The special education system in Finnish basic education is currently referred to as Learning and schooling support (Basic Education Act 628/1998 Amendment 642/2010). Since 2011, the three levels of support have been general (Tier 1), intensified (Tier 2) and special (Tier 3) support. The support methods and tools are almost the same at all tier levels; however, the intensity of the provided support increases from one level to the next (Thuneberg et al., 2013). The Finnish 'Education for All' reform was completed in the late 1990s when the responsibility for the education of children with the most severe intellectual disabilities and children in reformatory school was moved from social services to the education system. From a legislative perspective, all comprehensive school pupils are in the same education system. The idea of a ‘least restrictive environment’ has been one of the guiding principles of basic education since 1970; nevertheless, totally inclusive schools are rare in Finland (Jahnukainen, 2015). The Finnish support system is somewhat comprehensive; alongside other support, pupils are entitled to remedial teaching and part-time special education at all tier levels.

Governance of Finnish basic education is decentralised. However, legislation and one national-level core curriculum describe the overall objectives and guidelines of basic education (BEA 628/1998; FNBE, 2016). In line with the core curriculum, municipalities (N = 309) have their own municipal-level curriculums to meet their own local needs and circumstances. Finnish municipalities are very diverse; e.g., the number of inhabitants, the population with immigrant background, age composition and geographic features vary considerably. Regarding school-aged children, the number of pupils in basic education range from under 50 to over 50 000 per municipality. Moreover, the Finnish population is concentrated in Southern Finland.

The fundamental idea of the Finnish education system is that everyone has the right to basic education. According to the BEA (628/1998), pupils are entitled to sufficient support for learning and schooling whenever the need arises. The UN Convention article 3.1. on the Rights of the Child obligates the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration in all actions concerning children. Finland ratified the Convention in a law in 1991 (60/1991). In 2022 a new section was added to the BEA (163/2022), thus strengthening national regulation of the best interests of the child in education. One of the aims of basic education is also (BEA 628/1998) “to secure adequate equity in education throughout the country”.

Based on official statistics the provision of learning and schooling support varies between the municipalities. For example, at the national level 8.5 percent of pupils in basic education received Tier 3 support in the year 2019 and the municipal level variation was 0 to 16.4 percent (OSF, 2020). In addition, the place of provision of support also varied. For example, the national average of pupils receiving Tier 3 support fully in special classes was 2.3 percent of pupils in basic education and at the municipal level, the range was 0-10 percent (OSF, 2020). 

There is an ongoing public debate on the need for legislation to define the learning and schooling support more precisely, in particular the support provided at Tier 2 and Tier 3. One of the objectives is to reduce the variation of the support between municipalities.

In this study, we are aiming to use different types of municipal level data to examine how the principles of learning support and practices used in municipalities reflect the diversity of municipalities in Finland. We also intend to find out if it is possible to describe the criteria for different support levels more precisely based on the results.

The main data sets used in the present study were collected with the municipal level survey of learning and schooling support (responses from 62 % of the municipalities in mainland Finland): semi-structured survey data, qualitative data collected with open-ended questions and vignette data. The municipalities were represented by experts working in municipal level administration related to learning and schooling support. Respondents were allowed to answer the survey in Finnish or Swedish. In addition, the time series data compiled by Statistics Finland on learning and schooling support was used as the basis for analyses and descriptions. Municipal level survey data included several multiple-choice questions and were analysed mainly with descriptive analysis (e.g., frequencies, percentages). The open-ended questions were also used to examine participants’ opinions of themes relevant to the study, but in this case we did not want to guide their answers as strictly as in the multiple-choice questions. The analysis of this part of the study was based on deductive content analysis because of the characteristics of the data (Elo et al., 2014; Elo & Kyngäs, 2008). We selected the analysis method to get a more condensed description of the phenomenon. First, we read the answers several times to familiarize ourselves with the data. After that we grouped similar topics (mentions) in each question to thematic categories that were further compiled under main categories. Finally, we counted the percentages of respondents ( ̴ municipalities) for mentions in each category. Municipal support arrangements were also examined using a vignette data set, consisting of three case examples of a typical pupil receiving support. The descriptions were based on statistical information and were made in collaboration with a learning and schooling support specialist from a large municipality. The vignette data has been used in Finland earlier to compare learning and schooling support within municipalities (National Audit Office, 2013), but it was also used to compare, for example, social policy systems in different countries (e.g. Kuivalainen, 2007).

According to our results, the principles of learning support and municipal level practices varied in many ways. With these datasets, there were no noticeable clear criteria and interfaces in the provision of Tier 2 and Tier 3 support in Finnish municipalities. This is in line with current legislation and national-level core curriculum guidelines (BEA 628/1998; FNBE 2016). In relation to the public debate, the results of our study indicate that it might be very challenging to try to regulate support very precisely at different Tier levels (Tier 1, 2, 3) at the legislative level because of the diversity of Finnish municipalities. In addition, the pupils’ support needs are very individual and therefore flexibility in legislation is important. In this study, we tried to get a deeper understanding of the practices and principles of learning and schooling support in Finnish municipalities. However, our study is limited to the municipal level principles, so it is not possible to conclude how the support is organized in schools and whether the support is effective or in the best interests of the child. Thus, further research is needed into what kind of learning and schooling support is provided in schools and if the support meets the needs of different pupils in different municipalities.

Basic Education Act 628/1998 Amendments up to 163/2022. Retrieved January 2023. https://www.finlex.fi/fi/laki/ajantasa/1998/19980628 Basic Education Act 628/1998 Amendment 642/2010. Retrieved January 2023. https://www.finlex.fi/fi/laki/alkup/2010/20100642 Elo, S., & Kyngäs, H. (2008). The qualitative content analysis process. Journal of Advanced Nursing 62(1), 107–115. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04569.x Elo, S., Kääriäinen, M., Kanste, O., Pölkki, T., Utriainen K., & Kyngäs H. (2014). Qualitative Content Analysis. A Focus on Trustworthiness. SAGE Open, 4(1). https://doi-org/10.1177/2158244014522633 FNBE. (2016). National Core Curriculum for Basic Education. Publications 2016:5. Helsinki: Finnish National Board of Education. Jahnukainen, M. (2015). 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, 30(1), 59–72. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2014.982788 Kuivalainen, S. (2007). Malliperhemetodin käyttö ja anti kansainvälisissä vertailuissa [The use and performance of the model family method in international comparisons]. Sosiaalipolitiikan laitoksen julkaisuja C:18/2007. Turun yliopisto. Kyngäs, H., Elo, S., Pölkki, T., Kääriäinen, M., & Kanste, O. (2011). Sisällönanalyysi suomalaisessa hoitotieteellisessä tutkimuksessa [Content analysis in Finnish nursing research]. Hoitotiede 23(2), 138–148. National State Audit Office (2013). Erityisopetus perusopetuksessa [Special education in Basic education] Valtiontalouden tarkastusviraston tarkastuskertomukset 8/2013. National State Audit Office. OSF. (2020). Special education 2019. Statistics Finland. http://www.stat.fi/til/erop/2019/erop_2019_2020-06-05_tie_001_fi.html Accessed 2.2.2021. 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, 2, 67–78.