Every school in Finland has a student welfare team comprising the Principal, the special education teacher, the school nurse, the school psychologist, student counsellors and classroom teachers. These teams meet weekly to discuss the progress of students who have special needs or who are receiving extra help for other reasons.
The student welfare team meets regularly with each class teacher to discuss the progress of students and pick up any problems that might not previously have been identified. Problems can be wide ranging and might include any learning, social, emotional or behavioural issues that are affecting the child. Finnish educators regard such problems as a normal part of childhood, adolescence and wider society and social life and as matters that children should be encouraged to learn to identify for themselves and to feel able to talk about and seek help. Finnish educators see this approach as an important ingredient of both the equity and quality of the Finnish education system.
46
INCLUSION
This emphasis on early intervention and professional support lends itself to a
presumption of inclusion that translates into practice in Finland’s schools. There are just eight state-run special schools, serving mainly children with high dependency special needs (three schools for children with physical disabilities, two for visually impaired children and three for children with hearing impairment). A child would attend a special school only if this was the clear preference of her/his parents.
Most children with special needs attend mainstream schools. Some are fully integrated in mainstream class, other work in special classes with specialist support and many move between the two. Special needs classes are small and are well supported by specialist teachers and assistants. Children with special needs are expected to follow the full curriculum and are provided with the support they need to do so.
47
13. TEACHING CONDITIONS
“Overtime is not a vocation!” “Pink Floyd Was Wrong” (OAJ campaign slogans)
Finland is not an educational paradise where the teaching profession faces no problems or challenges. Finland, like other countries has been hit by the world economic crisis and austerity measures are affecting all public services, including education. Teachers had not received a pay rise for several years as part of a national agreement to freeze public sector pay.
The Government was due to publish its budget shortly after the NUT’s visit and the OAJ was expecting significant education budget cuts which it feared would impact heavily on the quality of education. Some municipalities were so short of money that they were laying off their entire workforce, including teachers, over a two week period – half one week and half the other. Teachers in work were being expected to cover for their laid off colleagues.
Resources were a constant issue in schools, in particular resources to support children with special education needs and foreign language learners. The Union also wanted better in-service training for its members and was lobbying for Early Childhood Education and Care teachers to be required, like other teachers, to be educated to Master’s level (as opposed to Bachelor’s level). Working environments in many schools were not as good as they should be and this impacted on both teachers and children. The Union also considered that teachers working hours were too long given the wide ranging tasks expected of them over and above their teaching hours and were campaigning on this around the slogan: “Overtime is not a vocation!”
TEACHERS’ SALARIES & PENSION
The bulk of teachers’ pay is their base salary but a series of increments and additional payments combine to make up a teacher’s full salary. These include payments related to the level of a teacher’s qualifications, the type of institution in which they teach, specific task requirements, additional tasks they may take on, service increments, working time payments (for giving additional lessons over and above the basic working week) plus personal payments related to their professionalism and their particular contribution to their school.
Teachers retire at age 65 on a state pension to which they do not have to contribute and which provides a good retirement income
48
Teaching Hours
Most teachers are timetabled to teach for between 18-24 hours a week (16-23 for Upper Secondary teachers/lecturers) but, as in Britain, spend additional hours in meetings, planning and assessing pupils work, meeting parents and engaging in professional development activities.
49
14. REFLECTIONS ON THE FINNISH EDUCATION SYSTEM ROBIN HEAD
Vice Chair, NUT Education and Equalities Committee
In March 2014 I was honoured to be part of the NUT’s delegation to Finland whose lofty status in PISA rankings makes it a politician’s favourite system from which to cherry pick. What an eye opener it was. We hear a great deal about it but when you see it up close in action the simplicity instantly hits home. One word emerged again and again from all those we met – teachers, politicians, the education union, academics and students. Trust. Trust in schools to get it right. Trust in teachers to define appropriate student learning at the right time. Trust in learners to engage. Trust in politicians to sit down and negotiate in a consensual fashion based upon educational need rather than the rhetoric of political dictat.
The biggest structural issue for me was the way in which early years play-based learning was organised and emphasised. It was clearly the foundation stone of all that we saw happening in other schools at older age group settings including the learning of SEN students. Confidence in learning as a normal part of child development through that which is enjoyable, that is to say play, is evident everywhere. The general acceptance that a child will develop at their own pace with professional guidance and understanding from a well-trained teacher is a vital component of all that happens once formal
education begins post the age of seven. Secure learning happens and develops over periods of time much greater than the ludicrously set, arbitrary time scales set in our own system. Two sub levels a year in all subjects for all abilities of children is such utter rubbish. The mantra has been quoted so often however that it is only when one visits somewhere like Finland that one sees the hysteria and damage that has been caused in this country.
The foundation learning therefore has its knock on the effects observed in older groups of learners as the obvious unwritten learning ‘contract’ unfolds. The relationships between student and teacher appeared more informal and informed. Students of all ages seemed to know what was expected of them and teachers facilitated this in their lessons either through direct teaching or formative assessments done in class, informally so that progress could be gauged. The confidence of the youngsters we met and
observed was very high.
Class size too played a huge role. There are no laws on this in Finland but no-one would expect to see classes of over 25 as it is regarded as not conducive to learning. Most classes observed were well under this number and in all institutions we visited the ratio of students to teachers was generally ten to one. In addition, there were well qualified assistants for those with SEN included within mainstream lessons. Students were expected to engage as everything had been provided for them to do so. This meant that students were held responsible by teachers for their own engagement, or lack of it, thus unburdening the teacher from blame.
50
Formal testing is not only seen as unhelpful and unnecessary but damaging and obtrusive. Likewise inspection is seen in the same way by constantly taking apart the construct to examine things in minute detail. The notion of school league tables is abhorrent. The process of learning is damaged, the bigger picture lost and the trust between learner, teacher and society comes under constant strain. The meaning, balance and focus of what education is for gets lost. This is evident to Finns when they observe in horror what goes on in our country.
Choice of school then becomes a properly informed one. The lack of league tables means that parents make choices based on need as consensually arrived at rather than falsely acquired by schools’ overall ratings. The setting needs to suit the individual. All students are able to get transport to their local provider however if they wish to choose they can do so, based upon space at the chosen school and the understanding that transport would have to be sourced by the parent. Later choice of upper secondary education is based on the requirements of the student in discussion with parents and teachers.
One union (The OAJ) makes for a much broader approach for the profession to make its stance accessible. There is no opportunity for the divide and rule tactics we see in Britain or the drive to appeal to different sectors or mind sets of staff. One union. One voice. One cohesive approach to negotiations.
The training of teachers in university education departments and teaching schools means there is proper examination of independently researched pedagogical
approaches and child development at different ages. This ensures that the profession is informed in the best way possible as opposed to the untested cravings of a tiny minority of privileged few. The investment we saw in these facilities was excellent. Teacher training was seen as crucial to the future development of the system itself. Dedicated mentors were ascribed to the students and all aspects of the role examined and refined in a positive manner designed to progress the teacher’s skill for the good of all.
Free school meals prepared in properly equipped kitchens was another feature of education that we observed. Nourishing food provided at no cost to the student meant that everyone had access to a hot meal at least once a day.
Everything we saw and experienced seemed part of a well-planned cohesive strategy for providing the best education for students and the nation, run and planned by informed, well trained professionals. The trust I referred to earlier was evident everywhere. It is from this that the strength of the Finnish system is derived. It would be easy to pick apart the lessons we observed, as we do in this country, Ofsted style and find reasons for judgements and assumptions of learning taking place good and bad but that would not inform us any better of the success Finland has in world rankings and international esteem. The lesson learned for us therefore is that educational systems and their
success are more than the sum of all their parts. Taking them to pieces and damning the parts under microscopic and (myopic) scrutiny only serves to damage the system itself. Finland stands out as a beacon for the educational establishment and the sooner our politicians’ concept of what is required by the light of that beacon the better.