Although inclusive education is a strong trend in education policy in many countries, there are different definitions and variations used. 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 special education system 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).

Inclusive education is not defined in the Basic Education Act (BEA, 628/1998; Jahnukainen et al., 2023). The national core curriculum of basic education states that the development of basic education is guided by the inclusion principle (Finnish National Board of Education, FNBE, 2016). However, it doesn’t define the inclusion more precisely. This has led to municipal-level differences in ways of organising basic education (Hienonen 2020). Although the inclusion is a process that helps overcome barriers limiting the presence, participation and achievement of all learners (UNESCO, 2017), the Finnish public discussion has been focused almost only on whether pupils considered having special needs should be placed in a general education class or special class (Jahnukainen et al., 2023). Previous studies show that pupils with special educational needs (SEN) may perform better in general education classes (e.g., Kojac et al., 2018; Peetsma et al., 2001). Some studies have also shown neutral effects for general education class placement (Cole, Waldron, & Majd 2004; Fore et al., 2008; Hanushek et al., 2002; Ruijs, 2017).

The Finnish legislation (BEA 628/1998) allows different options for organising the education of pupils with SEN at Tier 3. The placement options can vary from full-time education in a general education class to full-time education in a special class or special school.  In 2022, 9 percent of comprehensive school pupils in grades 1-6 received Tier 3 support, and 36 percent of these pupils studied most of the time (80-100%) in a general education class, 47 percent most of the time (81-100%) in a special class and 17 percent in both a general education class (20-79%) and special class (OSF 2023).

This sub-study is based on a four-year longitudinal study in which the pupils are followed from the 4th grade to the 6th grade. The main objective is to investigate the outcomes of the different placement options and the effect of class composition on pupils with SEN and their peers. In this sub-study we focus only on the pupils with SEN, and investigate, with the cross-sectional first round data, how the different placement options of pupils with SEN are related to pupils’ performance in mathematical reasoning and vocabulary tasks. The research questions are:

1. Did the pupils with SEN differ in their background factors across the different placement options?

2. Is there a relationship between the placement options for pupils with SEN and pupils background factors in mathematical reasoning scores?

3. Is there a relationship between the placement options for pupils with SEN and pupils background factors in vocabulary task scores?

The data were drawn from the longitudinal study assessing different aspects of learning in the sample schools. The stratified national sample is based on official statistics on special education and register data of educational institutions (Statistics Finland). Our research instrument is based on the Finnish learning to learn (LTL) framework (Hautamäki & Kupiainen, 2014) and the online test portal created for the purposes of this study is based on previous large-scale assessment studies (e.g., Hienonen, 2020; Vainikainen & Hautamäki, 2022). LTL assessments have been used as one indicator of the effectiveness of education in Finland alongside the more subject-related sample-based assessments. Pupils completed the tasks and answered the questionnaires on an online platform as a part of their otherwise normal school day. The tasks and questions were built into 15-minute entities, and the teacher could decide how many of these entities the class did at once. Some of the tasks, for example mathematical reasoning, were adaptive, so the tasks adapted to the student's performance level. In this sub-study, we used pupils’ test scores in mathematical reasoning and vocabulary tasks. School- and class-level information were collected with principal and teacher questionnaires. The pupils' background information, for example a Tier level of support, was collected from teachers. Pupils attending the study had the research permits from their legal guardian. The research has received a statement from the University of Helsinki's Ethics Committee for the Human Sciences (May 2021) as a demonstration of commitment to research ethics. In the first phase of our longitudinal study in spring 2022, we received data from 1815 4th graders (typical age of 10 years). There were 42 municipalities, 56 schools and 121 classes participating in the first data collection nationwide. In this sub-study, we analysed only the performance of pupils with a SEN decision at Tier 3, N=160. Of pupils with SEN, 45% studied most of the time in a general education class, 38% most of the time in a special class and 17% part-time in a general education class and special class. The data were analysed using the chi-squared test and linear regression analysis.

According to our results, there were statistically significant differences in the background factors of pupils with SEN across the different placement options. However, the placement options for pupils with SEN and pupils background factors did not have a statistically significant relationship on pupils' performance in mathematical reasoning or vocabulary tasks. The results of this study are in line with previous international research (e.g. Cole et al. 2004; Fore et al. 2008), as pupils with SEN did not differ in mathematical reasoning or vocabulary tasks based on whether they studied most of the time in a general education class, most of the time in a special class, or part-time in a general education class and special class. It should also be noted that the analyses conducted in this sub-study were designed to examine the baseline level, based on the first round of data collection in the longitudinal study. Based on the data from the next two rounds, we will be able to use longitudinal data to examine the development of pupils' performance in the different placement options taking into account, for example, the class composition and differences in initial levels of performance. The effect of pupils’ placement is examined also from the perspective of attitudes and beliefs related to pupils’ learning and schooling.

Basic Education Act 628/1998 Amendments up to 163/2022. https://www.finlex.fi/fi/laki/ajantasa/1998/19980628 Cole, C., Waldron, N., & Majd, M. 2004. Academic progress of students across inclusive and traditional settings. Mental Retardation, 42, 136–44. https://doi:10.1352/0047-6765(2004)42<136:APOSAI>2.0.CO;2 Fore, C., Hagan-Burke, S., Burke, M., Boon, R., & Smith, S. 2008. Academic achievement and class placement in high school: Do students with learning disabilities achieve more in one class placement than another? Education and Treatment of Children, 31, 55–72. https://doi:10.1353/etc.0.0018 Hanushek, E. A., Kain, J., & Rivkin, S. 2002. Inferring program effects for special populations: Does special education raise achievement for students with disabilities? Review of Economics and Statistics, 84, 584–599. https://doi.org/10.1162/003465302760556431 Hautamäki, J., & Kupiainen, S. 2014. Learning to Learn in Finland. In R. Crick, C. Stringer & K. Ren (Eds.), Learning to Learn: International Perspectives from Theory and Practice, 170–195. London: Routledge Hienonen, N. 2020. Does a class placement matter? Students with special educational needs in regular or special classes. University of Helsinki. http://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-951-51-6392-9 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, 59–72. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2014.982788 Jahnukainen, M., Hienonen, N., Lintuvuori, M., & Lempinen, S. 2023. Inclusion in Finland: Myths and Realities. teoksessa M. Thrupp, P. Seppänen, J. Kauko, & S. Kosunen (eds.), Finland’s Famous Education System: Unvarnished Insights into Finnish Schooling, 401–415. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-8241-5 Kojac, A., Kuhl, P., Jansen, M., Pant, H. A., & Stanat, P. 2018. Educational placement and achievement motivation of students with special educational needs. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 55, 63–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2018.09.004 Official Statistics of Finland (OSF): Support for learning [online publication]. ISSN=2954-0674. Helsinki: Statistics Finland [Referenced: 29.1.2024]. Access method: https://stat.fi/en/statistics/erop Peetsma, T., Vergeer, M., Roeleveld, J., & Karsten, S. 2001. Inclusion in Education: comparing pupils’development in special and regular education. Educational Review, 53(2), 125–135. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131910125044 Ruijs, N. 2017. The impact of special needs students on classmate performance. Economics of Education Review, 58, 15–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2017.03.002 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. UNESCO. 2017. A guide for ensuring inclusion and equity in education. Paris: UNESCO. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0024/002482/248254e.pdf. Vainikainen, M-P. & Hautamäki, J. 2022. Three Studies on Learning to Learn in Finland: Anti-Flynn Effects 2001–2017, Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 66, 43–58, https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2020.1833240