This paper will present the findings from a comparative study made simultaneously among school principals in Finland and in the province of Alberta in Canada. This is a second phase of a larger study focusing on the history and trends of special education development and a comparison of the disability policies of these jurisdictions.  The rationale for comparing these two jurisdictions is grounded by the idea that both of these areas have high general standards of living (Unicef 2007), a well-developed public education system, and top results in international school achievement tests (see OECD 2007), showing that they are also comparable on several substance levels. Both of these school systems have also been under significant changes related to the organizing the education of students with special educational needs. The high quality of the education systems in Alberta and Finland is particularly essential for this study. Since the first PISA survey, both countries have accommodated many inquiries from different parties to explain the elements of success for their special education models. A good example is the reportage of American journalist Linda Lantor Fandel (2008a, 2008b), who visited schools in both countries – in addition to some with good reputations in the United States – and made a review published by the publication house DesMoines. The reports describe teacher education, curriculum expectations, and accountability policies, among other components of teaching. As in many previous reviews, special education is discussed only briefly. However, at least related to the case of Finland, the national special education system, in particular the meaning of broad and easy access to special support, is mentioned by many researchers (Graham & Jahnukainen, 2011; Itkonen & Jahnukainen, 2010; Kivirauma & Ruoho, 2007; Moberg & Savolainen, 2006) several times but is still not investigated in a more detailed fashion. The fact that both Alberta and Finland have currently adopted inclusive education in delivering special support and have a relatively large proportion of students under these services makes this comparison highly relevant.

Graham. L.J. & Jahnukainen, M. (2011) Wherefore art thou, inclusion? Analysing the development of inclusive education in New South Wales, Alberta and Finland. Journal of Education Policy, 26 (2), 261 – 286. Itkonen, T., & Jahnukainen, M. (2010). Disability or learning difficulty? Politicians or educators? Constructing special education in Finland and the United States. Comparative Sociology, 25, 1–20. Kivirauma, J., & Ruoho, K. (2007). Excellence through special education? Lessons from the Finnish school reform. Review of Education, 58, 283–302. Lantor Fandel, L. (2008a). Alberta keeps pushing to improve its schools.Retrieved December 7, 2009, from http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20081207/OPINION01/812070309/1035/Opinion Lantor Fandel, L. (2008b). An academic star: Finland’s focus on education translates into top achievement, Retrieved November 23, 2009, from http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20081123/ OPINION01/811230315/1036/OPINION Moberg, S., & Savolainen, H. (2006). Reading literacy and special education: The particular case of Finland. In A. Lascioli & M. Onder (Eds.), Proceedings of the symposium on special pedagogy: State of the art in practical work, research and education (pp. 482–494). Verona: University of Verona. OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development). (2007). PISA 2006. Science competencies for tomorrow’s world. Volume 1—Analysis. OECD: Paris. Unicef. (2007). Child poverty in perspective: An overview of child-wellbeing in rich countries.Florence: Innocenti Research Centre.