Inclusive education is often linked to teachers’ sufficient autonomy and collaborative practices (Ainscow 1999), such as co-teaching, collaboration with parents and multiprofessional collaboration (Mitchell and Sutherland, 2020) in order to develop the working culture towards more collective whole school approaches (e.g. Sailor, 2017). Autonomy and its scope can be understood in several ways (Giddens, 1984; Pantić, 2015). In Finland the educational system gives high autonomy to teachers. Autonomy is described as pedagogical freedom (e.g. Sahlberg, 2010) meaning that each teacher can make their own pedagogical choices in their classroom (Pollari et al., 2018). This approach requires strong teacher engagement in order to work (Pollari et al., 2018; Välimaa 2021) and from an inclusive education perspective it can be understood as engagement to celebrate diversity in the school environment (Ainscow, 1999). Initially, this paper will present the Finnish policy context on inclusion, and teacher education. It will then focus on pre-service teachers’ perceptions of inclusive practices, and it will show how their descriptions are connected with teachers’ autonomy. The data derived from two focus group interviews with Finnish primary pre-service teachers: a group with 2nd year pre-service teachers and a group with 4th year pre-service teachers. Interviews followed the same thematic structure, focusing on inclusive practices. The interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and analyzed thematically (Clarke and Braun, 2013). The idea of inclusive practices was fragile in the data indicating there is a need to strengthen it during teacher education in Finland. The findings emphasised the link between inclusive practice and teachers’ autonomy. Second year students highlighted teachers’ ability to make their own choices in their classrooms as an inclusive practice while fourth year students considered autonomy at a school level. The idea of pedagogical freedom was discussed by second year students who focused on themselves as individual teachers, while fourth year students linked inclusive practices with collaboration and interdependency of teachers with other colleagues and agencies. These findings are not only important for Finnish teacher education. The element of teacher autonomy identified in pre-service teachers’ interviews and in the Finnish context can invite reflection and inform teacher education in different contexts, as teacher autonomy can be used as a tool to promote inclusive education internationally.

Ainscow, M. (1999) Understanding the Development of Inclusive Schools. Studies in Inclusive Education. Taylor & Francis. Clarke, V. and Braun, V. (2013) ‘Teaching thematic analysis: over- coming challenges and developing strategies for effective learning.’ The Psychologist, 26, 120–3. Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. University of California Press. Mitchell, D. and Sutherland, D. (2020) What Really Works in Special and Inclusive Education Using Evidence-Based Teaching Strategies. Routledge. Pantić, N. (2015). A model for study of teacher agency for social justice, Teachers and Teaching 21(6), 759-778, DOI: 10.1080/13540602.2015.1044332 Pollari, P., Salo, O. and Koski, K. (2018) In teachers we trust – The Finnish way to teach and learn. Inquiry in Education 10(1), 4. Sahlberg, P. (2010) Educational change in Finland. In A. Hargreaves, A. Lieberman, M. Fullan, & D. Hopkins (Eds.), Second international handbook of educational change, 323-348. Springer Sailor, W. (2017) Equity as a Basis for Inclusive Educational Systems Change. Australasian Journal of Special Education 41(1) ,1–17, doi: 10.1017/jse.2016.12 Välimaa, J. (2021). Trust in Finnish Education: A Historical Perspective. European Education 53(3-4), 168-180. doi: 10.1080/10564934.2022.2080563