussion In the current study, we looked at children’s self-regulation skill learning as narrated by the children themselves. Children’s participation in matters affecting the child is important in the Nordic countries (Bennett, 2005), and they are valuable sources of information in research about the children themselves (Kumpulainen et al., 2015). Unfortunately, there are few studies giving the children’s own descriptions of learning self-regulation skills (e.g., Booth, et al., 2019). The current study brings valuable information to this research area. The practices constructed in this intervention appear to be forms of support, such as achieving the goals set in the National Core Curriculum for ECEC (EDUFI, 2019) and in preprimary education (EDUFI, 2016) for learning self-regulation skills. What is significant is the transformation of the children’s challenges into strengths and the learning of self-regulation skills, which supports previous research on the Kids’ Skills programme (see Bentner, 2014; Perband, 2016; Perband & Rogner, 2019). Thus, support for the child was individual and inclusive (see Basic Education Act, 2010/642; EDUFI, 2016). As the children leveraged their own strengths, their well-being increased (see Peterson & Seligman, 2004; Uusitalo-­ Malmivaara & Vuorinen, 2016). The teacher’s commitment to developing the children’s self-regulation skills is particularly important. One explanation for the relationships between children and changes in the group membership was that learning children’s self-regulation skills was considered in the group of children. Considering learning and the development of the child’s self-regulation skills and building community learning processes affect peer relationships and, thus, group dynamics (see Määttä et  al., 2017).

9  How Do Children Describe Learning Self-Regulation Skills in the Kids’ Skills…

131

Changes in the role of children when it comes to in-group membership are a significant result, both for the child and group as a whole. This result supports previous research on the importance of positive, sensitive and timely teacher support for the development of a child’s self-regulation skills (see Duckworth & Seligman, 2005; Kjøbli & Ogden, 2014; Kurki et al., 2016; Ryan & Deci, 2009). Critically assessing whether a child practising self-regulation skills with the help of the Kids’ Skills programme is an object of teacher education and, thus, connected to the behaviourist paradigm. In addition, do adults build learning environments for children where the children’s self-regulation skills are constantly challenged? An important principle in the Kids’ Skills programme is that children do not have problems but are instead developing skills for which they need adult support and help. Although child participation is also offered a significant role, a child practising self-­ regulation skills is the target of teacher education. Depending on the pedagogical skills of the teachers, they enable the participation of the children in building a supportive learning environment for children. Kids’ Skills could be further developed in such a way that children’s participation is also possible during the practice of self-regulation skills and does not depend on the pedagogical competence of teachers. The teacher’s positivity, compassion, solution orientation and sensitivity form the basis of positive group dynamics in a group of children (see Rajala et al., 2019). Especially when children have often received negative feedback about their behaviour, it is important to note the child’s progress in development and provide encouraging positive feedback (see Laine, 2002; Lengua, 2003). It is likely that the child’s development will also have a positive effect on family relationships (see Masten & Coatsworth, 1998). In conclusion, the current study shows how children can view their learning of self-regulation as creating new opportunities for themselves, their peers and their communities. The present study also provides hands-on methods for teachers on how they can support children’s self-regulation skills and influence children’s group dynamics and operational culture, especially children who need support for self-regulation in early years. In this chapter, Finnish children explained how they learned self-regulation skills after participating in a Kids’ Skills intervention. The Kids’ Skills programme has been designed to enhance children’s self-regulation skills in a solution-focused way. Early childhood education in Finland and the other Nordic countries emphasises children’s agency and active participation in learning. Teacher’s agency in pedagogical decision making is also highly valued. The Kids’ Skills programme is committed to these principles and offers a flexible programme that can be applied to a range of the self-regulatory needs of a child or group of children. It has no strictly structured formula, but it encourages teachers and children to agree jointly on common plans and goals for learning. The programme also underscores the importance of teachers’ professional competence in creating learning opportunities for children in contextually sensitive and meaningful ways. The principles of child and teacher agency align well with the Nordic notions of childhood and role of education and adults in supporting children’s holistic learning and development.

132

M. Hautakangas et al.

References Alijoki, A., Suhonen, E., Nislin, M., Kontu, E., & Sajaniemi, N. (2013). Pedagogiset toiminnat erityisryhmissä ja oppimisympäristön laatu [Pedagogical activities in special groups and the quality of the learning environment]. Journal of Early Childhood Education Research, 2(1), 24–47. Baumeister, R. F., & Vohs, K. D. (2004). Handbook of self-regulation: Research, theory, and applications. The Guilford Press. Becker, A. (2014). Miksi Muksuoppiohjaajat arvostavat Muksuoppia? [Why do Kids’ Skills instructors appreciate the Kids’ Skills]. In A, Bentner. (Ed.), Muksuoppi tutkimuksen kohteena. Saksalaisia selvityksiä suomalaisesta lasten ongelmien ratkaisumenetelmästä [A Kids’ Skills as the subject of research. German reports on the Finnish method of solving children’s problems] (pp. 21–50). Lyhytterapiainstituutti. Bennett, J. (2005). Curriculum issues in national policy-making. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 13(2), 5. https://doi.org/10.1080/13502930585209641 Bentner, A. (2014). Muksuoppi tutkimuksen kohteena. Saksalaisia selvityksiä suomalaisesta lasten ongelmien ratkaisumenetelmästä. [A Kids’ Skills as the subject of research. German reports on the Finnish method of solving children’s problems]. Lyhytterapiainstituutti. Blair, C., & Raver, C. C. (2015). School readiness and self-regulation: A developmental psychobiological approach. Annual Review of Psychology, 66, 711–731. https://doi.org/10.1146/ annurev-­psych-­010814-­015221 Boekaerts, M. (2011). Emotions, emotion regulation, and self-regulation of learning. In B. Zimmerman & D. Schunk (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance (pp. 408–425). Routledge. Booth, A., O’Farrelly, C., Hennessy, E., & Doyle, O. (2019). ‘Be good, know the rules’: Children’s perspectives on starting school and self-regulation. Childhood, 26(4), 509–524. https://doi. org/10.1177/0907568219840397 Duckworth, A.  L., & Seligman, M.  E. P. (2005). Self-discipline outdoes IQ in predicting academic performance of adolescents. Psychological Science, 16, 939–944. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1467-­9280.2005.01641.x EDUFI. (2016). National core curriculum for pre-primary education 2014. Finnish National Agency for Education, Regulations and Guidelines 6. EDUFI. (2019). National core curriculum for early childhood education and care 2018. Finnish National Agency for Education, Regulations and Guidelines 3c. Einarsdottir, J., Dockett, S., & Perry, B. (2009). Making meaning: Children’s perspectives expressed through drawings. Early Childhood Development and Care, 179(2), 217–232. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430802666999 Eskelinen, M., & Hjelt, H. (2017). Varhaiskasvatuksen henkilöstö ja lapsen tuen toteuttaminen [Early childhood education staff and implementation of child support]. Valtakunnallinen selvitys 2017. Opetus- ja kulttuuriministeriön julkaisuja 2017:39. Ministry of Education and Culture. Fredrickson, B. L. (2001). The role of positive emotions in positive psychology. The broaden-and-­ build theory of positive emotions. The American Psychologist, 56(3), 218–226. https://doi. org/10.1037//0003-­066x.56.3.218 Furman, B. (2003). Muksuoppi. Ratkaisun avaimet lasten ongelmiin Kids’ Skills. The keys to solving children’s problems (2nd edition). Kustannusosakeyhtiö Tammi. Furman, B. (2016). Muksuopin lumous. Luova tapa valita lapsia voittaa psyykkiset ongelmat. [The enchantment of the Kids’ Skills. A creative way to choose children to overcome mental problems]. Lyhytterapiainstituutti. Gollop, M. M. (2000). Interviewing children: A research perspective. In A. B. Smith, N. J. Taylor, & M. M. Gollop (Eds.), Children’s voices. Research, policy and practice (pp. 18–36). Pearson Education New Zealand Limited. Gray, C. (1994). Comic strip conversations. Future Horizons.

9  How Do Children Describe Learning Self-Regulation Skills in the Kids’ Skills…

133

Hicks, D. (1996). Contextual inquires: A discourse-oriented study of classroom learning. In D. Hicks (Ed.), Discourse, learning and schooling (pp. 104–141). Cambridge University Press. Karlsson, L. (2012). Lapsinäkökulmaisen tutkimuksen ja toiminnan poluilla [On the paths of child-centered research and action]. In L.  Karlsson & R.  Karimäki (Eds.), Sukelluksia lapsinäkökulmaiseen tutkimukseen ja toimintaan [dives for child-centered research and activities] (pp. 17–66). Suomen kasvatustieteellinen seura. Karlsson, L. (2016). Lapsinäkökulmainen tutkimus ja aineiston tuottaminen [Child-centred research and production of material]. In K. P. Kallio, A. Ritala-Koskinen, & N. Rutanen (Eds.), Missä lapsuutta tehdään? [Where is childhood done?] (pp.  106, 121–141). Nuorisotutkimusseura. Verkkojulkaisuja. Kjøbli, J., & Ogden, T. (2014). A randomized effectiveness trial of individual child social skills training: Six-month follow-up. Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Mental Health, 8(1), 31. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13034-­014-­0031-­6 Koivula, M. (2010). Lasten yhteisöllisyys ja yhteisöllinen oppiminen päiväkodissa [Children’s community and community learning in kindergarten] [Doctoral dissertation]. Jyväskylä University. https://jyx.jyu.fi/bitstream/handle/123456789/23627/9789513938925.pdf?sequen ce=1&isAllowed=y Koivula, M., & Huttunen, K. (2018). Children’s social-emotional development and its support. Journal of Early Childhood Education Research, 7(2), 177–183. Kumpulainen, K., Mikkola, A., & Salmi, S. (2015). Osallistava visuaalinen tutkimus ja lapsen äänen tavoittaminen [Participatory visual exploration and reaching for a child’s voice]. In M. Mustola, J. Mykkänen, M. L. Böök, & A-V. Kärjä (Eds.), Visuaaliset menetelmät lapsuudenja nuorisotutkimuksessa [Visual methods in childhood and adolescent research] (pp. 136–144). Nuorisotutkimusseura, julkaisuja 170. Kurki, K., Järvenoja, H., Järvelä, S., & Mykkänen, A. (2016). How teachers co-regulate children’s emotions and behaviour in socio-emotionally challenging situations in day care settings. International Journal of Educational Research, 76, 76–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ijer.2016.02.002 Laine, K. (2002). Vertaisryhmä ja syrjäytyminen [Peer group and exclusion]. In K.  Laine & M.  Neitola (Eds.), Lasten syrjäytyminen päiväkodin vertaisryhmästä [Exclusion of children from the kindergarten peer group] (pp. 13–37). Suomen Kasvatustieteellinen Seura. Lansdown, G. (2010). The realisation of children’s participation rights: Critical reflections. In B. Percy-Smith & N. Thomas (Eds.), A handbook of children and young people’s participation: Perspectives from theory and practice (pp. 11–23). Routledge. Lengua, J. (2003). Associations among emotionality, self-regulation, adjustment problems, and positive adjustment in middle childhood. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 24(5), 595–618. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2003.08.002 Lerkkanen, M.-K., Kiuru, N., Pakarinen, E., Poikkeus, A.-M., Rasku-Puttonen, H., Siekkinen, M., & Nurmi, J.-E. (2016). Child-centered versus teacher-directed teaching practices: Associations with the development of academic skills in the first grade at school. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 36(3), 145–156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2015.12.023 Määttä, S., Koivula, M., Huttunen, K., Paananen, M., Närhi, V., Savolainen, H., & Laakso, M.-L. (2017). Lasten sosioemotionaalisten taitojen tukeminen varhaiskasvatuksessa [Supporting children’s socioemotional skills in early childhood education]. Opetushallitus. Raportit ja selvitykset, 17/2017. McClelland, M. M., & Cameron, C. E. (2012). Self regulation in early childhood: Improving conceptual clarity and developing ecologically valid measures. Child Development Perspectives, 6(2), 136–142. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1750-­8606.2011.00191.x Mustola, M., Kärjä, A.-V., Böök, M. L., & Mykkänen, J. (2017). Visuaaliset menetelmät lapsuuden- ja nuorisotutkimuksessa [Visual methods in childhood and adolescent research]. Nuorisotutkimusverkosto/Nuorisotutkimusseura. Verkkojulkaisuja, 123, 11–23. Paananen, M. (2019). Mastering learning situations: Self-regulation, executive functions and self-­ regulatory efficacy among elementary school pupils [Doctoral dissertation]. https://jyx.jyu.fi/

134

M. Hautakangas et al.

bitstream/handle/123456789/66126/978-­951-­39-­7928-­7_vaitos16112019.pdf?sequence=1&i sAllowed=y Pekrun, R., Goetz, T., Titz, W., & Perry, R. (2002). Academic emotions in students’ self-regulated learning and achievement: A program of quantitative and qualitative research. Educational Psychologist, 37, 91–106. Peltola, E-L. (2009). Sarjakuvittaminen [To use comic strip conversations]. In P. Karvonen (Ed.), Tarinan kertojat. Iloa ja leikkiä. Kieleen, liikkumiseen ja laskemiseen [Storytellers. Joy and play. For language, movement and calculation]. Gummerus. Perband, A. (2016). Das systemisch-lösungsorientierte Programm “Ich schaffs!” aus der Perspektive der Positiven Psychologie [The system-oriented program “Ich schaffs!” Is a Perspective on Positive Psychology.]. Universität Osnabrück. https://repositorium.ub.uni-­ osnabrueck.de/bitstream/urn:nbn:de:gbv:700-­2016080914813/7/thesis_perband.pdf Perband, A., & Rogner, J. (2019). ‘Kids’ skills’—Implementation and evaluation of the systemic solution-focused program. Universität Osnabrück: repOSitorium. Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. (2004). Character strengths and virtues: A handbook and classification. Oxford University Press. Rajala, A., Kontiola, H., Hilppö, J., & Lipponen, L. (2019). Lohdutustilanteet ja myötätuntokulttuuri alle kolmivuotiaiden päiväkotiryhmässä [Consolation situations and a culture of compassion in the day care centre group of children under three years of age]. Kasvatus, 50(4), 314–326. Rimm-Kaufman, S., Pianta, R., & Cox, M. (2000). Teachers’ judgments of problems in the transition to kindergarten. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 15(2), 147–166. https://doi. org/10.1016/S0885-­2006(00)00049-­1 Roos, P., & Rutanen, N. (2014). Metodologisia haasteita ja kysymyksiä lasten tutkimushaastattelussa [Methodological challenges and questions in a children’s research interview]. Journal of Early Childhood Education Research, 3(2), 27–47. Ruusuvuori, J., & Tiittula, L. (Eds.) (2009). Haastattelu. Tutkimus, tilanteet ja vuorovaikutus [Interview. Research, situations and interaction]. Vastapaino. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2009). Promoting self-determined school engagement. Motivation, learning and well-being. In K. R. Wentzel & A. Wigfield (Eds.), Handbook of motivation at school (pp. 171–195). Routledge. Seligman, M. (2000). Positive psychology: An introduction. American Psychologist, 55(1), 5–14. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-­066X.55 Stephan, J. (2014). Kuinka hyvin Muksuoppi toimii. In A. Bentner (Ed.), Muksuoppi tutkimuksen kohteena. Saksalaisia selvityksiä suomalaisesta lasten ongelmien ratkaisumenetelmästä [A Kids’ Skills as the subject of research. German reports on the Finnish method of solving children’s problems. (pp. 13–20). Lyhytterapiainstituutti. Uusitalo-Malmivaara, L., & Vuorinen, K. (2016). Huomaa hyvä! Näin ohjaat lasta ja nuorta löytämään luonteenvahvuutensa [sEe good! This is how you guide your child and young example by their character strength]. PS-kustannus. van Lier, P. A. C., & Deater-Deckard, K. (2016). Children’s elementary school social experience and executive functions development: Introduction to a special section. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 44(1), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-­015-­0113-­9 Viljamaa, E. (2012). Lasten tiedon äärellä. Äidin ja lasten kerronnallisia kohtaamisia kotona [By the children's knowledge. Narrative encounters between mother and children at home] [Doctoral dissertation]. Yuen, F. C. (2004). ‘It was fun… I liked drawing my thought’: Using drawings as a part of the focus group process with children. Journal of Leisure Research, 36(4), 461–482.

Chapter 10

Experiences of Educational Support for Mathematical High-Ability Children in Finland. A Netnography of Parental Perspective from ECE to the School Context Heidi Harju-Luukkainen and Laura Rhinehart

, Camilla Björklund, Erja Sandberg,

Abstract  Children who are high achievers in mathematics are statistically uncommon. For this reason, very little evidence is available on how this group is supported in preschool and later on in school contexts. In Finland, the National Curriculum for Early Childhood Education (FNAE, National core curriculum for early chilhdood education and care 2016. Regulations and guidelines 2017: 10. Finnish National Agency for Education, 2017) and Basic Education (2014) requires teachers to cultivate these children’s talents. In this paper, 10 families in Finland were studied with the help of netnograpy. The objective was to describe parent’s perceptions of the types of support mathematically high-ability students received in the preschool and school context in Finland. The results show that the parents were mostly unsatisfied with the support schools gave to their high-ability children in mathematics, even though these children were recognised in early years as high-ability children. The type/level of support children received to develop their abilities further seemed to be more dependent on their teacher or the teacher’s view on the child’s needed support in mathematics. H. Harju-Luukkainen (*) University of Jyväskylä, Finland and Nord University, Bodø, Norway e-mail: [email protected] C. Björklund University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden e-mail: [email protected] E. Sandberg University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland e-mail: [email protected] L. Rhinehart University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), Los Angeles, CA, USA e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 H. Harju-Luukkainen et al. (eds.), Special Education in the Early Years, International Perspectives on Early Childhood Education and Development 36, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-91297-0_10

135

136

H. Harju-Luukkainen et al.

Keywords  High ability · Mathematics · Parents · Netnography · Early childhood · Finland

Introduction Statistically, only 2–3% of children are mathematically gifted. These children are qualitatively different from students who are simply ‘good at math’ (Miller, 1990). Although mathematically high-achieving children typically get good grades in mathematics at school and are good at arithmetic, identifying which students have a mathematical high ability is a complicated matter. Because high-ability children are statistically uncommon, there are very few international studies on mathematically high-ability children or their families. According to Leikin (2011), in 2000–2010 only 12 papers were published in leading journals on giftedness that were connected to mathematics. Further, Jolly and Matthews (2012) synthesised 53 sources published since 1983 on the parents of gifted learners. The analysis revealed gaps in the knowledge and research area of attitudes, values and expectations of families of underserved gifted children; relationships between parents and schools; parents’ understanding of giftedness; parents of gifted underachievers; and how parents support and influence their children at home. Therefore, there are clear needs for research concerning the parents of gifted or high-ability children, in which mathematics education has traditionally been underrepresented. The social environment, such as parents, peers and educators, influence children with beliefs and attitudes towards the high-ability children’s abilities and skills, which are important factors for a child’s developing self-conception and motivation (Preckel et al., 2008). There is no evidence for high-ability students having an inherent high motivation and learning ambition; these students need to be encouraged and supported as any other student (Garn et al., 2010). However, Garn et al. (2010) showed that more than half of the parents of gifted students report that school assignments and classroom practices rarely provide challenging tasks or meaning, hindering the development of academic motivation. Therefore, once a student has been identified as a mathematically high-ability student, he or she needs special support in school to develop this unique ability. In the current paper, we have two aims. First, we want to describe the parents’ perspectives. Parents affect their children’s lives and educational outcomes in many ways. Therefore, parents are also seen as important actors in the preschool and school context and should be involved in designing and developing the school environment (see Finnish National Curriculum, 2014). In the present paper, we wanted to highlight the parental perspective concerning their high-ability child’s support measures because parents are the first and foremost caregivers for their children and are expected, according to the steering documents in Finland, to have an important role in developing early childhood and school context as well as support measures for their child. Therefore, our aim is to bring to the front the parents’ voices.

10  Experiences of Educational Support for Mathematical High-Ability Children…

137

Furthermore, we know from the literature that there are many aspects that need to be implemented for a high-ability child to thrive and develop through the preschool and school systems. According to Leikin (2009), there are several crucial components in developing students’ mathematical potential: (a) parental support, (b) special settings in school (and preschool), (c) involving technological tools that promote creativity, (d) mathematical challenges and (e) teachers’ proficiency. However, the literature on what type of support high-ability students should be given in mathematics is extremely limited; therefore, it is relevant to provide a broader picture of the subject. With this in mind, the second aim of the paper is to broaden the understanding of which type of educational support measures are provided for high-­ ability children (from parental perspective) in preschool and school contexts. Our aim is to outline the different support measures provided to mathematically high-ability children during their educational path based on their parents in Finland. From these premises, we have formulated the following research question: What type of educational support do parents emphasise as supportive for their mathematically high-ability children? To answer the question, 10 families were studied with the help of a netnography, which is a form of ethnography but conducted online. The data were collected from a national online support group for the parents of gifted children. The textual data were analysed with the help of a content analysis. We also draw from the recent literature on educational support on high-ability children and students.

Finnish Context Mathematically skilled children are noted in the Finnish National Curriculum for Basic Education (2014) but not specifically in the National Curriculum for Early Childhood Education (FNAE, 2014). However, early childhood education should be organised in collaboration with the child’s caregivers so that every child will receive early childhood education and care according to their personal and developmental needs (2018, p.  55). When children enter school age, the notion of giftedness is brought up. According to the  Finnish National Curriculum for Basic Education (2014), during classes 1–2 in basic education, ‘Skilled students are given a possibility to deepen their understanding of mathematical concepts...’. Further, during classes 3–6, ‘Skilled students are supported by giving them alternative ways to work and by enriching concepts that are processed in the classroom’ (Finnish National Curriculum  for Basic Education, 2014, p.  239). During classes 7–9, ‘Skilled students are supported by giving them alternative possibilities to work with their interest areas, like for example projects and problem-based research activities’ (Finnish National Curriculum for Basic Education, 2014, p. 376). All these remarks enable high-ability students’ individual support and development in their mathematical abilities. When it comes to the National Core Curriculum for Early Childhood Education and Care (2017, p. 87), it states the following:

138

H. Harju-Luukkainen et al.

The child’s need for support shall be recognised and appropriate support shall be arranged for him or her as the need arises. The organisation of support is based on each child’s strengths and needs related to learning and development. The support for development and learning meets the children’s individual needs as well as those related to the ECEC community and learning environment. It is ensured in early childhood education and care that each child feels accepted as himself or herself and as a member of the group.

Therefore, even though high-ability children are not recognised by the ECEC’s core curriculum, their individual needs should be met. According to Tirri and Kuusisto (2013), Finland has supported academic and creative talent through different gifted programmes and special schools to give students the opportunity to meet like-minded peers. The focus here has been on mathematics and linguistic programmes. Despite high achievement in international assessments, Finland has its challenges when it comes to education of the gifted. According to Tirri and Kuusisto (2013), more accurate information and knowledge regarding giftedness is needed for the public discussion. Also, the role of Finnish teacher education and in-service teacher education needs to be seen as crucial to better recognise and support gifted students. The focus should not only be in enhancing the area of giftedness, but also social and affective domains in student’s development and moral concerns.

Teaching Mathematically High-Ability Students The curricula for high-ability students have had—and still have—different orientations because of the educational approach underlying the regular school curriculum (VanTassel-Baska & Stambaugh, 2008). In general, there are orientations towards the individual growth and interests of the student, in which learning is very much self-directed. Also, the perspectives that have dominated the field are based on the development of high-level cognitive skills as a generative ability that can be applied to any content through creative problem solving and critical thinking. Accompanied with deep content knowledge, this orientation has shown to be successful. Another orientation is of a technological kind, where knowledge follows the standards and measured performance. Furthermore, there are curriculum orientations emphasising the social environment and cultural-historical relations, of which the student is a participant. This involves curricula where the student’s future professional life is a guiding principle for the student to develop and understand his or her own potential. Van Tassel-Baska and Stambaugh (2008) concluded, on the other hand, that the most effective curricula incorporate all of the different orientations to some extent. van Tassel-Baska and Stambaugh (2008) considered it important that any curricula developed for high-ability students should include affective and cognitive issues to enhance students’ productivity and self-understanding through their education: An affective curriculum for gifted learners would contain the following components: an emphasis on psychosocial development, self-assessment, philosophy of life, bibliotherapy, a talent development plan, and an emotional intelligence curriculum. In addition, the devel-

10  Experiences of Educational Support for Mathematical High-Ability Children…

139

opment of counselling skills, writing about emotions, reflection regulation, the promotion of affective development, sanctions and rewards, incorporation of the arts, and problem-based learning are processes that could easily be embedded within the larger curricular context for gifted students. (van Tassel-Baska & Stambaugh, 2008, p.  355; see also Gavin & Casa, 2012)

Although the research on this topic is limited, there is some published literature on the ‘best practices’ around teaching mathematics to gifted students. According to Leikin (2009) there are several crucial components in developing students’ mathematical potential. These include parental support, special settings in school (i e., settings that include technological tools that promote creativity), mathematical challenges and teachers’ proficiency. Like Leikin, Mann (2006) also sees that providing the possibilities to be creative is especially important to develop gifted students’ talents. Further, according to Robinson et al. (2014), to develop the STEM talents of young and gifted learners, teachers need professional development to identify and cultivate students’ talents. This is important especially when the effect of science-focused education on gifted students’ science knowledge can be significant (Robinson et al., 2014). Some research has discussed whether ‘acceleration’ or ‘enrichment’ is a successful strategy. Acceleration focuses on learning math concepts for older students earlier, and enrichment focuses on a deeper understanding of the content in the current mathematics class (Koshy et  al., 2009a, b). Enriched curriculum might include inquiry-based learning, questions that prompt the students to explain how and why they got their answer, problems with various ways to get to the solution and challenging mathematical puzzles (Johnson, 2000). Therefore, high-ability students are often encouraged to move rapidly through the standard curriculum, with positive outcomes. Through exploratory curricula that engage students in interesting new topics, some programmes for gifted students that pick up underachieving students have been found to be very positive for students’ motivation and sustained interest in learning (van Tassel-Baska & Stambaugh, 2008). In elementary school, some high-achieving mathematics students are frequently pulled out of class to work in small groups with other similarly high-achieving peers. Research has shown that ‘pull-out’ classes for mathematics enrichment in elementary school can be beneficial (Plourde, 2008). Pull-out is less common in high school, where there are a variety of specialised mathematics classes (e.g., algebra, geometry, calculus). Thus, at all ages, mentoring and supplemental resources (i.e., resources other than the textbook) are recommended (Johnson, 2000). Despite this, according to Mann (2006), gifted mathematics students usually end up getting more of the same work and/or moving through the curriculum at a faster pace. Additionally, although they are different from typical children in that they pick up mathematical concepts quickly and it might be tempting for teachers to leave them to work independently, high-achieving mathematics students still would benefit from individualised attention from their teacher (Johnson, 2000). Although there is limited research on gifted children, for several decades, the Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth followed children who were identified as gifted (Lubinski & Benbow, 2006). The findings from this longitudinal study

140

H. Harju-Luukkainen et al.

shed light on the development and outcomes of these rare students. Lubinski and Benbow (2006) used work adjustment theory to frame their study of these individuals. Using this theory, they examined the need for individualised education focused on gifted children’s specific interests and talents. Further, their theory supports the practice of assessing the child, along with assessing his or her environment, especially the school environment. Applying these findings suggests that gifted children need a specialised academic environment that challenges while also motivates them. Without this kind of environment, these precocious students might not reach their potential (see also Gavin & Casa, 2012). Teachers who teach high-achieving mathematics students need a solid understanding of mathematics. The current teachers of gifted students report that this understanding should come in the form of rigorous undergraduate courses in mathematics (Karp, 2010). However, many elementary school mathematics teachers lack this background. Consequently, some elementary school teachers report that they do not feel confident in their mathematics knowledge, and this makes teaching high-­ achieving mathematics students difficult (Koshy et  al., 2009a, b). One way to address this issue is through professional development. Research has shown significant, positive effects for elementary school mathematics teachers following a professional development programme. A study by Robinson et al. (2014) found that a summer institute for elementary school mathematics teachers, followed up with peer coaching during the school year, significantly improved the content knowledge and process skills for gifted students. Dimitriadis (2016) recommended that teachers should be highly trained in both recognising mathematical promise and making subject-specific provisions.

Data and Methods Our primary aim was to study parents’ experiences of the educational support they have received for their high-ability children at school. The high-ability status of the children was self-reported and described by the parents. Because there is no register of children characterised as high ability, we had to develop a methodology and design that would target these parents and attract their interest to participate in the study. Finland is a small country, but barely occupied in many areas, making social communities online a popular way of finding and interacting with persons with equal interests. Research conducted on the internet has become important in modern societies where people spend much of their free time online, connected to different social networks. Therefore, it is possible to collect data and conduct different types of research utilising social media (Laaksonen et al., 2013). According to Hine (2000), computer-mediated communication (CMC) can enrich research data collection, especially when this can be done, regardless of the limitations in space and time. This has moved ethnographical methods to new environments, for instance, to the

10  Experiences of Educational Support for Mathematical High-Ability Children…

141

internet and the different social networks in it. Ethnography conducted online has several parallel terms (Isomäki et al., 2013). Online etnography, also called netnography, is a form of ethnographic research conducted online in different social media networks with the help of a computer (Kozinets, 2010). The current research was conducted online, and the data were collected from a national support group for parents of gifted children. This support group was found on a social media website called Facebook. Facebook is the most largely used social media platform, as measured by the amount of users (Herkman & Vainikka, 2012). In this way, we addressed all parents involved in the closed group, and sample selection was based on the participants’ own initiatives to answer. Surveys designed in similar ways as ours have shown the disadvantage of the answering rate potentially being biased by emotional experiences, such as those experiencing themselves disadvantaged being more likely to participate as a way for them to express the offence. However, the answers we received showed a mix of experiences that gave us a broad picture of the experiences of support provided by the schools. On this platform, 10 families answered questions concerning their mathematically high-ability children and the support they received for their children in elementary school and in an early childhood education setting. The respondents could choose to respond directly to a discussion thread created by the research group and contribute to a discussion, or they could send a private message to the researchers. In addition to the discussion or instead of discussion, all of the respondents chose to send a private message to the researchers with more detailed information about their children and children’s school experiences. All of the respondents were female. This is consistent with research on the demographics of participants on online discussion forums. According to Finnish Official Statistics (2016), the majority of the participants in online discussion forums in Finland are female. In these families, there were 13 mathematically high-ability children or youth (five girls and eight boys). In seven families, at least one parent had a baccalaureate degree or higher, but also in five families, both parents had a higher university degree. The oldest of the high-ability children was born in 1997 and the youngest in 2012. Therefore, the children were between 4 and 18 years old. Geographically, the families were living across Finland in different cities in both large and small municipalities. In the current study, we have used a content analysis. A content analysis can be considered an ‘umbrella term’ that refers to diverse research approaches. Qualitative research involves the purposeful use of describing, explaining and interpreting collected data (Williams, 2007). Leedy and Ormrod (2001, p. 155) described this as ‘a detailed and systematic examination of the content of a particular body of materials for the purpose of identifying patterns, themes or biases’. ‘The method is designed to identify specific characteristics from the content’ (Williams, 2007, p. 69). In the current study, our data were the texts produced by the parents of high-ability children; the texts were collected and analysed by the research team. The research team was interested in exploring any description about the support measures that were described by the parents. The identified material was discussed, shared and

142

H. Harju-Luukkainen et al.

categorised. According to Leedy and Ormrod (2001), this approach leads to the highest level of objective analysis because the identification of material can be studied and discussed, allowing the quality to be mutually agreed upon. The approach also leads to trustworthiness regarding the descriptions because patterns, themes and biases are discussed within the research team.

Results In our analysis, we begin by giving an overview of parental experiences and then proceed to categorising the findings connected to support measures in the narratives.

Overview of Parental Experiences What stands out in the parents’ experiences of early childhood education (noncompulsory) is that only four out of 10 parents were satisfied with the support measures their children were given during the early years. However, a closer look at the parents’ narratives show that most children were acknowledged to be high ability in logical and mathematical areas by the preschools, but they were rarely stimulated in a pedagogical and planned way. For example, several parents were expecting their children to be supported and challenged in the early years and expressed severe frustration over the preschool and preprimary school not doing anything to stimulate the child, even though the high-ability feature was a fact tested by standard measures. For example, one parent (number 5) expressed following: The preschool did not encourage at all towards reading or mathematics but wanted only to pressure towards social development and playing with others.

However, some parents expressed appreciation with the early years education. For example, according to parent number 2, the preschool environment was seen as a positive learning environment, as follows: ‘In preschool, there were more room to be a high-ability individual’. According to a closer narrative analysis of the data, the parents were generally more unsatisfied in the preschool and primary educational environments in the support received for their high-ability child. Table 10.1 compiles the parental satisfactory narratives towards received support. However, it is important to notice that the parents’ answers were limited almost only to preschool and primary education.

10  Experiences of Educational Support for Mathematical High-Ability Children…

143

Table 10.1  Parental satisfactory in narratives of the received support during their child’s educational path Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

preschool/preprimary No Yes No No No Yes Yes No Yes Yes and no

primary education No No No No – Yes – No – Yes and no

upper secondary education – Yes – – – – – – – –

Analysis of Support Measures  cknowledgement of the Child’s High Abilities Is the Perquisite A to Get Support In the parental narratives, we could identify several factors that were important when supporting the children’s proficiency in mathematics. The most important prerequisite in receiving adequate support for the child was the acknowledgement of the child’s high abilities in mathematics. The parents who answered the survey revealed that most children’s abilities were discovered during early childhood, and this was acknowledged by the preschool staff as well. However, even though children’s high abilities were discovered, it did not necessarily lead to any support, as parent number 3 described: In the daycare, not (supported) in any way! And the same thing in preschool class nothing was done even though they knew the thing because of MAVALKA (a mathematical readiness mapping) test etc.

However, there were also cases where the children’s high ability was discovered later in early grades of compulsory education, for example, after the school had conducted surveys mapping the student’s mathematical readiness as a part of compulsory school maturity tests. For example, according to parent number 1: I was told that no special challenges were given to the boy, because he was enthusiastically involved in any activities (in preschool class). And that the boy was skilled but nothing ‘special’. During preschool class’ spring term I asked the boy’s previous special education teacher to attend the collaboration meeting and she/he asked the psychologist to be a part of the meeting as well. As a result of the meeting some tests were conducted with the boy, and as a result of the test his mathematical thinking and mental calculation skills were on a 13-year-old’s level.

144

H. Harju-Luukkainen et al.

Also, the parents needed help in supporting the high-ability children, and sometimes, they might be left outside, even though they were eager to help. This was the case with parent number 10: I wished they had advised me somehow further with my child, than just to state that your son is mathematically gifted. I am extremely motivated to support my children.

Individualisation of Education Once the high ability had been recognised, the teachers began using different support methods to develop the children’s mathematical skills. Because high-ability children would progress quickly through the regular mathematics curriculum, they were often given additional tasks or material. According to the parents, the education had been individualised in two different ways to support the children’s progress in their mathematical ability. This was done by providing the same level extra tasks and materials for the child as the rest of the class or providing higher-level tasks and materials. Also, a combination of these had been used. There seems, however, to be a variation in how this individualisation of education, that is, support, was handled by the children’s teachers. At the lowest level of support, the children were only given additional tasks. Parent number 2 expressed that, additional tasks were offered to their children, but the tasks did not challenge the children’s mathematical development in any way, as follows: Both children have been forced to do basic calculation tasks unreasonably much. School promises and promises to individualise the school material, but they are the same basic calculation tasks.

The purpose of giving additional tasks to high-ability students were unknown, but the parents expressed frustration towards this type of support because it generally meant that the child was asked to do ‘more of the same’, which the child already mastered with excellence. Here, the cognitive challenge was absent. Some children, however, received tasks that seemed to be on a suitable level of challenge, like parent number 6 described, but still they would not object to more challenging tasks: I have been happy with the support we received during the basic education because my child has been given extra and enough challenging material and he/she has also been able to help other children when needed. Though, I would not object if my child could get even more challenges in mathematics in school.

In some cases, the ambition to provide tasks that stimulate higher-order thinking were promised by schools but never carried out. One parent (number 1) of a boy expressed this outspoken ambition given by the school but added that the ordinary curriculum had to be attended to first and not outside the stated curriculum. The parents expressed a common view highlighting a problematic aspect of this kind of support. Even though the children were given books for higher grades, they had to work through the regular textbooks as well, with sometimes devastating noninterest into mathematics as a result:

10  Experiences of Educational Support for Mathematical High-Ability Children…

145

His own class teacher has obtained a 3rd year book to the class, that anyone can work with in the class if they want to. However, first you have to do 2nd year book’s chapters in question and first after that you can if you like proceed to 3rd year book.

Further, according to parent number 1, the teacher left the children to engage in what they had an interest in, so the support was about providing more challenging games (that were often meant for older children). However, sometimes, the tasks were available but not supported nor demanded to be completed or followed up by the teacher in any way. This type of practice included the idea that the teacher saw mathematically high-ability children as independent learners with no need for adult supervision. Parent number 1 described it as follows: ‘The teacher do no especially encourage or demand (the child) to do the extra tasks’. Sometimes, upper secondary education provided some children with the opportunity to choose a direction in education where additional and more demanding courses could be given. This opportunity brought a different kind of support because the children were provided with individual tasks and materials and encouragement, for example, to participate in science competitions. These opportunities were seen as very valuable according to the parents whose children had attended this type of specialisation programme. According to parent number 2: Children have been given individual tasks, own books, own material, encouragement to competitions, one-on-one individual upwards individualising time, flexibility in other subjects, etc. Upper secondary schools that emphasise mathematics and natural sciences are the best!

Another form of providing support at a higher level was to use the parents as teachers. One parent (number 8) was encouraged to find additional tasks online that the child asked for and that they could do at home with the parent as a supervisor—as voluntary and additional to the regular curriculum-based mathematics in school, as follows: She has been given, in addition to the math book, another book and we were given instructions from which webpage we could find more challenging mathematical tasks for our daughter. /.../extra material is given but teaching remains as my responsibility.

According to the parents, the children were also very often used as assistant teachers in the classroom. In this type of support, the high-achieving children were not given any extra challenges mathematically because they were already familiar with the type of tasks they were teaching to other children. Some of the parents saw this as a negative punishment, and others did not express any feelings towards this type of activity in the classroom. According to parent number 4: Sending a child to help more slower ones or by employing children with an endless number of similar tasks is an obvious punishment.

According to the results, the support given to the children seemed to be heavily dependent on individual teachers, which several parents mentioned in terms of a change of school or teacher substitutes that changed the possibilities for the children to engage in stimulating mathematical studies. However, the support methods that the children were given during their educational paths were very limited from a

146

H. Harju-Luukkainen et al.

parental point of view. For example, only one parent described involvement of technological tools. Also, no mathematical challenges that would promote creativity and develop higher thinking skills were described by the parents. One exception was the parent who had children attending a specialised upper secondary school that emphasised mathematics and the natural sciences.

Discussion and Recommendations In this paper, we have outlined the different support measures provided to mathematically high-ability children in Finland during their educational paths according to their parents. Altogether, 10 parents answered an online survey. The survey was presented on a national interest or support group of gifted children on Facebook. In Finland, support—whether it is given to low-achieving children or high-achieving children—does not need to be based on a diagnosis. This means that a diagnosis is not needed for any kind of additional support, so if a child needs support, it should be given. However, very often in the school context, students who are recognised as high achieving are not seen as in need of extra support by the early childhood education teachers or regular teachers. The findings suggest that the children were used as assistant teachers, and they did not receive mathematical challenges at their own level or beyond it. This result is in line with prior studies (Mann, 2006; Johnson, 2000). Indeed, most of the children were recognised in early years as high-ability children. However, the support the children received to develop their abilities further seemed to be more dependent on the teacher they happened to have or by the teacher’s view on the needed support in mathematics. Also, the support the children received was mostly not suitable for developing children’s high abilities in mathematic further. It might be just for this reason that the parents were mostly unsatisfied with the support (see also Sandberg & Harju-Luukkainen, 2017) their children had received during the educational path, as shown in Table 10.1. According to Leikin (2009), there are several crucial components in developing students’ mathematical potential. However, according to the current research, before these components can be put into action, there needs to be a recognition of the high ability from parents and from the school environment. Further, Leikin (2009) saw parental support as crucial in promoting high abilities further. However, according to our study, parents might be in need of information regarding how to support their children further. Parents might know their children best, but they are not necessarily educational professionals when it comes to mathematics and support methods. In the current study, only one parent of the 10 noted that they had been used by the school to enrich their child’s mathematical knowledge. Therefore, the present research raises a question about parental engagement in education in Finland in general. Even though the National Curriculum (2014) and the National Curriculum for ECE (2018) highlighted the importance of parental involvement, the parents did not seem to be working together with the school and ECE to promote their child’s learning in mathematics. Here, the ECE and school needs to be active and invite

10  Experiences of Educational Support for Mathematical High-Ability Children…

147

parents to a discussion about support measures and individualisation of the educational settings in ECE, at school and at home. Furthermore, Leikin (2009) found the special settings in the school environment (just like in ECE as well) to be crucial (see also Johnson, 2000; Koshy et al., 2009a, b; van Tassel-Baska & Stambaugh, 2008). This means that the educational environment should take into consideration children with high abilities and individualise the education so that it would involve technological tools, promote creativity and give children mathematical challenges. According to our study, the teaching was individualised only to some extent with very little creativity from the teacher’s side. According to the parents, there were two main categories in providing students extra support in mathematics; support was given at the same level the children already were on (meaning extra work at the same level) or at a higher level (extra work at a higher level). Also, a combination of these were used. Only one parent talked about a computer programme that could be used at home. Further, no creative mathematical challenges were given to the children when the children were in preschool and primary education. In all, the picture of the given support was very bleak. However, it must be kept in mind that the parents do not participate in the actual classroom education, so the picture they have been given of the school context is through the communication with school observations and through the communication with their child. Nevertheless, the parents’ perspective does not give a positive picture of the support measures for high-ability students, so we can question the communication between school and home. Also, because so many parents were unsatisfied with the support measures and could not identify more than a few, we can ask whether the school setting would benefit from more knowledge in how to support students with high abilities in mathematics. This research raises the question about what happens with the children who are not identified in their early years as mathematically high-ability children? In the current study, only those parents participated who knew of their child’s high abilities. In Finland, during compulsory education, no standardised national obligatory test is taken (see Harju-Luukkainen et al., 2016). This means that there are different models of operation in the different municipalities in how to detect low- and high-­ achieving students, which might give children an inequal starting point for their educational path. In all of the Nordic countries, support for the child’s development and learning is a part of high-quality early childhood education and care activities. Every child in need of support is entitled to receive it. However, for a child to receive appropriate support, the high ability needs to be recognised. Especially in Finland, the organisation of support is based on the child’s strengths and needs related to learning and development. Also, cooperation with children, their guardians and other interest groups is obligatory (FNAE, 2017). Previous research on mathematically high-­ ability children’s support measures is extremely limited; there are only a few papers that have given an overview on what type of methods teachers are using with high-­ ability students. This is most likely the reason why high-ability children are statistically uncommon, so it is difficult to get a hold of teachers who work with high-ability children. Even though this student group is statistically very small, they have a great

148

H. Harju-Luukkainen et al.

amount of future potential. Therefore, these students should be given various opportunities for learning and developing their abilities. This is also important to prevent achievement loss, which can be seen as a form of future potential. Therefore, much more research is needed in this area on how students should be supported in school and early childhood but also in how teachers should be working with parents, as the Finnish National Curriculum for Basic Education (2014) obliges. This is not only a challenge for the Finnish context, but for all of the Nordic countries as well. Support regarding learning and development should be present for all children in need of it.

References Dimitriadis, C. (2016). Gifted programs cannot be successful without gifted research and theory: Evidence from practice with gifted students of mathematics. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 39(3), 221–236. Finnish National Agency for Education (FNAE). (2014). National core curriculum for early chilhdood education and care 2016. Regulations and guidelines 2017: 10. Finnish National Agency for Education. Finnish Official Statistics. (2016). Väestön tieto- ja viestintätekniikan käyttö. Tilastokeskus. http:// tilastokeskus.fi/til/sutivi/2016/sutivi_2016_2016-­12-­09_tie_001_fi.html Garn, C., Matthews, M., & Jolly, J. (2010). Parental influences on the academic motivation of gifted students: A self-determination theory perspective. Gifted Child Quarterly, 54(4), 263–272. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986210377657 Gavin, K., & Casa, T. (2012). Nurturing young student mathematicians. Gifted Education International, 29(2), 140–153. Harju-Luukkainen, H., Vettenranta, J., Oukrim-Soivio, N., & Bernelius, V. (2016). Differences between PISA reading literacy scores and grading for mother tongue and literature at school: A geostatistical analysis of the Finnish PISA 2009 data. Education Inquiry, 7(4), 463–479. https://doi.org/10.3402/edui.v7.29413 Herkman, J., & Vainikka, E. (2012). Lukemisen tavat. Lukeminen sosiaalisen median aikakaudella. Tampere University Press. Hine, C. (2000). Virtual ethnography. London/Thousand Oaks/New Delhi: Sage. Isomäki, H., Lappi, T.-R., & Silvennoinen, J. (2013). Verkon etnografinen tutkimus. In S.-M. Laaksonen, J. Matikainen, & M. Tikka (Eds.), Otteita verkosta. Verkon ja sosiaalisen median tutkimusmenetelmät (pp. 150–169). Vastapaino. Johnson, D. T. (2000). Teaching mathematics to gifted students in a mixed-ability classroom. ERIC Clearinghouse on Disabilities and Gifted Education, the Council for Exceptional Children. Jolly, J. L., & Matthews, M. S. (2012). A critique of the literature on parenting gifted learners. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 35(3), 259–290. https://doi. org/10.1177/0162353212451703 Karp, A. (2010). Teachers of the mathematically gifted tell about themselves and their profession. Roeper Review, 32(4), 272–280. Koshy, V., Ernest, P., & Casey, R. (2009a). Mathematically gifted and talented learners: Theory and practice. International Journal of Mathematical Education, 40(2), 213–228. https://doi. org/10.1080/00207390802566907 Koshy, V., Ernest, P., & Casey, R. (2009b). Mathematically gifted and talented learners: Theory and practice. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 40(2), 213–228. Kozinets, R. V. (2010). Netnography. Doing ethnographic research online. .

10  Experiences of Educational Support for Mathematical High-Ability Children…

149

Laaksonen, S.-M., Matikainen, J., & Tikka, M. (2013). Tutkimusotteita verkosta. In S.-M. Laaksonen, J. Matikainen, & M. Tikka (Eds.), Otteita verkosta. Verkon ja sosiaalisen median tutkimusmenetelmät [Research online and research method in social media] (pp. 9–33). Vastapaino. Leedy, P., & Ormrod, J. (2001). Practical research: Planning and design (7th ed.). Merrill Prentice Hall. Leikin, R. (2009). Bridging research and theory in mathematics education with research and theory in creativity and giftedness. In R. Leikin, A. Berman, & B. Koichu (Eds.), Creativity in mathematics and the education of gifted students (pp. 383–409). Sense Publishers. Leikin, R. (2011). The education of mathematically gifted students: Some complexities and questions. The Montana Mathematics Enthusiast, 8(1–2), 167–188. Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2006). Study of mathematically precocious youth after 35 years: Uncovering antecedents for the development of math-science expertise. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1(4), 316–345. Mann, E. (2006). Creativity: The essence of mathematics. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 30(2), 236–260. Miller, R. C. (1990). Discovering mathematical talent. ERIC Digest# E482. Plourde, L.  A. (2008). Enrichment curriculum: Essential for mathematically gifted students. Education, 129(1), 40. Preckel, F., Goetz, T., Pekrun, R., & Kleine, M. (2008). Gender differences in gifted and average-­ ability students. Comparing girls’ and boys’ achievement, self-concept, interest, and motivation in mathematics. Gifted Child Quarterly, 52(2), 146–159. Robinson, A., Dailey, D., Hughes, G., & Cotabish, A. (2014). The effects of a science-focused STEM intervention on gifted elementary students’ science knowledge and skills. Journal of Advanced Academics, 25(3), 189–213. Sandberg, E., & Harju-Luukkainen, H. (2017). ‘Opettajan asenne heijastui suoraan oppilaan koulumenestykseen’. Riittävät ja riittämättömät tukitoimet koulussa ADHD-perheiden näkökulmasta viimisten vuosien aikana [Teacher attitudes affect student’s educational outcome’. Support measures in schools with ADHD children]. NMI-Bulletin 2/2017. Tirri, K., & Kuusisto, E. (2013). How Finland serves gifted and talented pupils. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 36(1), 84–96. VanTassel-Baska, J., & Stambaugh, T. (2008). Curriculum and instructional considerations in programs for the gifted. In S. Pfeiffer (Ed.), Handbook of giftedness in children. Psychoeducational theory, research, and best practices (pp. 347–365). Springer. Williams, C. (2007). Research methods. Journal of Business and Economic Research, 5(3), 65–71.

Chapter 11

A Survey of the Views of Graduates of Early Childhood Teacher Education in Norway on Special Needs Education Natallia B. Hanssen

and Kathrin Olsen

Abstract  In Norway, there has been an increasing focus on the importance of the quality of special educational needs (SEN) assistance in early childhood education and care (ECEC). An array of challenges has been identified, including the paucity of special needs education (SNE) during early childhood teacher education (ECTE). The aim of the current study is to discover how the graduates of ECTE are being prepared for supporting children with SEN in ECEC. This exploration is guided by the following question: How much SNE have students received through their ECTE bachelor studies, and how do students assess their own SNE competence? An online survey was completed by graduates of ECTE (n = 51) from four different campuses of one university in Norway. Most of the participants reported that they received a few hours of SNE during ECTE.  Their account is supported by their qualitative feedback, in which they indicated that SNE subjects were ‘superficially treated’ and ‘infrequently mentioned by teachers’. Moreover, they judged their SNE competence to be low and expressed a great need for more SNE knowledge. The results imply that the participants’ experience is that SNE in ECTE was not sufficient to give them—as future ECEC teachers—the competence required to meet the heterogeneity of children in ECEC. Based on the results, we discuss the possible reasons why SNE in ECTE seems to be constrained and outline some suggestions for how SNE could be promoted as a core part of ECTE. Keywords  Norway · Teacher education · Special edcuation · Higher education

N. B. Hanssen (*) · K. Olsen Nord University, Bodø, Norway e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 H. Harju-Luukkainen et al. (eds.), Special Education in the Early Years, International Perspectives on Early Childhood Education and Development 36, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-91297-0_11

151

152

N. B. Hanssen and K. Olsen

Introduction Over the past few decades, there has been an ongoing focus on the importance of the quality of special educational needs (SEN) assistance in early childhood education and care (ECEC). The literature has indicated that high-quality standards for SEN assistance can significantly benefit children’s learning, self-esteem and attitudes towards lifelong learning (Hannås, 2018; Hanssen, 2019; Olsen, 2019). In recent years, governments, agencies and academics in Scandinavia have significantly criticised the quality of SEN assistance, along with the validity and usability of this assistance (Cameron et  al., 2018; Hanssen, 2019; Hausstätter & Reindal, 2016; Ministry of Education and Research [MER], 2019; Nordahl et al., 2018; Olsen, 2019). This is particularly applicable in Norway, where the lack of qualified professionals appears to be one of the greatest challenges to the ECEC sector. This means that ECEC teachers do not seem to have adequate SEN competence to give children appropriate SEN assistance (Børhaug, 2018; Hanssen, 2018; Olsen, 2019; Åmot, 2018). The consequences of ECEC teachers’ inadequate SNE competence can impact both the children and teachers themselves in various ways. For example, Hannås and Hanssen (2016) found that the low SNE competence of ECEC staff leads to considerable frustration and despair in the staff group. Feelings of despondency and guilt seem to threaten the staff members’ motivation for SEN work. Regarding children with SEN, low-quality SEN assistance may put them at risk of failing in further learning, social development and future work life (Evertsen et  al., 2015; Hanssen, 2017; Nordahl et  al., 2018; Olsen, 2019). A number of researchers have explored the preparation and assessment of future ECEC teachers in the new Early Childhood Teacher Education (ECTE) in Norway (Åmot, 2018; Cameron et  al., 2014; Cameron et  al., 2018; Havnes, 2018; Haukenes, 2017). Surprisingly, studies focusing on how the graduates of ECTE are being prepared to work with various SEN, as well as students’ voices about these topics, are largely absent from the literature. Given this background, the aim of the current study is to attain knowledge about how ECTE students are being prepared for the support of children with SEN in ECEC, as guided by the following question: How much SNE have students received through their ECTE, and how do students assess their own SNE competence?

The Norwegian Context To achieve an understanding of the contextual conditions, we describe the Norwegian ECEC context by focusing on the legislative frameworks, curricula and principles for preparing ECEC teachers. In Norway, 91.7% of all children are enrolled in ECEC (MER, 2020). The Norwegian government acknowledges ECEC as the first step of a lifelong learning process (Kindergarten Act [KA], 2006). The KA (2006) is the societal mandate through which all ECEC is established and regulated. It

11  A Survey of the Views of Graduates of Early Childhood Teacher Education…

153

promotes equality, appreciation, solidarity and the safeguarding of the child as a subject, and it legislates children’s right to democratic participation (KA §§1, 2 and 3). Norway also has the Framework Plan for the Content and Tasks of ECEC, which provides a binding framework for planning, implementing and assessing activities (Hanssen, 2017; MER, 2017). The framework plan considers the development of children as a holistic, dynamic and closely knit interaction between children’s mental and physical states and the environmental circumstances in which they grow up, thus focusing on children’s democratic participation and free play (MER, 2017). Inclusive educational settings are already well established in Norway, and children with SEN attend ordinary ECEC (MER, 2017). In accordance with this objective, the Framework Plan has a clear focus on the adoption of ECEC general pedagogical practices to suit the children’s needs, including those of children who may require additional support for shorter or longer periods (MER, 2017, p. 40). This focus establishes the expectation that ECEC teachers will adapt the content, pedagogical approaches and organisation of the ECEC to the diversity of the children and their needs (MER, 2017). However, under Norwegian law, SEN assistance requires the provision of additional resources and support to children who, as determined by expert assessment, need specifically adapted support (Chapter 5, §19a–h of KA 2006). Approximately 3.2% of children 3–6 years old receive SEN assistance in Norwegian ECEC, and 70% of these children are primarily receiving SEN assistance in general groups (MER, 2020; Nordahl et al., 2018). Thus, ECEC teachers entering the field must have a certain competence that enables them to adapt their work to meet the needs of a wide range of children in the context of both general and SEN assistance (KA, 2006; Universities Norway [UHR], 2018). In Norway, the preparation of ECEC teachers has traditionally been a three-year bachelor’s programme (UHR, 2018). The National Curriculum Regulations for ECTE emphasise six multidisciplinary areas of knowledge: children’s development, play and learning; society, religion, beliefs and ethics; language, text and mathematics; art, culture and creativity; nature, health and movement; and leadership, cooperation and development (MER, 2013, p. 5). The curriculum remains focused on pedagogy as a central and unifying subject applying to all areas of knowledge and should emphasise the growing diversity in ECEC, including the increased number of children with SEN (MER, 2013). In other words, special needs education (SNE) as a subject should be integrated into the content of pedagogy in ECTE, regardless of the areas in which students are trained (MER, 2013). However, it is up to the institutions to interpret and decide the extent of implementation of SNE and develop a systematic and comprehensive approach. For this reason, the organisation and content of SNE are determined by each university, presumably leading to substantial variations in SNE training across ECTE in Norway. Among the advantages of an integrated model is that the subject of SNE may be presented in unison with the content of each area (e.g., children’s development, play and learning, language, mathematics, etc.), hence providing knowledge for work to develop inclusive environments. However, the generally unclear basis of this model may impede stable and lasting dispositions for teaching SNE in sufficient depth and

154

N. B. Hanssen and K. Olsen

consistency to prepare ECEC teachers for working with various disabilities and difficulties (Hanssen & Hansén, 2017).

Theoretical Background In line with the stated overall aim of this study, the concept of SNE competence is essential. This concept is complex and has been interpreted in vastly different ways in educational policy and literature. However, there is a broad consensus that competence represents multifaceted aspects comprising both cognitive and affective elements, making it difficult to find a comprehensive definition (Hannås, 2018; Gotvassli, 2013b). The concept of competence can be defined as the assembled knowledge, skills, abilities, attitudes and values that make it possible to perform the relevant functions and tasks in line with the defined requirements and goals (Gotvassli, 2013a, p. 18). Competence is also defined as a human resource that enables the individual and relevant community to solve specific tasks in different situations for different students (Nygren, 2004, p. 28). Skau (2017) placed the concept within a broad point of view, arguing that professional teachers’ competence incorporates ‘solid professional knowledge, specific professional skills and well-­developed personal characteristics’ (p. 63). These aspects are connected and always enmeshed with one another and thereby are expressed at the same time but with different weights through the teacher’s actions. From this perspective, SNE competence is seen as an interrelation of several aspects that appear together (Hanssen, 2021). The first aspect of competence, specialised theoretical knowledge, is bound to the scientific basis and hierarchical structures of the abstract concepts derived from disciplines, providing very clear illustrative and evaluative knowledge signposts. As such, specialised theoretical knowledge applies to knowledge that is distinct, visible, explicit and specialised with a strong disciplinary SNE core and foundation and that is systematically structured and hierarchically organised (Beach & Bagley, 2013; Hanssen & Hansén, 2017; Hordern, 2015; Rusznyak, 2015). Regarding the historical and philosophical roots of SNE, specialised theoretical knowledge includes, among other things, subject-specific knowledge linked to developmental psychology, medicine and diagnostic terms (e.g., ADHD, language difficulty, hearing impairment, social-emotional problems, developmental disabilities, autism, Down’s syndrome, etc.). To carry out specific SEN tasks, specialised theoretical knowledge is required, as well as knowledge of the legislation that regulates specifically adapted support. This knowledge can be utilised when planning and implementing a practice that is well adapted to the individual child’s needs. Nevertheless, ECEC teachers must also be skilled in strategies to use the specialised theoretical knowledge correctly (Cameron et  al., 2014; Olsen et  al., 2018; Olsen, 2019). Hence, the second aspect addresses SNE-specific skills. This includes

11  A Survey of the Views of Graduates of Early Childhood Teacher Education…

155

the selection of specific didactic choices, methods and tasks to create and implement appropriate SEN assistance. These skills can be utilised by ECEC teachers to organise SEN support in an appropriate way and provide the necessary help to children with SEN. However, we support the idea that SNE competence is also a social act and that ideas of knowledge and skills are constructed by ECEC teachers’ participation through communication in multiple social contexts (Cameron et  al., 2018). Thus, the third aspect can be described as individual teachers’ personal characteristics, which are revealed via the patterns formed through the interactions between people over time and across situations. Personal characteristics can be delineated as caring, building trust and closeness, sensitivity and respect for children’s perspectives within SEN sessions (Hanssen, 2017; Pianta, 1999). Additionally, we propose that SNE competence may be achieved through the ECEC teachers’ reflections and critical thinking about their own traditions, perspectives and common ways of thinking about SNE. For this reason, the attribute of exploratory willingness can be added as a fourth aspect of SNE competence. This aspect can be understood as the ECEC teacher’s willingness to move forward, to ask questions, to search for new information and to challenge the established experience and practice space. All four aspects help shape ECEC teachers’ SNE competence, and all aspects must be emphasised as equally important (Hanssen, 2021). However, in practice, the application of SNE is logically dependent on specialised theoretical knowledge and cannot be exhaustively derived from general principles about teaching (Rusznyak, 2015). For this reason, we argue that specialised theoretical knowledge provides a legitimate epistemic basis for the professional acumen of ECEC teachers and is crucial for the development among ECEC teachers, leading to systematic, analytical and powerful ways of thinking about SEN assistance (Beach & Bagley, 2013; Rusznyak, 2015). Figure  11.1 illustrates the complex mutual relationships among the four aspects that constitute SNE competence and presents the hierarchical relationships between the aspects.

Fig. 11.1  Model for SNE competence (Hanssen, 2021)

156

N. B. Hanssen and K. Olsen

Method A quantitative online survey was conducted. The structure of the questionnaire was developed by both authors of this chapter and included six sections with multiple items. The first section comprised general demographic data, including gender, age and students’ previous experience working in ECEC and with children with SEN. For example, the questions concerning experiences of working in ECEC and working with children with SEN were rated by number of years (1–5, 5–10, etc.). The second section of the questionnaire contained statements designed to measure the participants’ estimates of hours of education in SNE topics. The participants were asked to rate each item, totalling 14, by number of hours (0, 0–5, 5–10, etc.). The third section contained statements connected to a self-assessment of the participants’ SEN competence. Guided by the aims of the study, we decided to adopt the model for SNE competence (see Fig. 11.1). While acknowledging the complexity of the concept of SNE competence, attention was directed at one of the concept’s aspects: specialised theoretical knowledge. We chose to measure specialised theoretical knowledge related to a range of subject-specific knowledge about disabling conditions (e.g., ADHD, language impairment, hearing impairment, social-­ emotional problems, developmental disabilities, autism, Down’s syndrome, etc.), as well as inclusion, adapted education and the laws and framework regulating SEN work. The participants were asked to rate their level of competence in each item on a 5-point Likert scale (ranging from 1 = poor to 5 = very satisfying). The fourth section included the participants’ ratings of how important it is to have SNE theoretical knowledge as an ECEC teacher, and the fifth section comprised the participants’ need for more knowledge in SNE topics. These sections had a 5-point Likert scale with 14 items (SNE topics). The sixth and final section consisted of an open question to elicit the participants’ experiences with SNE. Table 11.1 gives detailed information about themes for each section.

Participants Between February and May 2019, 96 graduates of a three-year bachelor ECTE programme who were enrolled in four different classes on four different campuses of one university in Norway were invited to participate in the survey. A link to the online survey powered by Questback was posted on the students’ digital learning platform: Canvas. Each student completed the survey individually. The survey took approximately 15  minutes to complete. In total, 51 (n  =  51) of the 96 students responded to the survey, a response rate of 53%, which can be judged as satisfactory. Most ECEC teachers in Norway are still women, and this is reflected in the fact that 80% of the participating students were women. The mean age of the participants was between 30 and 40 years, and most of them (60%) had between 5 and

11  A Survey of the Views of Graduates of Early Childhood Teacher Education…

157

Table 11.1  Survey design Section 1 Participant background

2 Estimate of hours of education in SNE subjects during PTE (Options: 0, 0–5, 5–10, 10–15, 15–20 h)

3 Assess your own SNE competence within the following topics (1 = poor, 5 = very satisfying) 4 Rate how important it is for you to have SNE competence in the following topics (1 = not important, 5 = very important) 5 I need more knowledge on the following topics (1 = do not need more knowledge, 5 = huge need for more knowledge) 6 Comments on how SNE topics are treated in preschool teacher education and suggestions for improvements

Items Age Gender Working next to study (extent) Experience working in ECEC (number of years) Experience working with children with SEN (number of years) Personal experience with children with SEN Developmental disabilities Hearing impairments Motoric disability Language and communication difficulties for language minorities Language impairment for children with Norwegian as their mother tongue Multiple disabilities Down’s syndrome Autism Visual impairment Inclusion Adapted education Laws and framework regulating SEN work Psychosocial and behavioural difficulties Same as section 2.

Same as sections 2 and 3.

Same as sections 2, 3 and 4.

Descriptive data

10 years of previous work experience in ECEC. The portion of participants who had 5–10 years of experience working with children with SEN was 40%. Surprisingly, 75% of the participants reported that they had personal experiences with children with SEN. However, this percentage could reflect the motivation to participate in the study (e.g., that the participants, family or friends of the participants had a child with SEN).

158

N. B. Hanssen and K. Olsen

Analysis The ratings made by the ECTE graduates were analysed electronically with the help of Questback, and only descriptive data are presented. The qualitative comments that were added by the participants in section six were analysed using a thematic analysis, as described by Braun and Clarke (2006), here using a deductive approach. The authors independently familiarised themselves with the quantitative and qualitative responses. An agreement was developed about the data, which were grouped, coded and sorted into the predefined themes of the survey: the participants’ estimation of hours of education in different SNE subjects; participants’ satisfaction with their SEN competence; importance of SNE competence; and the need for more SNE knowledge. Quotations were chosen to highlight the themes.

Ethical Requirements The research project was registered with and approved by the Data Protection Official for Research, Norwegian Social Sciences Data Service (NSD). The participants were assured of their anonymity and confidentiality. Confidentiality was secured by excluding the aspects that would make it possible to recognise the participants.

Limitations Several limitations should be taken into consideration. For example, a threat to validity and a broader generalisability concern could be seen as the small sample of participants, which was drawn from only one university. In this sense, the study must be recognised as a pilot study. We attempt to take this issue into consideration in our interpretation and discussion of the findings by connecting our conclusions to previous research. Furthermore, the small sample did not allow for an examination of the correlations between the sections and variables. Also, causation between the different items could not be established because of the selection of descriptive design. However, correlations between the variables was not of interest for the current study. As far as possible, we tried to make the study reliable and valid by engaging in scrutiny of the aforementioned aspects as a whole to maximise authenticity, understanding, transparency and honesty in all areas (Hanssen, 2019). Regarding the survey itself, the use of a 5-point scale could have prevented the participants from giving nuanced and deep answers. However, we argue that the survey allowed us to gather deeper insights concerning, for example, items in which the participants commented on how SNE topics are treated in ECTE and then gave their suggestions for improvements. Given that the limitation lies in scoring the

11  A Survey of the Views of Graduates of Early Childhood Teacher Education…

159

online survey. Many SNE themes were presented in the survey, and it could have been challenging for the participants to distinguish the themes from each other and assess how many hours of lectures in each theme they had. This means that the students’ responses must be considered an estimate. However, designing the survey according to SNE themes was necessary to develop knowledge about which SNE subjects are emphasised in ECTE. Finally, there is a limitation connected to the conceptualisation of SNE competence as applied in the current study. As mentioned, to create a meaningful study, the objective was to direct the reader’s attention to one of the aspects of competency: specialised theoretical knowledge (see Fig. 11.1.) This is a challenging task, especially when dealing with heterogeneous phenomena of SNE competence, which are strongly influenced by social context and made more complex by individual diversification. For example, aspects such as motivation, attitudes, relationships, professional skills and personal characteristics also play an important role (Cameron, 2017; Cameron et al., 2014). Researchers can address these limitations by carrying out similar research and collecting data from other universities to provide a more accurate understanding of the extent of SNE in ECTE bachelor studies, as well as students’ assessment of their own SNE competence.

Results The findings are presented according to the themes that emerged and are described through figures and quotations from the respondents’ qualitative responses. Typical quotations per theme were chosen from across the sample, and all participants are represented in the description of the findings.

 articipants’ Estimate of Hours of Education in Different P SNE Subjects The first theme comprises the participants’ estimates of hours of education in different SNE subjects. The section was divided into 12 subject specific SNE items chosen to indicate specialised theoretical knowledge. According to the results, most of the participants reported that they had received between 0 and 5 h of education in each item. The results indicate that 60.8% indicated that they were not instructed about the topic Down’s syndrome. Respectively, 58.8% and 39.2% responded that they were not taught about the topics of visual or hearing impairments. Surprisingly, 25.5% responded that their instruction had not given them any hours of education in the laws and framework regulating SEN work. The participants supported these ratings with qualitative data. One said, ‘We have had extremely few hours about SNE’,

160

N. B. Hanssen and K. Olsen

while another participant stated, ‘Perhaps it has been three hours of SNE per year, and the themes were just mentioned, but never discussed…it was more confusing than educational’. Answers such as ‘We have had one lecture on SNE, which was really superficial’ were also given by several participants. The number of positive answers was even smaller when the participants were asked whether they had had more than 25  hours of teaching in SNE within the 3 years of their education. Only 2% of the participants answered that the themes of inclusion, adapted education, language and communication difficulties for language minorities, as well as language impairment for children with Norwegian as their mother tongue, had been taught for more than 25 h (see Table 11.2).

Participants’ Satisfaction with Their SNE Competence The second theme focuses on the participants’ self-assessment of their sense of preparedness in terms of SNE competence. First, a clear majority of the participants reported that their education had not given them the foundation for their current work with children with SEN. The following response was typical of most of the participants: ‘Incredibly sad to know SO little about such incredibly important

Table 11.2  Participants’ estimates of hours of education in different SNE subjects during ECTE Hours of education: Developmental disabilities Hearing impairments Motoric disability Language and communication difficulties for language minorities Multiple disabilities Down’s syndrome Autism Visual impairments Inclusion Adapted education Laws and framework regulating SEN work Language impairment for children with Norwegian as their mother tongue Psycho-social and behavioural difficulties

0 27.5% 39.2% 19.6% 7.8%

0–5 5–10 62.7% 7.8% 56.9% 3.9% 68.6% 7.8% 60.8% 23.5%

10– 15 2.0% 2.0% 5.9% 3.9%

15– 20 2.0% 0.0% 0.0% 3.9%

20– 25 2.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.0%

More than 25 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.0%

N 51 51 51 51

43.1% 60.8% 29.4% 58.8% 15.7% 19.6% 25.5%

52.9% 3.9% 0.0% 0.0% 35.3% 3.9% 0.0% 0.0% 66.7% 3.9% 0.0% 0.0% 37.3% 3.9% 0.0% 0.0% 54.9% 21.6% 2.0% 2.0% 56.9% 13.7% 5.9% 2.0% 62.7% 7.8% 3.9% 5.9%

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 5.9% 0.0% 0.0%

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.0% 2.0% 0.0%

51 51 51 51 51 51 51

11.8% 56.9% 17.6% 7.8% 3.9% 2.0% 2.0%

51

19.6% 60.8% 19.6% 2.0% 2.0% 0.0% 0.0%

51

11  A Survey of the Views of Graduates of Early Childhood Teacher Education…

161

things. ECEC has a diversity and I want to be the best I can be for all children’. Most of the participants (72.5%) were not satisfied with their competence within the theme of multiple disability and visual impairments. Further, 62.0% were not satisfied with their competence within hearing impairments. Within the theme of Down’s syndrome, 68.6% were not convinced of their preparedness, and 50% were not satisfied at all with their SNE competence within psychosocial and behavioural difficulties. Within the theme of autism, 66.7% regarded themselves as having no SNE competence. However, some participants were partly satisfied with their own SNE competence. For example, 48% were partially content with the theme of language and communication difficulties for language minorities, 42.1% were to somewhat satisfied with their competence within inclusion and adopted education, and 45.1% were somewhat content with their SNE competence within the theme of laws and frameworks regulating SEN work and language impairment for children with Norwegian as their mother tongue. In the remaining areas, only 4% were very satisfied with their competence within psychosocial and behavioural difficulties and hearing impairments, and 2% were content with their competence within laws and frameworks regulating SEN work, language impairment for children with Norwegian as their mother tongue and Down’s syndrome (see Table  11.3). One participant, echoing what many others said, stated the following: ‘Fortunately, I work in ECEC and have some knowledge in SNE through participating in some courses thought my job’.

Table 11.3  Participants’ ratings of how satisfied they were with their SNE competence

Developmental disability Hearing impairments Motoric disability Language and communication difficulties for language minorities Multiple disabilities Down’s syndrome Autism Visual impairments Inclusion Adapted education Laws and framework regulating SEN work Language impairment for children with Norwegian as their mother tongue Psycho-social and behavioural difficulties

Not at all satisfied 52.9% 62.0% 41.2% 34.0%

Partly satisfied 31.4% 30.0% 37.3% 48.0%

More than Satisfied satisfied 17.6% 2.0% 8.0% 0.0% 13.7% 9.8% 16.0% 4.0%

Very satisfied 0.0% 4.0% 0.0% 0.0%

N 51 50 51 50

72.5% 68.6% 66.7% 72.5% 19.6% 37.3% 29.4%

19.6% 17.6% 23.5% 15.7% 41.2% 41.2% 45.1%

5.9% 9.8% 3.9% 9.8% 27.5% 19.6% 15.7%

2.0% 3.9% 7.8% 3.9% 15.7% 5.9% 7.8%

0.0% 2.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.0%

51 51 51 51 51 51 51

19.6%

45.1%

25.5%

7.8%

2.0%

51

50.0%

22.0%

22.0%

4.0%

4.0%

50

162

N. B. Hanssen and K. Olsen

Importance of SNE Competence The third theme sheds light on the participants’ indication of the degree to which they considered SNE competence important in their work to address a wide range of children in the context of SEN assistance. Most of the participants indicated that it was very important to gain SNE competence during their education, pointing out, for example, ‘You will be able to stand stronger if you have the SNE competence’ and ‘Having SNE competence at least gives you the opportunity to contribute in some way to [the education of] children with SEN’. In total, 70.6% of the participants reported that competence within the theme of inclusion was very important for their work. Moreover, 60.8% reported that competence within laws and frameworks regulating SEN work was very important. As shown in Table 11.4, a large proportion of participants (64.7%) pointed out that SNE competence within language impairment for children with Norwegian as their mother tongue, adapted education and psychosocial and behavioural difficulties were of very high significance. About a third of the participants (33.3%) rated visual impairments as an important SNE competence. The participants expressed thoughts such as ‘SNE competence is important because we feel more equipped to face such situations when we start to work’ several times. Only 2% of the participants tended to agree that competence within multiple disabilities is not important at all, and 3.9% indicated that SNE competence within hearing impairments and visual impairments, as well as within multiple disabilities, is somewhat important. Table 11.4  Participants’ ratings of the importance of ECEC teachers’ SNE competence

Developmental disability Hearing impairments Motoric disability Language and communication difficulties far language minorities Multiple disabilities Down’s syndrome Autism Multiple disabilities Visual impairments Inclusion Adapted education Laws and framework regulating SEN work Language impairment for children with Norwegian as their mother tongue Psycho-social and behavioural difficulties

Not at all important 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Partly important 0.0% 3.9% 0.0% 0.0%

Important 33.3% 35.3% 30.0% 23.5%

More than important 23.5% 19.6% 24.0% 19.6%

Very important 47.1% 41.2% 46.0% 56.9%

N 51 51 50 51

2.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

3.9% 2.0% 0.0% 3.9% 3.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

35.3% 33.3% 31.4% 23.5% 33.3% 17.6% 17.6% 21.6%

21.6% 23.5% 21.6% 15.7% 29.4% 13.7% 17.6% 17.6%

37.3% 41.2% 47.1% 56.9% 33.3% 70.6% 64.7% 60.8%

51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51

0.0%

0.0%

23.5%

13.7%

64.7%

51

0.0%

0.0%

21.6%

13.7%

64.7%

51

11  A Survey of the Views of Graduates of Early Childhood Teacher Education…

163

The Need for More SNE Knowledge The fourth theme concerns how the participants perceived their need for more SNE knowledge. The majority of the participants made claims such as ‘I have a large need for more SNE knowledge’. Several participants made observations such as ‘SNE is a hugely important issue that students MUST learn to assure quality of education of all children. I mean that this must be taught instead of drawing, baking Christmas cookies and tearing paper…we have done that more than enough throughout ECTE’. The results further display that 21.6% expressed a very great need for SNE competence within the themes of developmental disability, Down’s syndrome, language impairment for children with Norwegian as their mother tongue and the laws and framework regulating SEN work and inclusion. At 23.5%, autism was found to be the area with the greatest need for SNE competence. In total, 25.5% answered that there was a very great need for knowledge within psychosocial and behavioural difficulties. Many of the participants expressed a great need for SNE knowledge within the themes of developmental disability (45.1%) and hearing impairments and motoric disability (43.1%). Roughly 41.2% expressed the great need of knowledge within adapted education and 33.3% within inclusion. Likewise, the participants tended to agree that they had a need for SNE knowledge within all themes of SNE: for example, 43.1% within the laws and framework regulating SEN work; 35.3% within inclusion; and 35.3% within language impairment for children with Norwegian as their mother tongue (Table 11.5). Fewer participants expressed little need for competence within the laws and frameworks regulating SEN work (5.9%) and inclusion (9.8%). Only 2% of the participants reported that they did not need knowledge within hearing impairments. Table 11.5  Participants’ ratings of their need for more SNE knowledge No need Developmental disability 0.0% Hearing impairments 2.0% Motoric disability 0.0% Language and communication difficulties 0.0% for language minorities Multiple disabilities 0.0% Down’s syndrome 0.0% Autism 0.0% Visual impairments 0.0% Inclusion 0.0% Adapted education 0.0% Laws and framework regulating SEN 0.0% work Language impairment for children with 0.0% Norwegian as their mother tongue Psycho-social and behavioural difficulties 0.0%

Little need 3.9% 5.9% 5.9% 5.9%

Need 29.4% 37.3% 35.3% 39.2%

Great need 45.1% 43.1% 43.1% 35.3%

Very great need 21.6% 11.8% 15.7% 19.6%

N 51 51 51 51

5.9% 5.9% 2.0% 5.9% 9.8% 3.9% 5.9%

35.3% 39.2% 35.3% 43.1% 35.3% 37.3% 43.1%

39.2% 33.3% 39.2% 35.3% 33.3% 41.2% 29.4%

19.6% 21.6% 23.5% 15.7% 21.6% 17.6% 21.6%

51 51 51 51 51 51 51

9.8%

35.3% 33.3%

21.6%

51

3.9%

31.4% 39.2%

25.5%

51

164

N. B. Hanssen and K. Olsen

Discussion and Conclusion The purpose of the current study was to explore the extent of SNE facilitated in ECTE and to answer the following questions: How much SNE have students received through their ECTE bachelor studies? How do students assess their own SNE competence? Regarding the first research question, most of the students reported the number of hours of teaching in SNE topics as 0–5 h during their three-­ year bachelor’s studies. The main obstacle was most likely to be the lack of systematic training in SNE topics, as well as the random organisation of the SNE. Specifically, the results indicate that the dimensions of SNE competence in terms of specialised theoretical knowledge have been marginalised, thus giving dominance to general approaches in ECTE. In other words, the students perceived SNE in ECTE to be insufficient for giving future preschool teachers the knowledge and competence needed to assist children with SEN. Regarding the final research question, the students’ ratings of their own SNE competence were significantly lower than their ratings of their need for it and its importance, which were highly related to their intention to apply SNE competence in their work. In other words, the participants were much more likely to believe that SNE competence was important than to perceive themselves as having this competence. Thus, the key message from the current study is paradoxical: on the one hand, students participating in this study claimed that SNE competence determines whether ECEC teachers can include children with SEN and help them achieve strong academic and social outcomes. On the other hand, the SNE students received through ECTE seems to be minimal, inadequate and disorganised. We argue that such a paradox is an expression of trivialisation and an undermining of the pedagogical content of ECTE. In essence, the possibilities of future practitioners’ autonomic thinking may be seriously undermined by the current state of ECTE (Beach & Bagley, 2013, p. 390). The main reasons behind these results may stem from the fact that Norway has loose guidelines and a loose core curriculum structure for ECTE. According to the National Guidelines for ECTE and National Curriculum Regulations for ECTE, we claim that the subject of SNE is vague and that the expected learning outcomes for students’ SNE knowledge are poorly defined (MER, 2013; UHR, 2018). In addition, the organisation and content of SNE in ECTE are determined by each university, leading to a substantial variation in programmes across the country. For this reason, the lecturers and staff at the universities were qualifying ECEC teachers according to their own interpretation of SNE, thus maintaining certain practices without any possibility of redefining them to increase the SNE competence of the students (Hanssen, 2019). The consequence may be that SNE is developing as a local, unsystematic variety of individual practices without a common understanding of what it is and what it should be (Hanssen & Hansén, 2017). To take this discussion a step further, we suggest that these findings may be linked to societal developments within the country. Because of the global movement towards inclusion in Norway, we have observed a struggle centred on normalisation,

11  A Survey of the Views of Graduates of Early Childhood Teacher Education…

165

freedom, equality, individual adaptation, diversity and the reduction of social inequalities. For this reason, there appears to be a move from a specialised to a general pedagogical approach on the levels of policy and practice (Hannås & Hanssen, 2016; Hausstätter & Reindal, 2016). That is, several approaches to SNE are becoming more general, and the system that was established to maintain and develop SNE competence and SEN assistance is now becoming particularised (Hannås & Hanssen, 2016). For this reason, the objectives regarding SEN assistance and how it is provided are likely to influence the level of education provided, specifically the preparation of ECEC teachers in the country (Cameron et al., 2018). In summary, we point to several suggestions. In recent years, the importance of SNE competence has been emphasised as one of the most important of all resource factors in ECEC (Cameron et  al., 2014; Hanssen, 2019; Olsen, 2019; Olsen & Croydon, 2018). Because of its importance, failure to give students adequate SNE might cause the failure of the attempt to ensure the quality of SEN assistance in mainstream ECEC. Therefore, high-quality and systematic SNE to prepare future ECEC teachers is clearly necessary. Second, the preparation of ECEC teachers qualified to work with children with SEN would benefit from a critical review of the ways in which the construction and content of the programme and curriculum are important. We argue that politicians, educators and researchers must discuss what kind of frameworks are necessary for increasing future ECEC teachers’ SNE competence regarding the diversity and pluralism represented in ECEC. We conclude our chapter by returning to the very beginning. One prominent feature in Norway, as in the other Nordic countries, is a high quality of life and children’s outcomes, as well as comprehensive, equal and inclusive ECEC, here resting on a common ideology of the Nordic welfare state (Hanssen et al., 2021). Around the world, there is a growing interest in the Nordic perspectives on education. However, some signs show that the ideals of inclusion and equal access to education for all are at risk. This primarily means that ECEC teachers do not seem to have adequate SNE competence to give children appropriate SEN assistance within an inclusive context. With this in mind, a summarising conclusion that can be drawn from this chapter relates to the prerequisites for the further development of a quality education of future ECEC teachers.

References Åmot, I. (2018). Barnehagens spesialpedagogiske virksomhet. Om bruk av grupper i en inkluderende praksis. In S. Østrem (Ed.), Barnehagen som institusjon (pp. 124–142). Cappelen Damm. Beach, D., & Bagley, C. (2013). Changing professional discourses in teacher education policy back towards a training paradigm: A comparative study. European Journal of Teacher Education, 36(3), 379–392. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2013.815162 Børhaug, K. (2018). Barnehagelæreren i et profesjonsperspektiv  – et kunnskapsgrunnlag. Kunnskapsdepartementet.

166

N. B. Hanssen and K. Olsen

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. Cameron, D. L. (2017). Teacher preparation for inclusion in Norway: A study of beliefs, skills, and intended practices. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 21(10), 1028–1044. https:// doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2017.1326177 Cameron, D. L., Tveit, A. D., Midtsundstad, J., Nilsen, A. C. E., & Jensen, H. C. (2014). An examination of the role and responsibilities of ECEC in multidisciplinary collaboration on behalf of children with severe disabilities. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 28(3), 344–357. https://doi.org/10.1080/02568543.2014.912996 Cameron, D. L., Tveit, A. D., Jortveit, M., Lindqvist, G., Göransson, K., & Nilholm, C. (2018). A comparative study of special educator preparation in Norway and Sweden. British Journal of Special Education, 45(3), 256–276. Evertsen, C., Tveitereid, K., Plischewski, H., Hancock, C., & Størksen, I. (2015). På leit etter læringsmiljøet i barnehagen. Universitetet i Stavanger, Læringsmiljøsenteret. Gotvassli, K.-Å. (2013a). Boka om ledelse i barnehagen. Universitetsforlaget. Gotvassli, K.-Å. (2013b). Strategisk kompetanseutvikling i barnehagen. Cappelen Damm akademisk. Hannås, B. (2018). Hvordan sikre kvalitet i spesialundervisningen? En empirisk undersøkelse av Pedagogisk-psykologisk tjenestes sakkyndige vurdering. Psykologi i kommunen, 53, 69–85. Hannås, B. M., & Hanssen, N. B. (2016). Special needs education in light of the inclusion principle: An exploratory study of special needs education practice in Belarusian and Norwegian preschools. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 31(4), 520–534. https://doi.org/1 0.1080/08856257.2016.1194576 Hanssen, N. B. (2017). Preschool staff relationships with children with language difficulties: A comparative study in Belarusian and Norwegian preschools. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 33(3), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/08856257.2017.1314112 Hanssen, N. B. (2018). Special Educational Needs in Norwegian and Belarusian Preschools. PhD diss., Nord University. Hanssen, N. B. (2019). Using the theory of practice architectures to articulate special educational needs practices in Belarusian and Norwegian preschools. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 35(2). https://doi.org/10.1080/08856257.2019.1643149 Hanssen, N. B. (2021). Jeg har prøvd alt....» -om lærerens kompetanse for spesialundervisning. I Torill Moen og Trond Lekang ( red.) Tilpasset opplæring og tidlig innsats i ordinær undervisning og i spesialundervisning. Universitetsforlag. Hanssen, N.  B., & Hansén, S.  E. (2017). Special educational needs activities for children with language difficulties: A comparative study in Belarusian and Norwegian preschools. Education Inquiry, 9(2), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/20004508.2017.1380486 Hanssen, N.  B., Hansèn, S.-E., & Ström, K. (Eds.). (2021). Dialogues between northern and Eastern Europe on the development of inclusion: Theoretical and practical perspectives. Routledge. Haukenes, M. B. (2017). Feedback and assessment in the new ECEC teacher education in Norway. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 5(7), 1201–1214. https://doi.org/10.13189/ ujer.2017.050713 Hausstätter, R. S., & Reindal, S. M. (2016). Spesialpedagogikk: Fagidentitet og Samfunnsnytte. Cappelen Damm. Havnes, A. (2018). ECEC professionalization  – Challenges of developing professional standards. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 26(5). https://doi.org/10.108 0/1350293X.2018.1522734 Hordern, J. (2015). Teaching, teacher formation, and specialised professional practice. European Journal of Teacher Education, 38(4), 431–444. https://doi.org/10.1080/0261976 8.2015.1056910 Kindergarten Act 2006 (KA) (NOR). https://www.regjeringen.no/en/dokumenter/kindergartenact/ id115281/.

11  A Survey of the Views of Graduates of Early Childhood Teacher Education…

167

Ministry of Education and Research. (2013). National curriculum regulations for preschool teacher education. https://www.regjeringen.no/no/tema/utdanning/hoyere-­utdanning/rammeplaner/ id435163/. Ministry of Education and Research. (2017). Framework plan for the content and tasks of ECECs. https://www.udir.no/globalassets/filer/barnehage/rammeplan/framework-­plan-­for-­ ECECs2-­2017.pdf Ministry of Education and Research. (2019). Tett på – Tidlig innsats og inkluderende fellesskap i barnehage, skole og SFO (Meld. St. 6 (2019–2020)). https://www.regjeringen.no Ministry of Education and Research. (2020). Early childhood education and care (ECEC). https:// www.udir.no/in-­english/Quality-­in-­ECEC-­Schools-­and-­Vocationa-­Education-­and-training/ quality-assurance-school/. Nordahl, T., Persson, B., Brørup Dyssegaard, C., Wessel Hennestad, B., Vaage Wang, M., Martinsen, J., & Johnsen, T. (2018). Inkluderende Fellesskap for Barn og unge. Ekspertgruppen for barn og unge med behov for særskilt tilrettelegging. Fagbokforlaget. Nygren, P. (2004). Handlingskompetanse. Om profesjonelle personer. Gyldendal Akademisk. Olsen, K. (2019). Personalets praksiser for å støtte barn med autisme til sosial deltakelse i barnehagens uformelle miljø: En kritisk fortolkende case-studie med et kryssnasjonalt perspektiv. (Doktorgradsavhandling. Universitetet i Oslo). https://www.duo.uio.no/handle/10852/67918 Olsen, K., & Croydon, A. (2018). Practices of support for children with autism in ECEC: Exploring the ‘sayings’ of teachers. In K. Smith (Ed.), Norsk og Internasjonal lærerutdanningsforskning 2018 (pp. 109–128). Fagbokforlaget. Olsen, K., Croydon, A., Olson, M., Jacobsen, K. H., & Pellicano, E. (2018). Mapping inclusion of a child with autism in mainstream ECEC: How can we move towards more inclusive practices? International Journal of Inclusive Education, 23(6). https://doi.org/10.1080/1360311 6.2018.1441914 Pianta, R.  C. (1999). Enhancing relationships between children and teachers. American Psychological Association. Rusznyak, L. (2015). Knowledge selection in initial teacher education programmes and its implications for curricular coherence. Journal of Education, 60, 8–29. Skau, G. M. (2017). Gode fagfolk vokser: Personlig kompetanse i arbeid med mennesker. Cappelen Damm Akademisk. Universities Norway (UHR). (2018). Nasjonale retningslinjer for barnehagelærerutdanning [National guidelines for preschool teacher education]. https://www.uhr.no/_f/p1/i8dd41933-­ bff1-­433c-­a82c-­ 2110165de29d/blu-­nasjonale-­ retningslinjer-­ferdig-­godkjent.pdf

Chapter 12

Inclusive Practices in Early Childhood Education in Norway Jorun Buli-Holmberg, Elisabeth McGuire, and Mona Rønning Winsnes

Abstract  This chapter deals with inclusion in early childhood education in Norway, which is illuminated through the results from a study aiming to shed light on the factors that affect work in preschool towards inclusion. Children with special needs in Norway are legally entitled to special education support in preschool. The staff in preschool must adapt the educational provision for children with and without special needs within an inclusive context in a preschool for all. In the present study, we investigate how the tools in KIDS (Quality in Day Care Institutions) support the improvement of inclusion through observations of how the environment and staff support children’s development and use the result of the observation in reflective dialogues together with the staff. To follow the process of improving the quality of inclusion, we have applied a qualitative research method using observations and interviews. The results show that KIDS helps improve the educational provision and inclusion for all children, especially for children with special needs. In the conclusion, we state that KIDS is a useful tool to improve inclusive practices in the areas of relationships, play and activities and physical environment, and that it is suitable to raise the level of preschool staff’s competence in practising inclusion. Keywords  Norway · Inclusion · Early childhood · Intervention

Introduction In this chapter, we describe early childhood education for children with and without special needs in the preschool context, here considering Norwegian Early Childhood Education policy. The policy and practice of inclusion in preschool education is J. Buli-Holmberg (*) · E. McGuire · M. R. Winsnes University in Oslo, Oslo, Norway e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 H. Harju-Luukkainen et al. (eds.), Special Education in the Early Years, International Perspectives on Early Childhood Education and Development 36, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-91297-0_12

169

170

J. Buli-Holmberg et al.

quite similar in all the Nordic countries, with full-day integrated preschool, a national curriculum and a ‘social pedagogy approach’ to learning and care (OECD, 2006) The aim is the integration of care and learning through play, and activities supporting children in their development have been at the forefront in the Nordic preschool education (Johansson, 2006; Moss, 2013). The principles of inclusive preschool education in Norway are that all children should have the possibilities to participate in interactions with others through play and learning activities based on their own abilities within the context of the preschool community. Inclusion involves paying attention to every child’s diverse individual needs and development at their own pace. Special educational support in early childhood education in Norway takes place in a preschool, where the purpose is to create an inclusive environment supporting the child’s development at an early stage in life (Buli-Holmberg, 2012). The preschool staff must ensure that children with special education support receive equal conditions in an inclusive context (Directorate of Education, 2017a, b). All children have the right to education in preschool if the parents choose this option (Section 8 of the Preschool Act, 2005). Norwegian preschools accommodate children’s different abilities and ensure that all children develop in a positive direction together with others. In Norway, 92.2% of all children aged 1–6 years attend preschool (Statistic Agency in Norway, 2020). With such a high proportion of children in preschool, it is important that the inclusive practices have a high standard. The commitment of the staff in preschool is to create an inclusive environment that provides opportunities for care, play, learning activities, interaction, communication and the possibilities for language development (Directorate of Education, 2017a, b). In Norwegian preschools, learning takes place through play, where the children’s— both with and without special needs—development occurs through interactions with others. Children with special needs have a legal right to special education support (Section 19 of the Preschool Act, 2005), regardless of whether they attend preschool or not. Preschool staff have a commitment to ensure that the children who receive special education support are included in the general education provision. In 2019, 9,190 children in Norwegian preschools were entitled to special educational support. This corresponds to 3.3% of all children attending preschools (Directorate of Education, 2020); this means that the main task of preschools in Norway is to ensure that all children receive an equal provision that is adapted to their different abilities and level of maturity within an inclusive community. We present the results from the research project ‘Inclusive Practices in Preschool’, which aimed to illuminate how the policy of inclusion and special education support in preschool are improved in practice through the use of tools included in KIDS (Quality in Day Care Institutions). In our study, inclusion practices are connected to the quality of three central aspects of the children’s daily lives in preschool: relationship, play activities and physical environment, which are also included in KIDS. Research shows that the most important aspect for quality in preschool is that the child is met by sensitive and responsive adults (WHO, 2004). KIDS was developed in Denmark based on sociocultural learning theory, developmental psychological theory, recent knowledge of brain development and theories concerning the importance of relationships for children’s learning (Ringsmose & Kragh-Müller,

12  Inclusive Practices in Early Childhood Education in Norway

171

2014). KIDS is also anchored in Vygotskys` (1978) sociocultural theory, Bowlby’s (1994) attachment theory, Schibbye’s (2002) theory of subject-subject relationship and appreciative relationships and Andersen’s (1994) theory of the complementary, reciprocal and recognisable relationships for the child’s learning and development. We have investigated how KIDS helps develop the preschool staff’s competence of inclusive practices by drawing attention to how staff facilitate the physical environment, play and learning activities and relationships in everyday life in preschool. Several research-based observation tools have been developed internationally to study quality in preschooling, and we chose KIDS because it is based on educational thinking in a Nordic perspective and is research based (Ringsmose & Kragh-­ Müller, 2014). The overarching research question is how KIDS contributes to improving inclusive practices in Norwegian preschools. We have operationalised the following underlying questions based on the three areas of KIDS—relationships, play and activities and physical environment—and how they may influence the staffs’ competences: 1) How does KIDS contribute towards improving relationships? 2) How does KIDS contribute towards improving play and activities? 3) How does KIDS contribute towards improving the physical environment? 4) How does participation implementation in KIDS build the preschool staff’s competence?

Literature Review Inclusion aims to secure children’s right to education and to participate in a learning environment where diversity is seen as a resource to support learning (MacNaughton, 2005). Usually, inclusion is associated with children with disabilities and their right to access and participate in high-quality education (Dau, 2001). However inclusion concerns all children’s right to participate in environments where ‘diversity is welcomed and viewed as a resource rather than a problem’ (Booth et  al., 2003). Implementing the policy of inclusion into practice involves increasing participation through restructuring the cultures, policies and practices so that they promote the learning and participation of all (Booth & Ainscow, 2002). In preschool, the most fundamental component for meeting the requirement for inclusion is to engage children with special needs in daily routines (Hadadian & Hargrove, 2001). Therefore, a central issue of inclusion is to equip children to participate in a culture in which they grow up and to facilitate the development of skills and competencies they will need as adults (Kragh-Müller & Ringsmose, 2015a). In preschool, the inclusion of children with special needs seems to be a challenge because they are not usually included in playgroups, and they play less, have fewer interactions with other children and display more negative behaviour during conflicts (Guralnick, 2019; Vedeler, 2007). Therefore, relationships are fundamental in preschool education to support the child’s emotional and social development and to increase inclusion (Ringsmose & Kragh-Müller, 2014). Parents and preschool teachers assess relationships as the most important quality indicator of inclusion in preschool (Dencik et  al., 1988). The children’s relational conditions are connected to how the child

172

J. Buli-Holmberg et al.

perceives and evaluates their interactions (Lund, 2014). Important in building relations is for the child to be cared for by sensitive and responsive adults (Ringsmose & Kragh-Müller, 2015b). A study conducted in 92 preschools in Norway showed that the children received moderately good relational development support (BergNielsen & Drugli, 2019). Another Norwegian study showed that positive relationships between preschool staff and children are crucial for vulnerable children (Brandlistuen et al., 2015). Staff presence and engagement with the individual child and group of children are also significant in relationship building and in accessing the appropriate spaces and materials to support children’s play and exploration (Ringsmose & Kragh-Müller, 2014). A central factor of inclusion in Norwegian preschools are the children’s opportunities to participate in play and activities. However, the preschools in Norway score low on access to and variety in play materials, diversity, language and interactions (Bjørnestad & Os, 2018; Bjørnestad et al., 2019). The opportunities to play with other children and access activities and play materials are the key factors in assessing the quality of inclusion in preschools (Ringsmose & Kragh-Müller, 2014). The pshysical and social learning environment, here with a focus on the design of rooms with the children’s educational development in mind, are a positive factor of inclusion in preschools (Drugli, 2011; Ringsmose & Kragh-Müller, 2014). There is also a link between the play materials and physical design in the preschool, the staff’s caring abilities and children’s selfassurance of and confidence in their own abilities (Løkken, 2004; Wilhjelm, 2010). This applies to the indoor and outdoor environments at the preschool, which both affect the children’s ability to develop through participating in varied play and activities (Björklid, 2005). High quality in a preschool is a catalyst to prevent children from developing special needs, and the staff’s competence is the key to identifying the development of special needs (Braarud et al., 2008). One way to raise the quality of inclusion is to foster and build the competence of preschool staff (Brandlistuen et al., 2015). High quality in preschool fosters children’s well-­being and facilitates their positive development (Layzer & Goodson, 2006). The quality of inclusion in Norwegian preschools can be considered according to the child’s expression of well-being (Kunnskapsdepartementet, 2019). However, most children with special needs in Norway go to a preschool with a general education profile, and there are too many variations in the quality of preschools in Norway, particularly for children who need special education support (Nordahl, 2018). In high-quality preschools with a high level of competence, fewer children need special education support (Braarud et al., 2008). In KIDS, educational quality is defined based on the children’s opportunities to live a good childhood here and now. The early childhood life has an intrinsic value and is not only seen as preparation for school and adult life. On the other hand, the concept of educational quality is linked to the transfer and learning of skills and competences that are important for being able to live and contribute to society. In KIDS, these two value dimensions are linked to the concepts of ‘being’ and ‘becoming’ (Ringsmose & Kragh-Müller, 2014). In addition, high quality in preschool is related to high competence in the preschool staff because they create positive and inclusive environments, are more stimulating, are more friendly

12  Inclusive Practices in Early Childhood Education in Norway

173

and are more supportive towards the children with special needs than staff with lower level of competence (Loeb et  al., 2004). Korsvold (2011) claimed that the staff members in Norwegian preschools do not have enough knowledge about the inclusion of children receiving special education support. The characteristics of high quality in preschools in Norway has been illuminated in a recent study, and the central factors are professional enthusiasm, common goals and direction for the educational work. Furthermore, it seems to be important to have a holistic approach towards the children’s care, play and learning, with an emphasis on being outside with opportunities to explore nature experiences (Alvestad et al., 2019). Organisation is also significant and a clear management of groups of children because it aids in structuring the everyday life and adapts it to the children, hence dividing them into small groups for activities and play, both for adult- and child-initiated activities. Cooperation is also emphasised, here focusing on the children’s perspective and well-being, children’s participation and staff members who cooperate well both internally with parents and with external parties.

Research Methodology To illuminate the factors that impact inclusive practices in preschool in Norway, we use data from the research project ‘Inclusive Practices in Preschool’.

Data A qualitative study of how the use of tools in KIDS helps improve inclusion was conducted in a preschool, giving us the opportunity to investigate practices in depth in a natural context (Gall et al., 1996). Data were mainly collected through field work, where the researchers were involved and provided input during a process comparable to action research (Hammersly & Atkinson, 2019). Observations, discussions and focus group interviews were held at different times throughout the action research period, sometimes weekly, every 14 days or monthly. These formed the basis for elucidating the research question in the study. The unit of study was one preschool, which had three departments (Yin, 2014). All the staff participated with their descriptions and experiences in the process of implementing KIDS. This includes adaptations to the children’s different abilities and needs but without identifying the children who were receiving special education support. The preschool had 45 children aged 1–6 years and 12 staff members. Our informants were the staff at the preschool, who represented different roles and functions, which enabled full and nuanced descriptions of the preschool as a whole.

174

J. Buli-Holmberg et al.

Data Collection Methods Using a qualitative multimethod approach with observations and interviews. This enabled us to elucidate on several factors that impact inclusive practices for children with and without special needs and to triangulate the analyses (Ghauri & Grønhaug, 2002).

Observations We used the KIDS observation scheme as a tool in our observations in the preschool (Ringsmose & Kragh-Müller, 2014). The advantage of the KIDS observation scheme is that the staff can use this for self-evaluation and development work. We observed the staff’s work on inclusive practices, not the children or the practices of the staff. KIDS provided the basis for assessing and developing the environment that constitutes the children’s conditions for inclusion. The observation scheme was structured and focused on three areas: 1) relationships, 2) play and activities and 3) physical environment. Table  12.1 shows examples of the types of questions and themes that were observed relating to these three aspects of inclusion. In the dialogues (group focus interview) with the staff after the observations, we decided to divide each area into three gradings: low, average and high level of practice. KIDS observations were carried out once at the beginning of the implementation process with the aim to identify areas needing improvement. We started to observe in the morning to become aware of how the day started and how the children were welcomed by the staff. The observations lasted for 3 h in each department. The goal was to examine whether our perceptions of the situation were approximately similar. Following the observations, we went through the results and notes with the staff, sharing experiences and discussing them. We have used the results dynamically. The results were reviewed and discussed with the staff in relation to how they could be used in further work to improve inclusion in practice. We have selected some statements with high and others with low levels. We used Table 12.1  Questions/themes observed relating to the three aspects of inclusion Relationship: The staff is attentive and responsive to the children. Rarely Occasionally Regularly Often Almost always Play and activities: The staff facilitates and changes activities in relation to children’s dedication and motivation. Rarely Occasionally Regularly Often Almost always Physical environment: Room in the room. There are either several rooms the children can divide between or a large room divided into small play areas in the room so that it provides opportunities for children and staff to divide according to a lower number of children. Rarely Occasionally Regularly Often Almost always

12  Inclusive Practices in Early Childhood Education in Norway

175

low-­level statements as a basis for discussing the development work in each department. We used the high-level statements to show the staff what they had achieved and as motivation in their further work.

Focus Group Interviews Focus group interviews were used to shed light on the relationships, play and activities and physical environment, along with the extent to which participation in developmental work helps raise the level of staff competence. A focus group interview is similar to an everyday conversation. It stimulates the sharing and reflection of experiences and is suitable for exploring such experiences where several people are involved (Bohnsack, 2004). The purpose was to obtain descriptions of inclusive practices within a collective framework (Barbour, 2007). Each interview was conducted at the preschool and lasted for about 90 minutes. The interview guide was based on open-ended questions that allowed the staff to talk about their own practices and share their experiences. The focus group interviews were structured with a start, middle and end. The purpose of the first interview was to map the strengths and challenges and establish the ‘here-and-now’ situation and need for improvement based on the results from the observations. The staff were introduced to KIDS and invited to use it, which they all agreed to do. Following the KIDS assessment, a focus group interview was held with the staff in each department, where the results of the observations were then reviewed and discussed with the staff. Based on the observations, a specific assessment was drawn up for the staff to work on. The staff participated and contributed throughout the whole implementation process. The questions in the interview guide were related to the impressions the staff members were left with after using KIDS and their experiences with the focus group interviews. The purpose of the final focus group interview was to assess the implementation of KIDS.  In the presentation of the results, we have chosen to use the final interview.

The Analyses A thematic analysis was used to identify, analyse and report the patterns within the complex data material (Braun & Clarke, 2006). The analysis arose from a deductive approach, where the coding of the material was steered by the theoretical anchoring, and this guided the interpretation of the data (Thagaard, 2003). The analyses were built on existing knowledge and theories that were used to identify patterns and deep structures. The descriptions were extracted within the selected themes as a basis for sorting the material into themes; relationships, play and activities and

176

J. Buli-Holmberg et al.

physical environment, here based on the theories underlying KIDS; the goal was to provide an understanding of how inclusion is practised. After the KIDS observations were assessed and the group focus interviews were transcribed, we conducted a thematic content analysis (Brinkmann & Kvale, 2014) that was organised based on theories and research on inclusion practices in preschool. However, there will be many aspects that are not covered when we frame the staff’s descriptions in the advanced selected themes about the staff’s efforts to include all children. We also included the themes that emerged from the informants in the interviews. Using a structural observation scheme and choosing a thematical analyses led our analyses in a certain direction, producing some limitations when it comes to obtaining other aspects of inclusion. However, the group focus interviews helped bring out the subjective experiences of the staff and other relevant topics of inclusion.

Ethical Considerations The National Committee for Research Ethics in the Social Sciences and the Humanities’ (2016) ethical guidelines were adhered to, and the participants were informed of the purpose and content of the study. They were given the opportunity to choose between participating or withdrawing from the research project. All agreed to participate. The head of the preschool sent out an information letter to the parents, telling them that they could keep their child at home on the day of the observation if they so wished. It was made clear that it was the organisation and practices that were being observed, not the children. The informants would remain anonymous. Efforts were made to produce reliability in the use of data material in the descriptions, analyses and conclusions (Befring, 2010). Caution was also shown in the approach towards the field of practice (Dalen, 2011). The analyses were validated with the strong connection between the researcher and participators in the preschool throughout the entire study.

Results The presentation of the results focuses on how all children were being included through a high level of quality of relationships, play and activities and physical environment. Furthermore, the impact of participating in the process of using tools in KIDS has influenced building the preschool staff’s competence. The results from the observations are based on the KIDS observation form, which was the basis for assessing the need for improvement and how the improvement work of inclusive practices would proceed. In the group focus interviews with the researcher and staff conversations, we reflect on KIDS observations and the experiences of how KIDS helped to improve the staffs’ work with inclusive practices.

12  Inclusive Practices in Early Childhood Education in Norway

177

How KIDS Contribute to Create Improvement of Relationships The results show differences between the three departments, from high to low levels of ​​relationships. In one department, the observations identified good conditions for the relationships between the staff and children. They spent a large amount of time on daily routines in the coatroom and wardroom with physical contact and paid attention to each child. Their conversations with the children were enriching. They let the children do a lot themselves and helped them be more independent. The staff’s relationship with the children was characterised by giving attention to each child, not solely as part of the group. However, they would often have to tell an individual child to stop a particular behaviour. Another department received an average level of conditions for sensitivity, responsiveness and confirmation. Sensitivity refers to awareness of the child’s verbal and nonverbal communication and confirmation to whether the adult explores and understands the child’s own experiences. Responsiveness relates to whether the adult’s language and actions were adapted to the child’s perspective. It emerged that the staff was more likely to distract the children and diverted their attention rather than show curiosity and be explorative. This was particularly evident in relation to the children’s emotions, where they both distracted the children and found quick solutions. The last department received a lower level of conditions for engagement and curiosity for each child and getting to know the children’s perspectives. In the morning, it was observed that the children were not actively welcomed by the staff in the wardrobe. However, this varied among the staff members. One department wanted to work on improving relationships. Anne described it as follows: ‘It’s rare for us as educational supervisors to experience this. We give feedback to the assistants, but they do not always give feedback to us. So, it’s genuinely nice to know what it is that works (...) it’s actually quite challenging to make improvements to something you’re not aware of’. Beate said, ‘We were able to pinpoint something, and in terms of relationships, what relationship you have with the children and how to talk to them and take what they say seriously’. Cecilie described, ‘Had good conversations with the staff (…), talked a lot about not distracting the children, but acknowledging how they are feeling’. Communication and interaction were the subsequent areas they worked on; the staff members wanted to capture the children’s lifeworld and to show greater curiosity and be more explorative. The starting point was a desire for the children not to have bad thoughts and feelings. The staff also developed an understanding of how it was best for the children that the staff showed an interest in them and tolerated their emotional register.

 ow KIDS Contribute to Create Improvement of Play H and Activities In the observations of how the departments worked with play and activities, differences emerged among the three departments; two departments had a high level of conditions for play and activities, and the third had a low level. In one of the

178

J. Buli-Holmberg et al.

departments with a high level, the staff were generally good at facilitating and participating in children’s play because this was initiated by the staff and the children. The children could choose between participating in activities led by the staff or their own activity. Roleplay was observed, and the staff participated actively while supporting the children to play with different activities. The children had a range of options, meaning the staff members were able to find something that motivated them. The staff was generally good at including and paying attention to all the children. In the other department with a high level, the staff members facilitated various forms of play, such as role play, dressing up, constructive play and table activities; they had close contact with the children, extended the play and showed a high level of engagement as participants in the play and activities. However, we also observed some children wandering around without being involved in an activity. These examples included children in vulnerable positions, something that was also subsequently confirmed by the staff. In the third department, which received a low score for play and activities, there was little access to different forms of play. The children were helped to initiate play and activities by the staff to some extent, but we observed that the staff withdrew after a short time. We also observed turmoil and children who came into conflict, as well as little engagement in the play, activities and conversations with the children, though this varied among staff members. One department decided to work on improving play and activities. Dora said, ‘... so now we have placed pictures on all the boxes, so they know where to put things (...) so that works a bit better’. Erika said, ‘... the head of the preschool says we now have a better overview. (...) he has seen that we now have an overview of the children who falls into the background easily’. Foline said, ‘... at least when it comes to a common focus (...) when you look at the big picture of having a common focus with the children, and telling the children that all is well ( …) I see now that more staff in the department could have done that’. The staff chose to prepare the rooms in the morning so that the children’s play and activities could start quicker and to ensure the children had more age-appropriate toys. The staff also activated the children through singing and chatting while they waited for their food. The rooms were divided into themed play areas to help the children choose play activities. The staff facilitated a common focus between the children and provided support for the children to play together.

 ow KIDS Contribute to Create Improvement H of the Physical Environment In the area of physical ​​ environment, one department received a high level of provision for the children. The department had three rooms at their disposal that they actively used. The rooms were clearly marked with play areas. The play equipment was age appropriate and easily accessible to the children. The rooms were prepared before the children arrived in the morning, which entailed displaying the toys and

12  Inclusive Practices in Early Childhood Education in Norway

179

materials so that the children would be inspired to play and be active. Two of the departments received a lower level of provisions. The rooms in one department were to a low extent divided into themed play areas. There were generally few toys available, and the toys were not particularly age appropriate. The rooms did not clearly show what was expected of the children, such as ‘This is where we are quiet’, ‘This is where we read’ and ‘This is where we are more physically active’. The other department with a low level of physical conditions consisted of several small rooms, making it difficult to maintain an overview of the group of children. There was little visual support in the rooms; the toys were not accessible enough to the children and did not stimulate role play. However, the children were able to choose different activities, such as constructive play, a cushion room that allowed for more physical play, a small reading corner and various table activities. In one department, the staff engaged in improvement in the physical environment. Guri described this as follows: ‘We became aware of the importance of the physical environment and thought it was fun to work with that area’. Helle said, ‘And I also think that after the observations it was easier for everyone, and for the assistants, to speak up about things. To be braver, and say that I would like to change that, and, yes, take responsibility for it’. The function of the rooms became clearer after pictures and text were placed on the various play and material boxes. Toys and materials were made accessible to the children by placing them at a height they could reach. The themes of the play areas were more clearly defined, including a room for role play. The collaboration on some procedures and rules was improved, and the adults distributed themselves more effectively throughout the play areas.

How KIDS Helps Build the staff’s Competence Participation in developmental work using the new tools included in KIDS can help improve the quality of inclusive practices in preschool and raise the staff’s competence levels. We wanted to gain insights into what happens during the development processes in terms of what new knowledge and skills the preschool staff acquired in relation to facilitating inclusion. In the focus group interviews—particularly the final interview—there were three key factors that the participants raised; one was a shift of focus, another was being open for improvements, and the third was the boost from reflective dialogues. Shifting focus from expected need for improvement to unexpected needs. One informant said she had expected the need for improvement in terms of building relationships with and between the children. She said, ‘(…) the relationship aspect was expected, but we hadn’t expected there to be so much focus on the physical environment (…) it’s an area that has had a big impact, so something has happened in all departments on that front (…)’. This involved a shift of focus. This participant had expected the relationships to be an area for improvement, but the fact that the KIDS observation form also focused on the physical environment was unexpected but

180

J. Buli-Holmberg et al.

useful, leading to improvements in the staff’s work on the physical environment in all departments. Supportive input and being open for improvements. Working with relationships seemed to be meaningful. One of the participants expressed this as follows: ‘(…) we got extra support for some things we have wanted to work on (...) in relation to relationships and taking the children’s feelings seriously (...)’. It seemed important that the staff received support in their work with their relationships and to take the children’s feelings seriously because this was an area the staff felt they needed and wanted to improve in. The inclusion of the relationships aspect in KIDS helped highlight the staff’s need to improve and importance of receiving support through dialogues and reflection. To identify the ‘here-and-now’ situation as a starting point in the process of improving practices helped the staff become aware of the needs and what the potential for improvement could be. One participant said that she: ‘(...) quickly realised that we just had to tell it like it was to get the best help possible’. This statement shows that to receive support in the work with improvements is useful, but it is also necessary to consider what does not work so well. A boost from reflective dialogues. An important emphasis was on pointing out the areas where staff were doing well and that the positive tone when discussing areas that need improvement was not accusatory. One of the participants expressed the importance of this in the following statement: ‘(…) I think everyone felt they got a bit of a boost from hearing what they are good at. Spent a lot of time on it, and it was extremely important (…) that it wasn’t good enough. It was good that it was raised without it feeling like criticism (…).’ Support through recognising what staff were good at and understanding what they did not manage so well was considered important and necessary from the perspective of the participants. The participants also found it to be positive that there was a balance between focusing both on what they managed well and not so well and that there was an understanding for the aspects they did not manage so well.

Discussion The purpose of the current study was to gain insights into how KIDS can contribute to raising preschool staff’s awareness of how they realise the policy of inclusion into practice and, hence, created the conditions for growth for all children, particularly those with special needs. The results indicate how through participating in the community in the preschool, the diverse children were supported in their learning (MacNaughton, 2005). The results illuminate how inclusive practices in preschool improve through facilitating conditions of high quality with relationships, play and activities and physical environment (Ringsmose & Kragh-Müller, 2014). Sharing the observations through reflection between the staff and researchers initiated the improvement work of relationships, play and activities and physical environment to a greater extent than before. By focusing on assessing the relationships, play and

12  Inclusive Practices in Early Childhood Education in Norway

181

activities and physical environment, the staff facilitated for and reflected how the individual child received care and developed according to their abilities within the daily routines (Hadadian & Hargrove, 2001). The approach used in the present study appeared to be suitable for including children with special needs, who usually have fewer interactions with other children, play less and are not included in playgroups (Guralnick, 2019; Vedeler, 2007). Using KIDS as a gateway to build a close relationship between the staff and children and between children to promote inclusion for all children is in line with the findings from Pianta et al. (2005) in terms of adult–child and child–child relationships. KIDS’ focus on building a high-quality relationship between the staff and children gave opportunities for the children to receive moderately good relational support, as stated in the findings of Berg-Nielsen and Drugli (2019), and to build positive relationships between staff and vulnerable children in kindergarten (Brandlistuen et al., 2015). The focus on creating access to and variety in play and activities seems to improve low access, as Bjørnestad et al. (2019) found. The results indicate that a key factor in assessing the quality of inclusions was met in the current study: the children received better access to adapted activities and wre given more opportunities to play with other children (Ringsmose & Kragh-Müller, 2014). The findings related to physical factors show that the rooms were designed to be better suited for children’s play and cognitive development. This was particularly related to the furnishing of the rooms, which facilitated interaction, positive development and well-­being (Layzer & Goodson, 2006). Using KIDS in the process of the improvement of inclusion developed the quality of preschool education, creating a stimulating and supportive environment in which children can develop and a tool to build a higher level of competence of the staff (Loeb et al., 2004). The findings indicate that the staff became more aware of the situation and need for improvement of inclusive practices, here by using the three areas in KIDS to observe, facilitate and reflect. To develop inclusive practices involves restructuring cultures and policies, and KIDS support this process (Booth & Ainscow, 2002). The preschool where the study was conducted developed a culture of learning, one where the staff was open to share their experiences with each other and together identify the strategies that can lead to improvement (Kragh-Müller & Ringsmose, 2015). The present study has highlighted how—through participating in developmental work at their own workplace using the tools in KIDS—the staff raised their awareness of the factors that promote inclusion, and their competence also increased in terms of observing, facilitating and reflecting.

Conclusion The intention of the national policy of preschool education in Norway is based on the principles of inclusion and that all children should have the possibilities to participate actively in play and activities with others based on their own abilities and the opportunities within the framework of the preschool community. Kindergarten staff members need to be committed to the relationships in daily routines, play and

182

J. Buli-Holmberg et al.

activities to develop children’s social skills and competence. In this chapter, we have presented results from a study with the purpose to elucidate how to improve inclusive practices in preschool in Norway for children with and without special needs. By using KIDS, the preschool staff gained a better understanding of the importance of inclusion connected to how relationships, play and activities and the physical environment support the children’s development. To create opportunities for children to participate actively, both on their own initiative and with support from the staff, play and activities and physical environment are the fundamental factors of inclusion. To meet the preschool staff’s opportunities and barriers implementing the policy of inclusion into practice, KIDS may be one of several approaches that can help promote inclusion for all children in preschool.

References Alvestad, M., Gjems, L., Myrvang, E., Storli, J. B., Tungland, I. B. E., Velde, K. L., Bjørnestad, E. & Kvalitet, i barnehagen. (2019). Rapport nr. 85, Universitetet i Stavanger  – November 2019. http://uis.brage.unit.no/uis-­xmlui/handle/11250/2630132 Andersen, F. (1994). Selvbestemmelse og komplementaritet. I: G.  Kragh-Müller. Samspil og konflikter. En artikkelsamling (pp.  65-79). København: Forlaget Børn og unge, Pædagogisk bogklub. Barbour, R. (2007). Doing focus groups. The SAGE qualitative research kit. Book 4. Sage. Befring, E. (2010). Forskningsmetode med etikk og statistikk. Det Norske Samlaget. Berg-Nielsen, T. S., & Drugli, M. B. (2019). Samspillskvalitet mellom ansatte og små barn (1–3 år). Hentet fra Barnehage.no. https://www.barnehage.no/artikler/forsket-­pa-­samspill-­for-­sma-­ barn-­er-­barnehagekvalitet-­lik-­gode-­relasjoner-­og-­godt-­samspill-­med-­de-­ansatte/468408 Björklid, P. (2005). Lärande och fysisk miljö. En kunskapsöversikt om samspelet mellan lärande och fysisk miljö i förskola och skola. Forskning i focus, 25, Skolverket. Bjørnestad, E., & Os, E. (2018). Quality in Norwegian childcare for toddlers using ITERS-R. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 26(1), 111–127. https:// doi.org/10.1080/1350293X.2018.1412051 Bjørnestad, E., Broekhuizen, M., Os, E., & Baustad, A. (2019). Interaction quality in Norwegian ECEC for toddlers measured with caregiver interaction profile scales (CIP). Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 64(6), 901–920. Bohnsack, R. (2004). Group discussion and focus groups. In U. Flick, I. Steinke, B. Jenner, & E. V. Kardorff (Eds.), A companion to qualitative research (pp. 214–221). Sage. Booth, T., & Ainscow, M. (2002). Index for inclusion: Developing learning and participation in schools (2nd ed.). Centre for Studies on Inclusive Education. Booth, T., Nes, K., & Stromstad, M. (2003). Developing inclusive teacher education? Introduction. In T. Booth, K. Nes, & M. Stromstad (Eds.), Developing inclusive teacher education (pp. 1–14). Routledge Falmer. Bowlby, J. (1994). En sikker base. Tilknytningsteoriens kliniske anvendelse. Det Lille Forlag. Brandlistuen, R., Helland, S., Evensen, L., Schjølberg, S., Tambs, K., Aase, H., & Wang, M. (2015). Sårbare barn i barnehagen – betydningen av kvalitet. Nasjonalt folkehelseinstitutt. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa Braarud, H. C., Handelsby, N., Furevik, M., & og Lysne, K. (2008). Prevention of mental health problems and behavioral problems in 3- to 6-year-olds in kindergarten: A survey of competence and competence needs in preschool educators in Bergen municipality and municipalities

12  Inclusive Practices in Early Childhood Education in Norway

183

in Nordhordland (Forebygging av psykiske vansker og atferdsproblemer hos 3- til 6-åringer i barnehagen: En kartlegging av kompetanse og kompetansebehov hos førskolepedagoger i Bergen kommune og kommuner i Nordhordland). Spesialpedagogikk Forskning. Brinkmann, S., & Kvale, S. (2014). InterViews: Learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing (3rd ed.). Sage. Buli-Holmberg, J. (2012). Tidlig innsats og forebygging i barnehage. In H. Bjørnsrud & S. Nilsen (Eds.), Tidlig innsats Bedre læring for alle. Cappelen Damm Akademisk. Dalen, M. (2011). Intervju som forskningsmetode. Universitetsforlaget. Dau, E. (2001). The anti-bias approach in early childhood (2nd ed.). Longman. Dencik, K., Bäckström, C., & Larsson, E. (1988). Barnens två världar. ESSELTE Studium/ Almqvist &Wiksell. Directorate of Education (Utdanningsdirektoratet). (2017a). Hva er kvalitetsutvikling i barnehagen? https://www.udir.no/kvalitet-­og-­kompetanse/kvalitet-­i-­barnehagen/hva-­er-­kvalitet-­i-­ barnehagen/ Directorate of Education (Utdanningsdirektoratet). (2017b). Rammeplan for barnehagen: Innhold og oppgaver. https://www.udir.no/laring-­og-­trivsel/rammeplan/ Directorate of Education (Utdanningsdirektoratet). (2020). Fakta om barnehager [Fact about preschool]. https://www.udir.no/tall-­og-­forskning/statistikk/statistikk-­barnehage/ barnehager_2019/ Drugli, M. B. (2011). Liten i barnehagen. Cappelen Damm. Gall, M. D., Borg, W. R., & Gall, J. P. (1996). Educational research: An introduction. Longman. Ghauri, P., & Grønhaug, K. (2002). Business research methods in business studies: A practical guide (2nd ed.). Prentice Hall. Guralnick, M.  J. (2019). Effective early intervention: The developmental systems approach. Brookes Publishing. Hadadian, A., & Hargrove, L. (2001). Childcare perspectives on inclusion: Do we have to go a long way to go? Infant-Toddler Intervention: The Transdisciplinary Journal, 11, 49–58. Hammersly, M., & Atkinson, P. (2019). Ethnography principles in practice (4th ed.). Routledge. Johansson, J.-E. (2006). Will there be any preschool teachers in the future? In J. Einarsdottir & J. T. Wagner (Eds.), Nordic childhoods and early education: Philosophy, research, policy and practice in Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden (pp.  43–69). Information Age Publishing. Korsvold, T. (2011). Barndom – barnehage – inkludering. In: Barndom Barnehage Inkludering. Fagbokforlaget. Kragh-Müller, G., & Ringsmose, C. (2015). Educational quality in preschool centers. Childhood Education, 91(3), 198–205. Kunnskapsdepartementet. (2019). Tett på - tidlig innsats og inkluderende fellesskap i barnehage, skole og SFO. (Meld. St. 6 (2019-2020). Departementet. https://www.regjeringen.no/contentas sets/3dacd48f7c94401ebefc91549a5d08cd/no/pdfs/stm201920200006000dddpdfs.pdf Layzer, J.  I., & Goodson, B.  D. (2006). The ‘quality’ of early care and education setting. Definitional and measurement issues. Evaluation Review, 30(5), 556–576. https://doi.org/1 0.1177/0193841X06291524 Loeb, S., Fuller, B., Kagan, S. L., & Bidemi, C. (2004). Child care in poor communities: Early learning effects of type, quality, and stability. Child Development, 75(1), 47–65. Løkken, G. (2004). Toddlerkultur. Om ett- og toåringers sosiale omgang i barnehagen. Cappelen akademisk forlag. Lund, I. (2014). Clear and warm adults in the face of bullying in pre-school. Bullying in preschool, a social phenomenon (Tydelige og varme voksne i møte med mobbing i barnehagen. Mobbing i barnehagen, et sosialt fenomen). ISBN: 978-82-15.02266-6. Universitetsforlaget. kapittel 6. s 114–126. MacNaughton, G. (2005). Doing Foucault in early childhood studies: Applying poststructural ideas. Routledge.

184

J. Buli-Holmberg et al.

Malterud, K. (2012). Fokusgrupper som forskningsmetode for medisin og helsefag. Universitetsforlaget. Moss, P. (Ed.). (2013). Early childhood and compulsory education: Reconceptualising the relationship. Routledge. NESH. (2016). Forskningsetiske retningslinjer for samfunnsvitenskap, humaniora, juss og teologi. https://www.etikkom.no/globalassets/documents/publikasjoner-­som-­pdf/60125_fek_retningslinjer_nesh_digital.pdf. Nordahl, T. (2018). Inkluderende fellesskap for barn og unge – Ekspertgruppen for barn og unge med behov for særskilt tilrettelegging. Fagbokforlaget. OECD. (2006). Starting strong II: Early childhood education and care. OECD. Pianta, R., Howes, C., Burchinal, M., Bryant, D., Clifford, R., Early, D., & Barbarin, O. (2005). Features of pre-kindergarten programs, classrooms, and teachers: Do they predict observed classroom quality and child-teacher interactions? Applied Developmental Science, 9(3), 144–159. Published online: 04 Jun 2010. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532480xads0903_2 Ringsmose, C., & Kragh-Müller, G. (2014). KIDS. Kvalitetsutvikling i daginstitusjoner. Dansk psykologisk forlag. Ringsmose, C., & Kragh-Müller, G. (2015a). Educational quality in preschool centers. Childhood Education, 91(3) https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00094056.2015.1047311 Ringsmose, C., & Kragh-Müller, G. (2015b). Pædagogisk kvalitet i store og små daginstitutioner En rapport om børns trivsel, læring og udvikling i store og små daginstitutioner. Institut for Uddannelse og Pædagogik (DPU), Aarhus Universitet. https://bupl.dk/wp-­content/ uploads/2018/01/uncategorized-­p aedagogisk-­k valitet-­i -­s tore-­o g-­s maa-­d aginstitutioner-­ feb-­2015-­3555.pdf Schibbye, A. L. (2002). En dialektisk relasjonsforståelse i psykoterapi med individ, par og familie. Universitetsforlaget. Statistic Agency in Norway. (2020). Kindergarten. Statistics Norway. Thagaard, T. (2003). Systematikk og innlevelse: En innføring i kvalitativ metode. Fagbokforlaget. The Preschool Act. (2005). Lov om barnehager. https://lovdata.no/dokument/NL/ lov/2005-­06-­17-­64 Vedeler, L. (2007). Sosial mestring i barnegrupper. Universitetsforlaget. Vygotsky, L.  S. (1978). Mind in society. The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press. WHO. (2004). The importance of caregiver-child interactions for the survival and healthy development of young children. A review. World Health Organization. Department of Child and Adolescent Health and Development. Wilhjelm, H. (2010). Barnehagens hus – om bygg og arkitektur. In Ø. Kvello (Ed.), Målsettinger, føringer og rammer for barnehagen. Oslo. Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods. Sage.

Chapter 13

Late Talkers and Language Learning in Norwegian ECEC for Children Under Three Elisabeth Brekke Stangeland and Joakim Evensen Hansen

Abstract  In this chapter, we explore and discuss the possibilities and challenges in the language learning environment for children under 3  years old who have low language skills. We build on data from two doctoral theses focused on educational language practices, language development, play and social functioning in the early childhood years, here within a Norwegian early childhood education and care (ECEC) context. The early childhood years are a sensitive period in language development, and international research indicates that early experiences matter for long-­ term educational and social development. In Norway, ECEC coverage for toddlers is over 80%, thus making ECECs an important language learning arena. The features from two PhD thesis conducted in Norway are presented and discussed in this chapter. The results from the two studies show that there are variations in children’s language development that explain their participation in play. Moreover, the results show that ECEC staff provide children with few language learning opportunities that are assumed to promote language development. We highlight the importance of the quality of the language learning environment in securing progression and development for late talkers. Keywords  Late talkers · Language learning · Norway · Early childhood

Introduction In Norway, 84% of all 1- to 3-year-olds attend early childhood education and care (ECEC), and these children spend most of their time awake. Therefore, these ECECs have a tremendous impact on the children’s lives, presenting a unique E. B. Stangeland (*) · J. E. Hansen Norwegian Centre for Reading Education and Research, University of Stavanger, Stavanger, Norway e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 H. Harju-Luukkainen et al. (eds.), Special Education in the Early Years, International Perspectives on Early Childhood Education and Development 36, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-91297-0_13

185

186

E. B. Stangeland and J. E. Hansen

opportunity to intervene early if developmental difficulties are revealed. In this population, the prevalence of developmental language disorders is between 5% and 10% (Bishop, 2014; Sunderajan & Kanhere, 2019), and general language delay is quite common in the early years. In this chapter, we define late talkers as children with low language skills in relation to their age (Lekhal et  al., 2011). Because the children included in the presented studies are under 3 years old, it is not yet meaningful to define the delay as a developmental language disorder, as defined by Bishop et al. (2017). Many types of language delays can be effectively treated, which means language stimulation should be an integral part of everyday life in ECECs (Stangeland, 2017). Indeed, ECEC staff report that they have a specific focus on supporting language development (Gulbrandsen & Eliassen, 2013). However, knowledge of special needs care and how to support the language development of these children is something preschool teachers report lacking (Gjerustad et al., 2019). Autonomy is highly valued within the Nordic ECEC tradition, and ‘free play’ (undirected play) is the organising principle of Norwegian ECECs (McTigue et al., 2019). This practice can be considered an ideal standard (OECD, 2015) because it facilitates democratic values and language development because play and interaction promote language learning (Vygotsky, 1967). The national curriculum in Norway reflects these values as an integrated, play-based curriculum promoting a unified approach to learning and development (Ministry of Education, 2017; OECD, 2015). Recently, the unified approach and position of free play in ECECs have been problematised (Øksnes & Rasmussen, 2017), and critical voices have asked whether this practice disfavours children with language difficulties and language delays. International research has shown that early experiences matter for long-term educational and social development (Burchinal et al., 2011; Keys et al., 2013). The importance of supporting young children’s language development has been well recognised in research, practice and policy. One of the most robust findings in international research is the effect of high-quality ECECs on children with disadvantaged backgrounds (Melhuish, 2011), and this has previously been shown in a Norwegian context (Dearing et al., 2018). Many studies have included the risk factors for developmental delay; however, there are a few studies focusing specifically on children with low language skills and the quality of childcare. Attending high-­ quality ECECs at an early age can protect children from late talking (Lekhal et al., 2011, 2012). One question to ask is how children can be provided with the high-­ quality language learning environment they are entitled to. In this chapter, we use empirical data from two doctoral studies conducted in Norway on language development and language learning with children under 3 years old in Norwegian ECECs. To explore the language learning opportunities for late talkers in Norwegian ECECs, the following research questions were asked: 1. To what extent do late talkers participate in play and social interaction? 2. To what extent do the ECEC staff support children’s participation in verbal communication?

13  Late Talkers and Language Learning in Norwegian ECEC for Children Under Three

187

Language Development and Late Talkers Language skills develop rapidly during children’s early years and lay the foundation for later achievements. The early childhood years are a sensitive period in language development, and although language acquisition is a robust biological attribute (Spinath et al., 2004), the opportunities for social interaction provided by the environment are crucial for the development of language. Evidence has indicated that individual differences in children’s vocabulary development are, to a certain degree, related to the availability of environmental support and caregiver speech (Hoff, 2006; Huttenlocher et al., 2010). At ages 2 and 3, children develop from expressing just few words to starting to produce two- and three-word sentences (Hoff, 2014; Simonsen et al., 2014). During this period, there are children with a less steep developmental trajectory, and those producing less than 50 words and not using two-word combinations are defined as late talkers (Lekhal et  al., 2011; Rescorla & Merrin, 1998). Play is a key factor in the development of cognitive functions and in language acquisition (Vygotsky, 1978). By participating in play, children develop language skills; they get to communicate intentions clearly and make explicit agreements and negotiations, which promotes effective interactions (Säljö, 2001). In this perspective, language promotes play, and play enhances language. Previous research has shown that children with language difficulties struggle in their interactions with others. The association between language skills and social difficulties has been found to exist in preschoolers (Yew & O’Kearney, 2013), in older children and adolescents (Conti-Ramsden et al., 2012; Helland et al., 2014) and in adults (Beitchman et al., 2001), but few studies have explored the relationship between social functioning and language skills in children under the age of three. Knowledge about late talkers’ participation in peer play and their social functioning can shed light on these children’s opportunities for language learning in ECECs (Stangeland, 2018).

Language Learning in a Childcare Context The Nordic social-pedagogical approach takes the perspective that interactions drive learning and development. Contextual aspects such as culture, values and languages are also significant in the learning processes. Learning is understood as a situated social practice, and communication is an important mechanism of learning. Therefore, adult–child interactions become a driving force in supporting children’s development, which is conceptualised in Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development (ZPD). A key part in the theory of ZPD is the involvement in problem solving, where adults or more capable peers provide leadership and guidance, giving children experiences in ‘a zone that includes everything that is achievable with assistance, which would otherwise lay beyond individual capability’ (Siraj-Blatchford et al., 2002, p. 34). Using children’s experiences to extend their capability and foster

188

E. B. Stangeland and J. E. Hansen

learning has theoretically been conceptualised in terms of guided participation, joint attention and scaffolding. In more recent empirical work, the concept of ‘sustained shared thinking’ (SST) was developed in a British Effective Provision of Pre-school Education (EPPE)study (Siraj-Blatchford, 2009). SST includes the perspectives of relational and intentional pedagogy in a process of thinking together, which both parties must contribute to, and the thinking must be developed and extended. In childcare, SST can be observed in both verbal and nonverbal interactions in play activities initiated by staff or children. SST between staff and children and in peer groups is sustained by a high-quality learning environment. The question of how to support children’s language development in the early years has been studied for decades, mainly with a focus on the parent–child relationship (Rowe, 2012). The results from studies on dyads (i.e., mother–child) have informed research and practices in ECECs (Dickinson, 2011). The quantity and quality of the content in adult–child interactions have been studied, and associations are often found between the number and variety of words used, the responsiveness, the extension of conversations and language development in the early childhood years (Hoff, 2006). These are general aspects of a high-quality learning environment and can be implemented at the group level (e.g., in play), but ensuring that all children develop their language skills is still challenging.

Early Intervention and Late Talkers From the perspective of early intervention, ECEC staff must have knowledge on how to detect language delays and how to support language growth for this heterogeneous group of children with language delays or disorders (Bishop et al., 2017) to prevent and remedy negative development. The knowledge gap within Norwegian ECECs in how to support children with special needs—pointed out in the OECD initiated survey ‘TALIS Starting Strong Survey’ (Gjerustad et  al., 2019)—raises questions about these children’s learning and development opportunities in Norwegian ECECs. Studies have shown that language interventions focusing on shared reading enhance language comprehension (van den Broek et  al., 2017) and vocabulary growth (Mol & Bus, 2011; Mol et al., 2009; Mol et al., 2008). This positive effect can be attributed to the talk that surrounds storybook reading (Pesco & Gagné, 2017). Another way to support language comprehension is to activate children’s mental files or prior knowledge before reading (Keene & Zimmermann, 1997) and establish a frame of joint attention (Tomasello et al., 2005). In a Norwegian study on preschoolers with poor language skills, book reading was also found to predict children’s language comprehension (Hagen, 2018). In the Norwegian context, ECEC staff are obligated to follow the framework plan (Ministry of Education, 2017) to monitor children’s communication and language development and to support children showing delayed development.

13  Late Talkers and Language Learning in Norwegian ECEC for Children Under Three

189

Preschool teachers working as pedagogical leaders are responsible for planning, implementing and assessing pedagogical work. The concept of educational language practices was used in a recent study by Hansen and Alvestad (2017) to study the practices concerning the planning, work and assessment of language support and development; they found that preschool teachers in child groups measured as high quality described using a holistic approach in which they adapted the curriculum, activities and assessment practices to both the child group and individual children. However, ensuring the individual needs of children in a group setting is not easy considering the heterogeneity of groups in terms of language development in the early years. Therefore, research on language learning in childcare must consider both the structural aspects (e.g., group size, staff–child ratio, etc.) and the knowledge, skills and professional responsibility of staff. Additionally, informal settings for language learning, such as play, should be considered, especially in Norwegian and Nordic ECECs, where free play holds a prominent position.

Method Using two different approaches—1) children’s participation in play and 2) quality of the ECEC language learning environment—we have explored language learning opportunities for late talkers within Norwegian ECECs. The methods are presented separately in this section, and the results from both studies will be presented together and discussed in relation to the research questions. Study A (Stangeland, 2018) explored the variations in and associations between language skills, play and social competencies in toddlers (N  =  1005) who were attending ECECs (N = 87 centres). The study built on baseline measurements from the longitudinal, multidisciplinary project ‘The Stavanger Project – The Learning Child’. Trained preschool teachers who knew the children collected the data through a structured observation of the children’s competencies during play and daily activities in the ECEC. The observations started the day a child was 30 months old and ended when the child was 33  months old. The observation tools Tras (Espenakk et al., 2003) and Alle med (Løge et al., 2006) were used to collect the data. Both observational tools are widely used in Norwegian ECECs to document children’s development over time and to detect negative trends in language skills and socioemotional development (see Stangeland, 2018 for details on reliability and validity). The language variable (α = .93, M = 22.3 Sd = 11.1), which reflects language comprehension and production, was constructed based on the best discriminating items from the observation tool Tras. The same approach was used to form the play variable (α = .73, M = 8.3 Sd = 2.8) from the observation tool Alle med; this variable reflects various play forms, such as function play and role play. The children’s participation and social interactions were also reflected by the items in this continuous variable. A multivariate analysis approach was used to predict the unique contribution of language proficiency and social competence to the children’s play. Children

190

E. B. Stangeland and J. E. Hansen

scoring below the tenth percentile on the language variable were defined as late talkers. To explore specific traits in late talkers’ play, a univariate analysis was conducted. In Study B (Hansen, 2018), a multimethod approach was used to explore and provide in-depth descriptions of educational language practices in ECECs for toddlers and associations between the quality of the language learning environment in children’s early years and their language development. The data came from the longitudinal research project Better Provision for Norway’s Children in Early Childhood Education (BePro/GoBaN). A qualitative case study approach was used to explore the characteristics of educational practices in a small sample of toddler groups (n = 4) who were measured in a high-quality language learning environment (5 or above on a 7-point scale) with the Infant/Toddler Environment Rating Scale (ITERS-R – Harms et al., 2006). A total of 98 video observations (total = 1096 minutes, min 2.17, max 30.5, M = 11.18) of everyday practices were analysed in terms of the content of adult–child conversations (i.e., add words, extend and explain) and variations in different activities (i.e., free play, mealtime, circle time, etc.) during the day in childcare. Using longitudinal data, associations between the quality of the language learning environment and language development were investigated. The sample in the longitudinal part was 1131 children (48% girls; age at T1 assessment: M = 35.5 months, SD = 2.7; age at T2 assessment: M = 60.3 months, SD = 1.4) from 206 toddler groups from 93 centres. Quality in the toddler groups was measured with the ITERS-R and in the ECEC groups with the Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale-Revised (Harms et al., 2005). See Hansen (2018) for more information on the sample, data and analytical approaches.

Ethical Considerations The data materials used in these two PhD studies were reviewed and approved by the Norwegian Social Science Data Services (NSD) and strictly followed the national guidelines on research ethics (The National Committee for Research Ethics in the Social Sciences and the Humanities, 2016). The participation of each child was based on the parents’/guardians’ informed, written consent on behalf of their children. The staff were given information on the aim of the studies and their own contribution to the research process and gave written consent. The staff and parents/ guardians could withdraw themselves or their children from the studies at any time without giving any reason. Both the children and ECEC staff were guaranteed anonymity, and the data collected were used and stored in accordance with the approval given by the NSD. The children were by no means weakened from participating in projects like these. In general, research projects should be neutral or even empowering for the everyday lives of children in ECECs. The children and staff were considered active participants in the research process.

13  Late Talkers and Language Learning in Norwegian ECEC for Children Under Three

191

Results The results from study A (Stangeland, 2018) show that there was great variation in the toddlers’ language skills, coinciding with the findings of other studies. We also found that language skills were a significant and independent predictor of play behaviour (p