Recent basic education reform in Finland concerned reconstruction of special education strategies, and it came in to effect in 2011, when changes in Basic Education Act and national core curriculum were made. The reform stresses specifically the importance of individual early intervention, and it introduced a new phase for supporting pupils, namely intensified support, which was placed between the already existing general support and special support. (E.g. Ahtiainen 2012; Lintuvuori 2010; Thuneberg et al. forthcoming.) The new 3-tiered support model underlines early identification, importance of inclusive education, teacher cooperation and multipforessional work. Similar aspects can be identified internationally in recent reforms, e.g. in Ontario, Canada, and the reform is, at the ideal level, related to the present European education policy as a means to promote inclusion and to improve the overall quality of education (cf. European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education 2009).

The study examines the made changes at national, municipal and school level concentrating mainly on the administration, local education policy and school leaders as reform enablers (cf. Fullan 2005). Especially the local policy’s aspect is crucial in the Finnish context due to municipal autonomy in applying national guidelines to local educational arrangements, and, in that, giving municipal decision makers a lot of decisional power and responsibility.

This paper considers a nationwide follow-up study of legislative changes in Finnish comprehensive school, and introduces the school leaders’ perspective: How the definition of policy has been interpreted and seen by them in relation to the given framework of study? How it is put into action in schools and municipalities? And how the already existing educational settings have been developed in order to promote the pupils’ overall right to get appropriate support?

Lauren Resnick’s (2010) ideas about Nested Learning Systems for the Thinking Curriculum forms one of the essential theoretical frameworks of the study.  Resnick’s model is useful for analyzing the different administrative levels needed for a school to change and teachers to have personal commitment, and she introduces complementary concepts, namely human and social capitals. In addition, Andy Hargreaves and Michael Fullan’s (2012) view of professional capital, specifically the aspect of decisional capital, widens the perspective of capitals when considering school level practitioners meeting their changed professional demands.

Ahtiainen, R. 2012. Implementing an Educational Reform in Finland: An Analysis of an Ongoing Improvement Initiative through Michael Fullan’s Change Theory. In Garland, P. (ed.) Perspectives on European Educational Policy and Practice (PEEPP). Sheffield Hallam University Papers in Education, Sheffield: SHU Press. Creswell, J.W. & Plano Clark, V.L. 2011. Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Education for All. 2005. The Report of the Expert Panel on Literacy and Numeracy Instruction for Students With Special Education Needs, Kindergarten to Grade 6. The European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education. 2009. Key Principles of Promoting Quality in Inclusive Education – Recommendations for Policy Makers, Odense, Denmark: The European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education. Fullan, M. (2005). Leadership & sustainability. System Thinkers in Action. Thousand Oaks: Corwin press. Hargeaves, A. & Fullan, M. (2012). Professional Capital. Transforming Teaching in Every School. Teachers College Press. New York. Lintuvuori. M. (2010). Erityisopetus muutoksen kynnyksellä. Tilastollinen kuvaus erityisopetusjärjestelmästä ja sen määrällisestä kehityksestä 1970-luvun lopulta vuoteen 2008. [Finnish special education in change – A statistical description of the Finnish special education system from late 1970s to present] Master's Thesis. Department of Teacher Education. University of Helsinki. http://urn.fi/URN:NBN:fi-fe201006162060 Resnick, L.B. (2010). Nested Learning Systems for the Thinking Curriculum. Educational Researcher, 39, 183‐197.