Inclusion as Education for all: a cross-national comparison

Suvi Lakkala, Outi Kyrö-Ämmälä, Gregor Maxwell, Mhairi Beaton, Alvyra Galgiené, Vijaya Dharan

Tutkimustuotokset: KonferenssiesitysKonferenssipaperiTieteellinen

Abstrakti

Whilst the definition of the term ‘inclusion’ remains contested (Slee, 2019), a trend towards becoming and being inclusive within national education policies has been observed (UNESCO, 2019). The proposed symposium examines the policy changes towards inclusion and equity in five national settings: Canada, Lithuania, New Zealand, Norway and Finland. Contributors are all members of a UNITWIN/UNESCO Network for Social Justice and Diversity and each contributor will focus on a distinctive element of the development of and implementation of policy within their national context including preparing and supporting teachers for inclusion. Bringing these diverse experiences of aspiring to ‘inclusion for all’ (Florian &Black-Hawkins, 2011) provides an opportunity to develop new understandings of how to provide education for all.
Finland
Already in 1968, Finland made the decision to establish a comprehensive school to increase educational equality (Aho, Pitkänen & Sahlberg 2006). Finland has continued investing in developing a socially just system of compulsory education (basic education). The pedagogical support system was reformed in 2010 and 2014 (FNBE 2016). Today, teachers are expected to continuously assess learning environments and provide support collaboratively to all students in ‘neighbourhood schools’. In addition, teacher education has been developed from the perspective of inclusion. According to recent studies, teachers and headteachers are quite satisfied to the adequacy of current support system, and the way of constructing support have become more versatile than before. However, here are regional differences in the conceptual interpretations of pedagogical support. Furthermore, the support for students with a clear diagnosis is better arranged than for students who have received support on milder grounds (Vainikainen et al. 2018).
Lithuania
The beginning of inclusive education in Lithuania is related to the transition of the country's education from a segregated and unified system during the Soviet period to a system based on equity and equality after Lithuania regained its independence in 1990 (Kugelmass, & Galkiene, 2003). Its development is influenced by the patriotic determination to create an open education based on humanistic values, and the memory of the formation of teachers in a strictly unified education system (Lukšienė, 2013). Today, 90% of children with special educational needs study in general schools. Yet, research results show teachers' open attitude to inclusive education and a great deal of confusion about its quality implementation in practice. Obviously, teachers' favourable provisions and a harmonized legal framework are insufficient for inclusive education to become the paradigm of the education system. The competence stored in the memory of pedagogical experience is the barrier for complete transformation.
New Zealand
In New Zealand there has been a reset in the use of often contentious and non-inclusive terminology of ‘special education’ (Slee, 2019). The word "Special" has been replaced in policy language and practice, with a less stigmatising and culturally accepted term of "Learning Support" by the Ministry of Education. This strategic move is captured in the Learning Support Action Plan (2019-2025) which has the vision of having an education system where all children and young people can learn and achieve. The plan will be actioned through a strength-based, culturally responsive collaborative framework to support teachers, families, children and young people to be inclusive for all learners (Ministry of Education,2020). There is a commitment to ongoing efforts to build teacher capability through pre-service and in-service professional learning, among others. As a first step Learning Support Coordinators have been employed throughout the country to support schools and teachers.
Norway
In 2017 Norway introduced a new national 5-year integrated initial teacher education master’s programme to train teachers with increased specialization and research-based knowledge. There are higher expectations that these teachers are more able to adapt their training to the individual student and better integrate special education in their general teaching. In the context of inclusion all this builds on a long Norwegian tradition of adapted education. However, recent criticism has accused the system of actually creating exclusion and perpetuating a dysfunctional system (Nordahl et al., 2018). To combat this, results from a recent study following the first cohorts of new teachers from both the national launch and a pilot programme has found that newly qualified teachers in Norway need more knowledge about inclusive pedagogy and relational thinking in education (Antonsen et al., 2020). This specific example from Norway, shows an intention to empower teachers to take agency of their professional learning, and develop pedagogical practices to deliver more equitable and inclusive education.
References (250 word maximum)
• Aho, E., Pitkänen, K., & Sahlberg, P (2006). Policy development and reform principles of basic and secondary education in Finland since 1968. Washington, DC: World Bank.
• Antonsen, Y., Maxwell, G., et al. (2020). «Det er et kjemperart system» – spesialpedagogikk, tilpasset opplæring og nyutdannede læreres kompetanse. ["It’s a really odd system!" – special education, adapted education and newly qualified teachers’ competences]. Acta Didactica Norge, 14 (2), 1-19. ISSN 1504-9922. doi: 10.5617/adno.7918.
• FNBE.Finnish National Board of Education (2016). National Core Curriculum for Basic Education 2014, Publications 5, Helsinki: National Board of Education.
• Florian, L., & Black‐Hawkins, K. (2011). Exploring inclusive pedagogy. British Educational Research Journal, 37(5), 813-828. DOI:10.1080/01411926.2010.501096
• Kugelmass, J., & Galkiene, A. (2003). Democratic reform and the emergence of special needs education in Lithuania. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 18(1), 53-70.
• Lukšienė, M. (2013). Jungtys [Connections], Vilnius, Alma littera.
• Ministry of Education (2019). The Learning Support Action Plan. Wellington, Author.
• Nordahl, T., et al. (2018). Inkluderende Fellesskap for Barn og unge [Inclusive Community for Children and Young People]: Ekspertgruppen for barn og unge med behov for særskilt tilrettelegging. Bergen.
• Official Statistics of Finland (2020). Special Education. Appendix Table 5. Comprehensive School Pupils Having Received Special Support by Place of Provision of Teaching. Statistics Finland Helsinki: Finland. Available online: http://www.stat.fi/til/erop/2019/erop_2019_2020-06-05_tau_005_en.html.
• Slee, R. (2019). Inclusive Education isn't Dead, it Just Smells Funny. Routledge
• Vainikainen, M-P., et al. (2018). Educational support from early childhood to the transition to upper secondary education: actualisation of equity and needs for development. Publications of the Government´s analysis, assessment and research activities, 55, Helsinki: Prime Minister’s Office.
Alkuperäiskielienglanti
TilaJulkaistu - 16 syyskuuta 2021
OKM-julkaisutyyppiEi mikään luokiteltu

Tieteenala

  • Yleinen kasvatustiede ja opettajankoulutus

Sormenjälki

Sukella tutkimusaiheisiin 'Inclusion as Education for all: a cross-national comparison'. Ne muodostavat yhdessä ainutlaatuisen sormenjäljen.

Viite tähän julkaisuun