Every child has the right to receive education that considers the child's individual needs (Unesco, 1994). For some children, collaborative approaches in support are fundamental in ensuring their inclusion and sense of belonging in education (e.g. Äikäs & Pesonen, 2022). Such collaborative practices refer to interprofessional collaboration, which is a method of working in special needs education, social work, and healthcare (Bricker et al., 2022). Interprofessional collaboration has been found to be beneficial (Anderson, 2013), and the importance of educating future professionals to work together is evident (Dobbs-Oates & Watcher Morris 2016). Interprofessional collaboration has also been emphasized in the recent educational reforms in Finland (Alila et al. 2022).

The methods of interprofessional support vary, since each child needs different types of support. The support varies from structured daily routines (e.g. pedagogy) and flexible groupings to collaboration between different units of extensive expertise (e.g.,. hospital schools, specialized centers for learning and consulting).  For example, when planning teaching by activity areas consultation is often needed. Also, hospital schooling might be needed for children with severe socio-emotional support needs that might be also very sudden, or consultation regarding the use of communication or other supportive methods that generally the early childhood education or school cannot provide alone.

Moreover, children should receive support  based on their individual needs rather than based on the diagnosis that they might have (Äikäs et al., 2022).  Important factors for a child or youth receiving interprofessional support are high-quality early childhood or primary education and an operating culture that supports all students as a whole, and these have also been highlighted in research conducted in these contexts. Effective and ideal interprofessional support consists of working collaboratively across different administrative sectors (Äikäs et al., 2022). Although previous studies have indicated inadequacies in the implementation of interprofessional collaboration (Bricker et al. 2022;), successful collaboration is possible; trust, mutual respect, and functional communication between the sectors are prerequisites for promoting inclusive practices.

However, if the collaboration is not functional, children that need such interprofessional support may have a particularly high risk of being excluded from mainstream education (Äikäs & Pesonen, 2022). Additionally, teachers often encounter challenges in supporting  children that require more interprofessional collaborative approaches in inclusive settings (Saha & Pesonen, 2022). A reform concerning cross-sectional and administrative collaboration is currently in process in Finland. Furthermore, internationally the interprofessional support, good practice models and concepts describing such working methods are also  unclear (e.g. Heiskanen et al., 2021) Thus, more research to describe the interprofessional support and how to efficiently organize functional support are needed. 

The aim of this study is to examine the state of interprofessional support by focusing on outputs from our research and developmental projects in Finland. We used  an integrative review approach (Cronin & Georger, 2023) as a guide for synthesizing the projects’ outputs in the context of Finnish special needs education. We synthesized the projects’ studies, technical reports, theses and developmental work to answer the following research question:

1. How interprofessional support methods should be outlined and conceptualized in order to guarantee education for all? 

2. What possibilities does interprofessional support offer for enhancing education for all?

In this study, we provide a preliminary summary of our projects' outputs (e.g., articles, chapters, master’s theses, technical reports, etc.) to discuss and argue the static and varying nature of interprofessional support in early childhood and basic education in Finland. Synthesizing the relevant outputs was guided by the principles of integrative review process (Cronin & Georger, 2023). By summarizing the relevant outputs from the projects, we can discuss how education for all in Finland is not possible without functioning interprofessional support. Context The material that we analyzed for our synthesis consists of outputs from two projects. First, in 2018-2021 we had a project (TUVET), in which several actions were implemented to develop practices in special needs education in basic education and teacher education. We 1) gathered research-based knowledge of the pedagogical solutions in special needs education through systematic literature reviews, 2) developed teacher education courses (special education) in collaboration with the teacher training universities in Finland, 3) developed a model of interprofessional collaboration with teacher training school and focused on the redefining the concept related to interprofessional support; and 4) organized in-service trainings for teachers; and 5) evaluated outcomes of the project (TUVET, 2022). Second, we had material from an ongoing project that we launched in 2021 (VAKA-TUVET) to develop collaborative approaches for supporting children in early childhood education. The practices that we focused on were already developed in Finnish basic education and thus were also implemented in early childhood education. Our aim was to 1) develop conceptual tools that take into account the characteristics of early childhood education; 2) develop practices related to collaboration and support through in-service training; and 3) to conduct research on the practices and professionals’ perceptions about interprofessional support (VAKA-TUVET, 2022). Material and synthesis We used purposive sampling (Check & Schutt, 2012) to gather the material (outputs) from both projects for our synthesis. The sample consisted of peer-reviewed articles (published, under review and in the finalizing stage), book chapters, project reports (e.g., final reports to the funder and public), scientific presentations, development working group reports and students’ work (e.g., master’s theses). We familiarized ourselves with the material and discussed the main observations each researcher had noted to be present in the projects’ outputs. This was followed by synthesizing our observations (Cronin & Georger, 2023). In the following section, we discuss our findings.

Despite the shared value base of inclusion in educational institutions and societies, the Finnish educational system is not able to meet the needs of all children equally. Especially when the situations are challenging in which the successfulness of support requires intense, systematic, and interprofessional work approaches, including expertise and readiness to respond quickly to children's needs. This is not so much due to the needs of an individual child but to our systems, organization of collaboration, interfaces of different sectors, as well as professional-related features such as competence, values, and beliefs. Successfulness would require a common language, vision, and practices among many sectors such as education, social work, health care, and rehabilitation. We propose a concept of significant interprofessional support, which emphasizes the multidisciplinary nature and versatile possibilities of support and highlights the structures and the system rather than the individual. Significant interprofessional support can be provided at all tiers of the education support system frame and not just in “traditional” special support tier. Significant interprofessional support is first and foremost a praxis and a way of working (cf. Heiskanen & Syrjämäki, 2022), and the scope and intensity of the support should always be considered individually for each child including functioning cooperation with guardians. Further, in an operating environment that works according to the inclusive principles, all adults involved should have such values ​​and attitudes that enable the smoothness of the significant interprofessional support. We invite the international research community to discuss support characterized by interprofessional work approaches. How are these situations conceptualized in international discussions, what kinds of barriers and enablers can be identified concerning the development of these practices globally? As the education for all in educational systems plays a central role in building socially sustainable societies, this discussion is unquestionably needed.

Äikäs, A., & H. Pesonen. (2022). Vaativa Erityinen Tuki Perusopetuksessa [Significant Support in Basic Education. Examining the Concept by Educational Design Research]. NMI-Bulletin [Finnish Journal of Learning and Learning Disabilities] 32 (2): 67–86. Äikäs, A. et al. (2022). Approaches to collaboration and support in early childhood education and care in Finland: professionals’ narratives. European Journal of Special Needs Education. DOI: 10.1080/08856257.2022.2127081 Alila, K., et al. (2022). Kohti inklusiivista varhaiskasvatusta sekä esi- ja perusopetusta. [Towards inclusive ECEC and pre-primary and basic education. The right to learn - Final report of the working group preparing measures to promote learning support, child support and inclusion in ECEC and pre-primary and basic education]. Opetus- ja kulttuuriministeriön julkaisuja 2022:44. Anderson, E. M. (2013). Preparing the Next Generation of Early Childhood Teachers: The Emerging Role of Interprofessional Education and Collaboration in Teacher Education. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education 34 (1): 23–35. doi:10.1080/10901027.2013.758535. Bricker, D. et al. (2022). A Proposed Framework for Enhancing Collaboration in Early intervention/Early Childhood Special Education.” Topics in Early Childhood Special Education 41 (4): 240–252. doi:10.1177/0271121419890683. Check, J., & Schutt, R. K.(2012). Research methods in education. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Cronin, M. A., & George, E. (2023). The Why and How of the Integrative Review. Organizational Research Methods, 26(1), 168–192. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428120935507 Dobbs-Oates, J., & C. Wachter Morris. (2016). The Case for Interprofessional Education in Teacher Education and beyond. Journal of Education for Teaching 42 (1): 50–65. doi:10.1080/02607476. 2015.1131363. Heiskanen, N. et al. (2021). Kehityksen ja oppimisen tuki sekä inklusiivisuus varhaiskasvatuksessa.[Support for Growth and Learning and Inclusion in ECEC. Report on the Current State in Public and Private ECEC Services and a Proposition for a Model of Support]. Opetus- ja kulttuuriministeriö 13 1799-0351 . Saha, M., & H. Pesonen. (2022). Too Little Attention Is Paid to Children Who Require Specialized Support: In-service and pre-service Teachers’ Views on Policy and Practice in Early Childhood Teacher Education in Finland. Harju-Luukkainen, H. et al. In Finnish Early Childhood Education and Care - A Multi-Theoretical Perspective on Research and Practice, 85– 98. Unesco (1994). http://www.csie.org.uk/inclusion/unesco-salamanca.shtml TUVET. 2022. Tutkimusperustaista vaativan erityisen tuen kehittämistä. [Research-based development of demanding special support] https://www.tuvet.fi/ VAKA-TUVET. 2022. Vaativa tuki varhaiskasvatuksessa. [Significnt pupport in Early Childhood Education.] https://uefconnect.uef.fi/en/group/significant-support-in-early-childhood-education-vaka-tuvet/