Journal of Educational Change

, Volume 15, Issue 1, pp 37–56 | Cite as

Conceptual change in adopting the nationwide special education strategy in Finland

  • H. Thuneberg
  • J. Hautamäki
  • R. Ahtiainen
  • M. Lintuvuori
  • M.-P. Vainikainen
  • T. Hilasvuori
Article
First Online:

Abstract

Educational reform is rarely considered from the point of view of conceptual change. Typically, reform starts at the policy document level by introducing criteria intended to lead to the adoption of new practices. This study offers a case study of how legal national educational reforms can be localized. The case in focus is the recent legislative change in Finland dealing with special education. The special education strategy (SPES) white paper was launched in 2007 and the related changes in the Basic Education Act were passed in 2010. In 2008–2009 the State invited local municipalities to participate in advance preparations for the reforms. More than half participated by preparing several SPES-related documents over time that allowed us to analyze the main trends concerning the different concepts used, and how they were implemented. The results are interpreted in terms of contrasts between semantics, politics and actual changes.

Keywords

Educational reform Finland Implementation RTI Special education Systemic discursive 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Adey, P., Hewitt, G., Hewitt, J., & Landau, N. (2004). The professional development of teachers: Practice and theory. London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  2. Agranoff, R., & Lindsay, V. (1983). Intergovernmental management: Perspectives from human services. Problem solving at the local level. Public Administration Review, 43, 227–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Angus, L. (2011). Teaching within and against the circle of privilege: Reforming teachers, reforming schools. Journal of Educational Policy, 27, 231–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barnett, D. W., Hawkins, R., Prasse, D., Graden, J., Nantais, M., & Pan, W. (2007). Decision-making validity in response to intervention. In S. R. Jimerson, M. K. Burns, & A. M. VanDerHeyden (Eds.), Handbook of response to intervention. The science and practice of assessment and intervention (pp. 106–116). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Berg, G. (1999). Skolkultur—nyckeln till skolans utveckling. En bok för skolutvecklare om skolans styrning. Göteborg: Gothia.Google Scholar
  6. Bogason, P. (1998). Changes in the Scandinavian model. From bureaucratic command to interorganizational negotiation. Public Administration, 76, 335–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Booth, T., Ainscow, M., & Dyson, A. (2006). Inclusion and the standards agenda: Negotiating policy pressures in England. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 10, 295–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Daniels, H. (2006). The dangers of corruption in special needs education. British Journal of Special Education, 33, 4–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity—theoretical approach to developmental research. http://communication.uscd.edu/MCA/Paper/Engestrom/expanding/toc.htm, visited 10 Sept 2008.
  10. Engeström, Y. (2007). From Stabilization knowledge to possibility knowledge in organizational learning. Management Learning, 38, 271–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Finnish National Board of Education. (2004). National core curriculum for basic education. Helsinki: Finnish National Board of Education.Google Scholar
  12. Forrest, J. B. (2003). Networks in the policy process: An international perspective. International Journal of Public Administration, 26, 591–607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (2007). A model for implementing responsiveness to intervention. Teaching Exceptional Children, 39, 14–20.Google Scholar
  14. Gresham, F. M. (2007). Evolution of the response-to-intervention concept: Empirical foundations and recent developments. In S. R. Jimerson, M. K. Burns, & A. M. VanDerHeyden (Eds.), Handbook of response to intervention. The science and practice of assessment and intervention (pp. 10–24). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hall, G., & Loucks, S. (1977). A developmental model for determining whether the treatment is actually implemented. American Educational Research Journal, 14, 263–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hargeaves, A., & Fullan, M. (2012). Professional capital. Transforming teaching in every school. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  17. Hargreaves, A., & Shirley, D. (2009). The fourth way. The inspiring future for educational change. Thousand Oaks: Corwin.Google Scholar
  18. Hastings, R., Sonuga-Barke, E., & Remington, B. (1993). An analysis of labels for people with learning disabilities. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 32, 463–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hautamäki, J. (2002). Erityis-/yleisoppilaat–saman-/erilaisia? [special/general education pupils—alike/different?]. In M. Kuorelahti & T. Saloviita (Eds.), Erityiskasvatus ja integraatio [special education and integration] (pp. 138–145). Jyväskylä: Jyväskylän yliopiston erityispedagogiikan laitos.Google Scholar
  20. Hautamäki, J. Harjunen, E., Hautamäki, A., Karjalainen, T., Kupiainen, S., Laaksonen, S., et al (2008). PISA06 Finland. Analyses, reflections, explanations. Ministry of Education Publications 2008:44. Helsinki: Ministry of Education.Google Scholar
  21. Hjörne, E., & Säljö, R. (2005). “… and a diagnosis can sort of help you to be strong as a parent.” Child identity, parenting and institutional agendas. Paper presented at ISCAR Conference, Seville.Google Scholar
  22. Jimerson, S. R., Burns, M. K., & VanDerHeyden, A. M. (2007). Response to intervention at school: The science and practice of assessment and intervention. In S. R. Jimerson, M. K. Burns, & A. M. VanDerHeyden (Eds.), Handbook of response to intervention. The science and practice of assessment and intervention (pp. 3–9). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Knotek, S. E. (2007). Consultation within response to intervention models. In S. R. Jimerson, M. K. Burns, & A. M. VanDerHeyden (Eds.), Handbook of response to intervention. The science and practice of assessment and intervention (pp. 53–64). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Königswieser, R., & Hillebrand, M. (2005). Systemic consultancy in organisations. Heidelberg: Carl-Auer.Google Scholar
  25. Levin, B., & Fullan, M. (2008). Learning about system renewal. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 36, 289–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Luhmann, N. (2002). Das Erziehungssystem der Gesellschaft. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  27. Minow, M. (1985) Learning to live with the dilemma of difference: Bilingual and special education. In K. T. Bartlett & J. W. Wegner (Eds.), Children with special needs. Boulder: Transaction Books.Google Scholar
  28. Ministry of Education. (2007). Erityisopetuksen strategia. [Special education strategy]. (Reports of the Ministry of Education 2007:47, Finland).Google Scholar
  29. Murgatroyd, S. (2011). Rethinking education: Learning and the new renaissance. Edmonton, Alta: Future Think Press.Google Scholar
  30. Norwich, B. (1993). Ideological dilemmas in special needs education: Practitioners’ views. Oxford Review of Education, 19, 527–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Norwich, B. (1999). The connotation of special education labels for professionals in the field. British Journal of Special Education, 26, 179–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. OECD. (2010). PISA 2009 results: What students know and can do—student performance in reading, mathematics and science, 1. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  33. Olson, D. (2003). Psychological theory and educational reform: How school remakes mind and society. Cambridge: Cambridge University press.Google Scholar
  34. Osgood, R. (2006). Language, labels, and lingering (re)considerations: The evolution and function of terminology in special education. Philosophical studies in education, 37, 135–145.Google Scholar
  35. Qvortrup, L. (2005). Society’s educational system—an introduction to Niklas Luhmann’s pedagogical theory. International journal of media, technology and lifelong learning, 1. Retrieved November 1, 2009, from http://seminar.net/index.php/volume-1-issue-1-2005-previousissuesmeny-108/36-lars-qvortrup-societys-educational-system-an-introduction-to-niklas-luhmanns-pedagogical-theory.
  36. Report. (2006). Erityistä tukea tarvitsevan oppilaan opetuksen järjestämisen uudistaminen osana yhtenäistä perusopetusta—kohti laatua ja joustavuutta. Espoon, Helsingin, Jyväskylän, Kuopion, Lahden, Lappeenrannan, Tampereen, Turun ja Vantaan kaupunkien opetustoimien puolesta sihteeristö [Suggestions for renewal of teaching for students with special needs as a part of Finnish comprehensive schooling. Towards quality and flexibility].Google Scholar
  37. Sabel, C., Saxenian, A., Miettinen, R., Kristensen, P., & Hautamäki, J. (2011). Individualized service provision in the new welfare state. Lessons from special education in Finland (Sitra Studies 62. Helsinki: SITRA).Google Scholar
  38. Sahlberg, P. (2011). Finnish lessons. What can the world learn from educational change in Finland? New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  39. Salo, K. (2010). Hallinnontasojen välinen dialogi ja erityisopetuksen muutos byrokraattisena instituutiona: kymppikuntien loppuraportin ja Erityisopetuksen strategian sisällönanalyyttinen vertailu. [Dialogue between governmental administration levels and the change of a special education system as a bureaucratic institution—Content Analysis of the Ten Largest LEA’s Final Report and Special Education Strategy]. Master’s thesis, University of Helsinki.Google Scholar
  40. Seidl, D. (2007). General strategy concepts and the ecology of strategy discourses: A systemic-discursive perspective. Organization Studies, 28, 197–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Showers, B., & Joyce, B. (1996). The evolution of peer coaching. Educational Leadership, 53, 12–16.Google Scholar
  42. Slee, R. (2010). Political economy, inclusive education and teacher education. In C. Forlin (Ed.), Teacher education for inclusion. Changing paradigms and innovative approaches (pp. 13–22). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  43. Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Wilson, J. (1989). Bureaucracy: What government agencies do and why they do it. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • H. Thuneberg
    • 1
  • J. Hautamäki
    • 1
  • R. Ahtiainen
    • 1
  • M. Lintuvuori
    • 1
  • M.-P. Vainikainen
    • 1
  • T. Hilasvuori
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Teacher Education, Faculty of Behavioural Sciences, Centre for Educational AssessmentUniversity of HelsinkiHelsinkiFinland

Personalised recommendations