Educational Choice-making and Subjectivities of the Students with Special Educational Needs in Pre-Vocational Education and Training

Author(s):

Anna-Maija Niemi(presenting / submitting)Tuuli Kurki(presenting)

Conference:

ECER 2014

Network:

04. Inclusive Education

Format:

Paper

Session Information

04 SES 05 C, VET Vociational Education and Training: Issues in Inclusive Education

Paper Session

Time:

2014-09-03

11:00-12:30

Room:

B026 Anfiteatro

Chair:

Sílvia Alves

Contribution

Research widely (e.g. Niemi, Mietola & Helakorpi 2010; Båtevik & Myklebust 2006; Riddell et al 2001) suggests that the educational transitions of young people with special educational needs tend to be complicated, although the problems of transition are recognized and an extensive amount of resources has been put into place to prevent 'dropping out' from education (Niemi and Kurki 2013; Brunila 2012; Furlong 2006). In this paper, the authors consider the processes of educational choice-making and guidance of students regarded as having special educational needs. The context of the research is Finnish pre-vocational education and training. Not only in Finland but elsewhere too pre-vocational education is offered to the young people who have not been able to get a study place directly after comprehensive school or who ‘drop out’ from upper secondary education.

Listening to the educational subjects themselves, their hopes and future plans, has not been in the focus of the 'need-centred' discourse of special needs education (see Vehmas 2005; Allan 1999). By concentrating on the interview narrations of young adults who have participated in the pre-vocational training, we aim at exploring the negotiations of subjectivity while making educational choices. We operate with the concept of subjectification (Butler 1997; Davies 2006; Youdell 2006a,b) and understand it as an ongoing process through which one becomes a viable subject.

In the paper we ask, what kinds of educational choices become possible for students of the training programme and how do their educational hopes and future plans encounter the educational guidance given to them. In addition, we explore how do the limits and possibilities of the discursive and cultural practices of special needs education shape the subjectivity negotiations in educational choice-making (cf. Youdell 2006a,b).

Method

The data analysed for this article is produced in Anna-Maija Niemi’s ethnographic doctoral study which focuses on discursive practices of special needs education in pre-vocational and vocational education and training. The fieldwork period took place in two VET institutions in Finland, in pre-vocational training programme of 'preparatory and rehabilitative instruction and guidance for disabled students´ and mainstream VET programme of 'metalwork and machinery'. Niemi spent 23 days in the institutions, observing the lessons, breaks and meetings. Altogether, she has interviews with 50 students. In addition, 17 teachers and other education professionals were interviewed. In this paper, we particularly concentrate on the interviews of those 16 students who have participated in the pre-vocational training programme at some point of their life – with a special focus on educational choice-making and guidance. We also analyse the interviews of teachers and other education professionals and include document analysis of education policy documents of pre-vocational education in Finland (see also Niemi and Kurki 2013; Kurki and Niemi in process). We have worked with the paper collaboratively and written it ‘through discussion’ (Gordon et al. 2000). We draw on deconstructive reading, which means that the data may be broken up to find out ways in which 'the real' is constructed and performed, for example in socially formed binaries used in language and in cultural practices. Our analysis begins from such a discursive thinking, where the discourses are understood in a certain historical context, shaped through the repetitions and variations (Foucault 1980; Foucault 1969/2008; Hall 2001).

Expected Outcomes

Our analysis shows that within the pre-vocational training, the students regarded as having special educational needs have to reflect their educational hopes and future plans with the educational guidance given to them. In addition, they also need to consider the institutional and diagnostic restrictions related to their 'diagnosis' and/or statement of special educational needs. We aim to look at, how the educational justice could come true in these very processes of choice-making. Consequently, we suggest that by giving attention to dismantling the self-evidences and institutional barriers of the educational transitions of young adults with special educational needs, educational choice-making could be more negotiable.

References

Allan, J. 1999. Actively Seeking Inclusion: Pupils with Special Needs in Mainstream Schools. London: RoutledgeFalmer. Brunila, K. 2012. “Hooked on a feeling: education, guidance and rehabilitation of youth at risk.” Critical Studies in Education 54 (2): 215–228. Butler, J. 1997. The Psychic Life of Power: Theories in Subjection. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Båtevik, F. O. and Myklebust, J. O. 2006. “The Road to Work for Former Students with Special Educational Needs: Different Paths for Young Men and Young Women?” Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research 8 (1): 38-52. Davies, B. 2006. “Subjectification: The Relevance of Butler’s Analysis for Education.” British Journal of Sociology of Education 27 (4): 425-438. Foucault, M. 1980. Power/Knowledge. Selected Interviews and Other Writings, 1972-1977, edited by C. Gordon. New York: Harvester Wheatshealf. Foucault, M. 1969/2008. Tiedon arkeologia [L’archeologie du savoir]. Trans. T.Kilpeläinen. Helsinki: Vastapaino. Furlong, Andy (2006) “Not a Very NEET Solution: Representing Problematic Labour Market Transitions among Early School-Leavers. Work, Employment and Society 20 (3): 553-569. Gordon, T., Holland, J. and Lahelma, E. 2000. Making Spaces: Citizenship and Difference in Schools. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Hall, S. 2001. “Foucault: Power, Knowledge and Discourse.” In Discourse Theory and Practice: A Reader, edited by M. Wetherell, S. Taylor and S. Yates. London: SAGE. Niemi, A.-M. and Kurki, T. 2013. ”Amislaiseksi valmistettu, valmennettu, kuntoutettu ja ohjattu?” [Prepared, Rehabilitated and Guided for VET?] In Ammatillinen koulutus ja yhteiskunnalliset eronteot. [Vocational education and societal differences] edited by K. Brunila, K. Hakala, E. Lahelma and A. Teittinen.Helsinki: Gaudeamus. Niemi, A.-M., Mietola, R. and Helakorpi, J. 2010. Erityisluokka elämänkulussa [Special Needs Class in the Course of Life. A Study on the Educational and Working Life Experiences of Young People with Disability, Roma and Immigrant background, Who Studied in Special Education Classes]. Helsinki: Finnish Ministry of the Interior, 1/2010. Riddell, S., Baron, S. and Wilson, A. 2001. “The Significance of the Learning Society for Women and Men with Learning Difficulties.” Gender and Education 13 (1): 57-73. Vehmas, S. 2005. Vammaisuus. Johdatus historian, teoriaan ja etiikkaan. [Disability]. Helsinki: Gaudeamus. Youdell, D. 2006b. Impossible Bodies, Impossible Selves: Exclusions and Student Subjectivities. Dordrecht: Springer. Youdell, D. 2006c. “Diversity, Inequality, and a Post-structural Politics for Education.” Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education 27 (1): 33-42.

Author Information

Anna-Maija Niemi (presenting / submitting)

University of Helsinki

Institute of Behavioural Sciences

Fiskars

Tuuli Kurki (presenting)

University of Helsinki, Finland

Search the ECER Programme

Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
Search for authors and in the respective field.
For planning your conference attendance you may want to use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference
If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.