Policy and practice of inclusion: school cases from Italy and Finland

Author(s):

Silvia Dell'Anna(presenting / submitting)Raisa Ahtiainen(presenting)

Conference:

ECER 2015

Network:

04. Inclusive Education

Format:

Paper

Session Information

04 SES 01 A, International Perspectives on Inclusive Education

Paper Session

Time:

2015-09-08

13:15-14:45

Room:

205.Oktatóterem [C]

Chair:

Liz Todd

Contribution

In the paper it is compared how the idea of inclusive education, pursued by European Union policies, has been implemented in Italy and Finland. Italy is an interesting case for its thirty-year policy of ‘integrazione’, which has allowed the placement of disabled students into mainstream classes, attaining a long tradition of practices (Canevaro, d’Alonzo, Ianes, 2009; D’Alessio, 2011; Associazione Treellle, Caritas Italiana, Fondazione Agnelli, 2011). Finland, in the course of past decades, has worked determinedly in restructuring its school system and creating one of the least restrictive learning environment for all, building a support system which is flexible and aims to respond the various needs of pupils (Aho, Pitkänen, Sahlberg, 2006; Niemi, 2012; Sabel et al. 2011; Thuneberg et al. 2013).

The study started from the analysis of the pedagogical frameworks of the two countries, taking into consideration the different cultural and school traditions. While exploring the Finnish and Italian school cases, we focused on distinguishing elements, which seem to promote or prevent inclusive education: teaching practices, support materials and tools, spatial organization of classrooms, educational settings in terms of different pupil groupings, various teams of teaching staff and the school community as a whole.

The research questions were related to, firstly, the role of SEN teacher, secondly, the available resources for educational arrangements (e.g. classroom settings, pupils groupings), thirdly, the organization of the support system, fourthly, the roles of the principal and non-teaching staff and, finally, the collaboration between teachers and other practitioners.

Method

The study consisted of four school case studies, two in Italy and two in Finland. The data collection combined qualitative and quantitative methods: interviews of teachers, classroom observations and graphical representations of classroom settings. The case studies gave information of how inclusive education has been interpreted and implemented. This study described differing policy-practices and noted functional, puzzling and contradictory aspects.

Expected Outcomes

The study showed how the learning environment and the school organization influence inclusive processes. In Italy, availability of resources seemed to be the main cause of discontent among Italian teachers. Teachers found it challenging to realize the ideal of inclusion in practice due to lack of coordination within the school communities and the low recognition of their professional skills. In Finland, the puzzling aspect was a shared belief system among teachers and principals which seemed to be related to the actual working community: beliefs and disbeliefs about the possibilities to promote inclusion in theirs schools, which affected the implementation and processes of inclusive ideals. In both countries the teachers expressed concerns about the gap between theory and practice, and also between the political ideals and the classroom level reality. Their common claim was that teacher education did not fully prepare them to meet all the multiple needs of pupils and to create a positive learning environment for everyone. Italy had been embracing the ideal of full inclusion but it has faced difficulties in realizing it in practice, while Finland has accepted and applied the political aim partially and still does not explicitly emphasize inclusion in its national policy documents. Translating European Policy into national policy in any country and, consequently, into the practice within its school system, is challenging also in terms of terminology; definitions, perceptions and interpretations are differing, as they are culturally and linguistically bounded aspects of education (e.g. Jahnukainen 2014). This challenge originates in different approaches to inclusive education, and suggests that there is a need to interpret inclusion not only using theoretical definitions but also by analyzing and describing how the ideals can be better conveyed into practice, and whether the practice can or should be multiple, modified according to each country’s cultural background.

References

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. Associazione Treellle, Caritas Italiana, & Fondazione Agnelli (2011). Gli alunni con disabilità nella scuola italiana: bilancio e proposte [Pupils with disability in Italian school: evaluation and suggestions]. Trento, Italy: Erickson. Canevaro, A., d’Alonzo, L., & Ianes, D. (2009). L’integrazione scolastica di alunni con disabilità dal 1977 al 2007: risultati di una ricerca attraverso lo sguardo delle persone con disabilità e delle loro famiglie [Integrazione of pupils with disability from 1977 to 2007: Results of a study conducted from the point of view of people with disability and their families]. Bolzano, Italy: Bolzano University Press. D’Alessio, S. (2011). Inclusive education in Italy. A critical analysis of the policy of integrazione scolastica. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education. (2009). Key principles for promoting quality in inclusive education. Recommendations for policy makers. Odense, Denmark: European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education. Jahnukainen, M. (2014). Inclusion, integration, or what? A comparative study of the school principals’ perceptions of inclusive and special education in Finland and in Alberta, Canada. Disability & Society. Published online: 09 Dec 2014. Niemi, H., Toom, A., Kallioniemi, A. (2012). Miracle of Education. The Principles and Practices of Teaching and Learning in Finnish Schools. Rotterdam, Netherlands: Sense Publishers. Robson, C. (2005). Students with disabilities, learning difficulties and disadvantages: statistics and indicators. OECD: Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, France. Sabel, C., Saxenian, A.L., Miettinen, R., Kristensen, P.H. & Hautamäki, J. (2010). Individualized Service Provision in the New Welfare State: Lessons from Special Education in Finland. Report Prepared for SITRA. October 2010. Helsinki. Thuneberg, H., Vainikainen, M-P., Ahtiainen, R., Lintuvuori, M., Salo, K. & Hautamäki, J. (2013). Education is Special for All – the Finnish Support Model. Gemeinsam Leben. 21, 2, pp. 67-78. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (2009). Policy Guidelines on Inclusion in Education, Paris, France: UNESCO.

Author Information

Silvia Dell'Anna (presenting / submitting)

Free University of Bolzano

Bolzano

Raisa Ahtiainen (presenting)

University of Helsinki

Centre for Educational Assessment