finland education system case study

Case Study: The Finnish National Curriculum 2016—A Co-created National Education Policy

• Open Access
• First Online: 18 September 2018

Cite this chapter

You have full access to this open access chapter

• Jenna Lähdemäki 2  

52k Accesses

23 Citations

4 Altmetric

This case study aims to study and analyse what appears to be a successful co-created educational policy—the ‘Finnish National Curriculum 2016’. The author wished to understand the factors behind the success of the curriculum process, how ownership was created during the process and what school principals and other education professionals think about the curriculum content, as well as the processes and methodology. Questions abound. What are its strengths and weaknesses and does the curriculum pull schools closer towards their purpose? The Finnish education system has been celebrated as a twenty-first century global success story—what role does a national curriculum play in this story and how does it take the education system closer to enabling sustainable well-being? Does the progressive value-base and content of the curriculum successfully transfer to the classroom?

You have full access to this open access chapter,  Download chapter PDF

Similar content being viewed by others

Disrupting Aotearoa New Zealand’s Curricular Consensus: From ‘World-Leading’ Curriculum to Curriculum Refresh 2007–2021

Educational change in singapore and its ‘tinkering’ around the edges: a critical realist perspective.

Nexus between participating in cross-national learning assessments and educational policy reforms: case study of Kenya, Tanzania and South Africa

• Educational policy
• Transversal competences
• Teacher participation
• Co-creation
• Digitalization
• Sustainability

Welcome back to school. During the summer a revolution happened. This autumn the new national curriculum will become effective in Finnish schools. First at K-12 education and then at secondary school. Every school interprets the curriculum in their own way. The basis of the curriculum is national, municipalities do their own alignments and schools decide on the details. (Aalto 2016 , translated by author)

Following the publication of an article in Helsingin Sanomat on August 6, 2016, many Finnish teachers reacted to the news piece saying that a ‘revolution’ was too big a word to accurately describe the effects of the new national curriculum. That said, Finnish schools undeniably faced something new starting in the autumn of 2016. Janne Hirvonen, a school principal from Rautjärvi, in Eastern Finland, described the curriculum thus, ‘This is an enormous change. Our aim (at Rautjärvi school) is that the everyday life of our school will change so that it reflects the new curriculum’ (Janne Hirvonen, personal communication, May 2016).

The National Curriculum of Finland

Finland’s national curriculum guides the nation’s whole education system. It sets the framework for school work by defining the values and objectives for all Finnish schools. There are no school inspections or national achievement tests covering entire age groups (though there are sample-based national achievement tests for two or three of the basic education subjects every year). This is why it is perceived to be important to have a shared framework. The curriculum defines the main objectives for different subjects and inspires the use of new kinds of learning methods (and later in this chapter you can read more about project-based learning and its aim of achieving a more collaborative learning). Despite the common framework offered, there remains considerable freedom for individual schools to interpret the curriculum as they wish. The 500-page document consists of values, objectives and general principles that number around 100 pages. The rest of the document covers the subject syllabi.

The origins of the national curriculum date from 1970 when the national curriculum committees report was released. The curriculum is now managed by the Finnish National Agency for Education (EDUFI) which leads the curriculum development work every ten years. 1 The first curriculum, led by the EDUFI, was created in 1985 after which it was renewed in 1994 and 2004, with the latest work started in 2012. Over the course of the latest development cycle, the curriculum evolved from a fairly typical bureaucratic process to a leading example of co-created public policy. Hundreds of professionals participated in the 2.5-year long curriculum design process. The national core curriculum was completed at the end of 2014, with the local curriculums ready in 2016. The new curriculum became effective in August 2016.

This case study aims to study and analyse what appears to be a successful co-created educational policy—the Finnish National Curriculum 2016 . The author wished to understand the factors behind the success of the curriculum process, how ownership was created during the process and what school principals and other education professionals think about the curriculum content, as well as the processes and methodology. Questions abound. What are its strengths and weaknesses and does the curriculum pull schools closer towards their purpose? The Finnish education system has been celebrated as a twenty-first century global success story—what role does a national curriculum play in this story and how does it take the education system closer to enabling sustainable well-being? Does the progressive value-base and content of the curriculum successfully transfer to the classroom?

A Co-created National Policy

What became clear during the research for this case study is that the Finnish national core curriculum is more about the complex process of creation than it is about the actual final product. Decade after decade, the curriculum process has developed into a more open and inclusive process. The now retired lead of the curriculum process, Irmeli Halinen, has described the national core curriculum and the local curriculums (based on the national curriculum) as having been created through open, interactive and co-operative processes. The curriculum work is seen as an ongoing dialogue and learning cycle that helps professionals in the education field identify the issues to be improved and promote the commitment of all stakeholders in the curriculum process. The curriculum also sets the agenda for education at a societal level; its core purpose, objectives and principles.

Arja-Sisko Holappa, the Counsellor of Education from EDUFI, is of the opinion that even though the groundwork is done by the Agency, it is understood that the best ideas to develop education generally do not come from the administration. This understanding explains why it is crucial to see the curriculum reform as a national learning process for the whole community of educators and other professionals in the field. The curriculum is based on legislation, and the local curriculums are binding for teachers. But when professionals are part of the process of designing the curriculum, there is no need to use coercive power. The Basic Education Act and Decree in Law sets the base for curriculum work. The Finnish parliament is responsible for defining the general national objectives and distribution of lesson hours for basic education (Arja-Sisko Holappa, personal communication, May 23, 2016).

The experts interviewed for this case study commented that the curriculum reform allows professionals from the field of education to take time and reflect on the big questions facing education. For example: what is the curriculum’s purpose? What is the role of a student, a teacher and society in terms of learning? What should the future look like and what is the role of professionals in the system?

Even though the curriculum is binding, there are no sanctions or other forms of punishment if schools or teachers do not adhere to it. To that end, the level of interest and commitment to bring the objectives of the curriculum to the classroom itself vary across different parts of Finland, as well as between different teachers working in the same school (Table 13.1 ).

Irmeli Halinen, who was the Head of Curriculum Development, describes the curriculum development as a ‘whole of society’ project with comments contributed by many stakeholders across Finnish society. Occasionally, some of the approaches proved surprising, like the Finnish police who wanted to give their support by writing chapters about safety and security. Three official commenting phases were open for anyone to comment. At the same time, EDUFI asked education authorities and schools to comment on the document through a survey planned for the precise purpose. Schools were also encouraged to include parents and students’ feedback.

The goal of EDUFI was to make all of the stakeholders ‘experts’ of the curriculum. During the process, it was noticed that a curriculum roadmap was needed so that it would be easier for municipal education authorities, principals, teachers and other education specialists to participate in the project which ultimately spanned across more than two years. One of the most important stakeholder groups were the municipal education managers who were responsible for writing the local curriculums. Local curriculums are based on the guidelines of the national curriculum, but acknowledge the local features, geographic-related influences and other specific needs of the regional demographics.

The author asked Arja-Sisko Holappa about the purpose of a curriculum. She did not have to think about the answer for long:

They exist to secure equal education for the whole of Finland. The curriculum is a way to guide the whole system and a tool for securing equality and providing professional development for teachers. But what has to be acknowledged is that there is the official, written curriculum, and then there is the lived one and the hidden one that influence cultural norms. (Arja-Sisko Holappa, personal communication, May 23, 2016)

In Sweden by comparison, the latest national curriculum dates back to 2011 at the time of this writing. The curriculum carries a strong emphasis of creating more equal schools across the country. Sweden has had challenges with respect to the pupils learning outcomes in general, and the latest curriculum is aimed at strengthening the steering of the schools at a national level.

The 2016 Finnish National Curriculum—What Makes It Special?

The new national curriculum of Finland is a progressive document. This can be seen in the value base set for Finnish education, how ‘wellbeing’ is defined in a holistic sense and how research has been utilised in the process of creating the curriculum. In practice, these are reflected in how transversal competences are being implemented in schools and how assessment practices are changing to support every child’s individual strengths.

The 2016 curriculum work started with the understanding that the impact of globalisation and the need for a sustainable future were reshaping the fundamentals of schooling. It was also understood that the skills and competences needed to succeed in society and working life were also dramatically changing and thus education, pedagogy and the role of the school itself needed to change in relation to these ongoing global shifts. In an article by EDUFI entitled ‘Making Sense of Complexity of World Today: why Finland is Introducing Multiliteracy in Teaching and Learning,’ the need to address these shifts within the curriculum was explained:

The increased need for transversal competences arises from changes in the surrounding world. In order to meet the challenges of the future, there will be much focus on transversal (cross-curricular) competences and work across school subjects. As structures and challenges of doing, knowing and being are changing essentially in our society, it requires us to have comprehensive knowledge and ability. Competences include a vision of the desirable future and the development of both society and education. (Halinen, Harmanen, & Mattila 2015 , p. 139)

The national curriculum that was implemented in Finland in 2004 needed to be updated. The reasons for this are many, varied and include the following: subjects were too unattached, objectives for education and learning needed clarification, learning environments and methods had changed, student’s well-being needed more attention, more diverse assessment methods were needed, the collaboration between school and homes had changed, and finally, the national curriculum of 2004 no longer supported the future challenges of schools and learning to the standards and levels required.

Irmeli Halinen suggested that the key questions to support the curriculum work were: what will education ‘mean’ in the future? Furthermore, what kind of competences will be needed and what kind of practices would best produce the desired results in terms of both teaching and learning?

According to Halinen, the new national curriculum was built upon the core strengths of the Finnish education system, strengths that include a culture of co-operation and trust, as well as competent, committed and autonomous teachers, and an already well-functioning curriculum process. The starting point, from the view of the schools themselves, was to strengthen the pupils’ sense of coherence and to support them to take responsibility for their actions and choices that shape their (and therefore our) future (Fig. 13.1 ).

Transversal competencies in the finnish national curriculum

The defined values for the Finnish national curriculum are:

Uniqueness of every pupil and high-quality education as a basic right

Necessity for a sustainable way of living

Humanity, culture and civilisation, equity and democracy

Cultural variety as richness

The focus of the curriculum reform has been broken down into three key themes:

Rethinking learning: learning to learn in dialogue with others, importance of feelings, experiences and ideas and their joy of learning

Rethinking the school culture and the relationship between the school and the community

Rethinking the roles, goals and content of school subjects: moving towards transversal competences to support the identity development of a child and the ability to live in a sustainable way.

To summarise, the key challenges and changes arising from the curriculum from the school’s perspective are:

Developing school cultures to support curriculum values and goals and developing schools as real learning communities

Students’ role is more active and inclusive

Teachers’ role changes; reduced lecturing from a podium

Technology and digitalisation; e-books, coding and digital learning platforms more strongly implemented into schools’ eco-system

Project-based and multidisciplinary learning modules with transversal competences at least once a year in all schools and all grades.

Shifts towards self-assessment and peer-assessment (assessment as learning) and learning how to give feedback.

What Does the National Curriculum Mean for Schools?

The national curriculum defines seven transversal competences that need to be developed in all schools in Finland. The transversal competences reflect competence definitions from different institutions and organisations globally. These have been adjusted to the best Finnish educational traditions. There is clear inspiration from the European Union’s key skills (2005), OECD’s key competences (2005) and work life’s key competences (IFTF 2011 ). The background of the transversal competences lies within a wider framework of future skills and competences (Luostarinen and Peltomaa 2016 , p. 50).

Transversal competences and project-based learning:

From the point of view of a teacher, the biggest change that the new curriculum brings is that the overall goal for basic education focuses on the learning of transversal competencies . This means that knowledge, skills, values, attitudes and will are seen holistically and it is understood that all of these have a fundamental impact on learning. Personal growth, studying, work life and being a citizen require know-how that surpasses the limits of individual subjects.

One notable way to practice and enhance transversal competences is through project-based learning. This means studying various real-world phenomena in groups or teams and making sure that through these phenomena that multiple subjects are touched upon. Katariina Salmela-Aro, Professor, Department of Education, University of Helsinki, has studied student’s attitudes towards school and written about ‘boredom’ felt towards school. The group of students who feel often bored at school are those young people who feel that they do not get enough challenges at school and also that the school system and the rest of their lives are disconnected.

Teamwork, an integral part of project-based learning, also gives children a chance to practice their interaction skills to help them identify, develop and exploit their strengths. According to the curriculum, each student has to have a project-based learning module at least once a year. What this means more concretely is to be more clearly defined by individual municipalities.

A project-based approach also significantly adds co-operation possibilities between teachers, which is another objective of the new curriculum. The underlying philosophy in project-based learning is that studying strictly unattached subjects is artificial and does not prepare children to both face and deal with real-world challenges. This does not have to mean solving highly complex challenges like climate change and poverty, but rather everyday life situations that require an understanding of how different systems relate to each other.

One year ago, the author participated in an event hosted by a group called Systems Thinking Applied. The purpose of the event was to experiment with what project-based learning actually means. During the event, the organisers acknowledged that project-based learning and teaching raises a lot of interest as well as puzzlement among teachers. The question of how you can teach project-based learning if you have never tried it yourself was one motivating factor behind the event (Honkonen and Lehmuskoski 2015 ).

To that end, people at the event came up with different phenomena that they were interested in and then organised themselves into small groups based on interest to research these phenomena further. Some findings from this experiment were:

No one has the right answers: neither the students, nor the teacher! Project-based learning then, means the willingness to act with uncertainty. More than teaching, it is about guiding a learning process.

Scoping the phenomena is challenging. Hypotheses or propositions that are too wide in scope can lead to individuals who are unmotivated. Conversely, a too narrow scope for a project can lead to a situation where valuable insights are left out.

Difficult phenomena are easier to understand when you can connect them to your everyday life. (2015)

The Ritaharju school in Oulu, Finland wanted to experiment with project-based learning for a week as a part of Sitra’s New Education Forum in 2015. The principal of Ritaharju school, Pertti Parpala, desired project-based learning to be tightly interlinked with a bigger change in school culture that needs to take place in Finnish schools. ‘Co-operation, openness and trust among teachers are central for developing a school,’ states Parpala (Pertti Parpala, https://www.sitra.fi/blogit/viikko-ilman-luokkarajoja/ ).

At Ritaharju, the pupils got to choose phenomena they wished to work with during the experiment week. It is argued here that this should be the starting point for project-based learning in order to motivate the pupils. Of course, there can be some guidance or overarching theme to further help or direct the pupils. At Ritaharju, the eighth-graders needed to choose a phenomenon related to Europe and more precisely to equity, sustainable development, media literacy, multi-literacy and inclusiveness. Examples of phenomena that the eighth-graders chose to study:

Auschwitz and Birkenau

Food culture in Germany, Finland, Spain and Turkey

Historical eras of European art and music

Outi Ruotsala, the principal and teacher at Raattama school in Lapland, states that in Kittilä municipality, the theme of the first project-based learning module is ‘I am a Kittilä resident’ (Outi Ruotsala, personal communication, August 30, 2016). As the module title suggests, the young pupils concentrate on researching what it means to be a Kittilä resident with the help of their own experiences. All of the schools in Kittilä will have the same theme and at the end of the project-based learning module there will be an event for all schools where the work the children have completed will be presented. Ruotsala is planning to use photography with the pupils, but she adds that the learning module needs to be planned together with the children as the new curriculum suggests.

At Simpele school, located in Rautjärvi in Eastern Finland, the theme of the first project-based learning module will be ‘Finland 100 years,’ according to the principal Janne Hirvonen because Finland is celebrating its 100th Anniversary of Independence in 2017. As a second option, Simpele had also thought of a theme focused on local issues similar to the school in Lapland. Likewise, Laihia school in Western Finland has also chosen a local theme for its first project-based learning module.

Aki Luostarinen and Iida Peltomaa wrote in their book National Curriculum — Implementing Recipes for Teachers 2016 (the author’s English translation), that using transversal competences as the base for education has two grand goals. Firstly, one cornerstone is to support student’s growth as a human being by finding ones’ own place and strengths in life. Secondly, it is about growing to become a member of society in its fullest meaning. The overarching goal is to evoke a desire in a student to be part of building a sustainable future. There needs to be competence building to secure that everyone has sufficient knowledge and skills to participate in society’s decision-making and other activities (Finnish National Board of Education 2016 ; Luostarinen and Peltomaa 2016 , p. 49).

Digitalisation

Bringing digitalisation, digital learning methods and coding, for example, more strongly into the school eco-system, is one of the aims of the new curriculum. It is a widely discussed topic more generally in Finnish society. The program of Prime Minister Sipilä’s government that became effective in May 2015 has five key objectives, one of which has to do with education, learning and competences. One of the main objectives is that Finnish schools take a so-called ‘digi-jump’ so that digital learning materials and platforms would be incorporated into wider use. According to a widely cited European Commission report 3 on Finland, only every fifth Finnish student uses ICT-technologies daily in school.

The Sipilä administration’s key program has received criticism because the government simultaneously carried out substantial cuts to the overall education budget. There are also commentators suggesting that the current situation appears to be that a school gets iPad’s, but no instruction in how to utilise them in the classroom or do not have any e-books or other materials to support digital learning. Digitalisation in recent years in Finland seems to be both a buzzword and a simplistic answer for everything, and that continues to create irritation and disillusionment for many in the education community.

When interviewing several school principals, they pointed out that focusing on digital learning is one of the key challenges for their school. Principal Ruotsala shared, ‘I have to admit that the world of iPad’s is quite unfamiliar to me, but I see the objectives of the new curriculum as an opportunity for myself also to learn together with the students’ (Outi Ruotsala, personal communication, August 30, 2016). Adds Principal Hirvonen, ‘There’s a couple of teachers in my school who have entirely given up books and use only digital learning materials. For me, it’s no problem to admit that many students are far more competent in using the devices than me and can teach me. For some teachers this is a challenge to admit that a child knows something better than you. They are scared that they lose their authority’ (Janne Hirvonen, personal communication, August 31, 2016).

The new national core curriculum supported by Finnish law, states that verbal assessment can be used in grades 1–7. Numerical assessment should be started at the latest at 8th grade. The decision regarding when the numerical assessment begins is made at the local level in municipalities. Progressive Finnish teachers have even promoted the idea of giving up numbered assessments in order to make sure that no student feels they are below standard in certain subjects. The curriculum states:

School affects substantially in what kind of perception students have on themselves as both a learner and a human being. Especially significant is the feedback students get from their teacher.… Good collaboration with parents is part of a good assessment culture… Students and their performance are not compared to each other and assessment does not concern student’s personality, temperament or other personal attributes. (Finnish National Board of Education 2016 )

The objectives for an assessment culture are outlined in the curriculum:

Encouraging atmosphere that supports all students to ‘have a try’

Versatile assessment methods

An assessment culture that supports students’ inclusiveness and dialogue

Supporting students to understand their own learning and to make the progress they are doing visible to them

Ethicality and fairness

Using the information that assessment gives to develop teaching

Principal Ruotsala from Raattama School states that after reading the chapter from the curriculum about assessment, its full meaning was still unclear to her. She understood assessment to be about constructing and encouraging feedback that helps the student to move forward in their learning and to recognise their strengths and places for development. However, Ruotsala says, it is extremely important that the joy gained in learning is not ‘killed’ by a number (Outi Ruotsala, personal communication, August 30, 2016).

Sanna Schöning, a principal from Laihia in western Finland, is of the opinion that assessment should not be forgotten, and that now with the new curriculum, new ways of assessment are being implemented. In practice, this means self-assessment, peer assessment and discussions with parents and the child about all aspects of learning and development (Sanna Schöning, personal communication, August 25, 2016).

Becoming Sustainable Citizens

One of the seven defined areas of transversal competences in the curriculum is about learning to live in a sustainable way. Niina Mykrä, Ph.D. researcher and executive director for LYKE-network (a supporting network for nature, environment and sustainable lifestyle education) has analysed the curriculum from the point of view of environmental education. Mykrä found that climate change is mentioned only four times in the entire 500-page document. Still, it has to be acknowledged that in the value base for basic education, it is quite heavily emphasised that eco-social well-being means an understanding of how significant the threat of climate change is for humanity and that learning to live in a sustainable way includes understanding many aspects, with climate change representing one of them.

Former school principal, Counsellor of Education and author Martti Hellström, has analysed the feedback that educators and other interested individuals gave to the Finnish National Agency for Education during the first phase of commenting on the curriculum in 2014. The commentators were supporting the future-orientation and the content descriptions of transversal competences. What was seen as lacking at that point was entrepreneurial education and entrepreneurial skills. Sustainable development, environmentalism and global thinking were also seen as areas that needed to be substantially strengthened in the curriculum. Irmeli Halinen, says that these topics were given more emphasis as a result of the opinions expressed during the commenting phase (Irmeli Halinen, personal communication, February 2016).

Niina Mykrä expresses the opinion that, all in all, the curriculum for basic education is excellent from the point of view of sustainable lifestyle and environmental education, since a sustainable lifestyle is seen as the base for critical thinking, education and the whole curriculum. If this curriculum will be implemented in practice, the understanding by the young generation with regards to the preconditions of sustainable future is strong, Mykrä believes (Niina Mykrä, personal communication, February 2016).

Other principals who were interviewed for this case study also said that they appreciated the future-orientation of the curriculum, but when the author asked them what was most valuable for them in the new curriculum, no interviewees mentioned the focus on a sustainable lifestyle. It remains to be seen how the grand goals of the curriculum such as sustainability transfer to everyday school-life.

A Principal’s Thoughts About the New Curriculum

The school principals interviewed for this case study hail from diverse geographical regions of Finland to help achieve a fuller picture of how the national curriculum is perceived in different parts of the country. The distance from Lauttasaari school located in the capital Helsinki to Raattama school located in Kittilä, is around 1100 kilometres. These two schools differ from each other in various ways. At Lauttasaari school, there are more than 800 pupils and it is the biggest K-12 school in Helsinki. At Raattama school, there are 6 pupils and one teacher, Outi Ruotsala, who is also the school’s principal (Fig. 13.2 , 13.3 ).

All of the student’s desks at Raattama school in Lapland, Finland

When the author traveled to Raattama school in the far north of Finland, together with the principal Outi Ruotsala, we saw only one car, the post car. The quietness and peacefulness is astonishing for someone like the author who lives in Helsinki. Raattama has around 150 inhabitants. The main sources of livelihood are reindeer ranches and seasonal work at the nearby skiing centres. During the research the author wanted to find out what the school principals thought about the curriculum process and its contents. Questions, for example, included: how does the new curriculum affect the school work in practice and what does the curriculum mean for the school?

On a beautiful day in May 2016, the author visited Lauttasaari school located on a residential island in western Helsinki. Entering the school yard, the pupils were having their afternoon break and one of the teachers were serving the pupils ice-cream. Everything was so idyllic, that it made the author rather nostalgic for her own school days.

Johanna Honkanen-Rihu, the principal of Lauttasaari school, was feeling relieved. Her school had, just the day before, sent their schools final version of the curriculum to the Helsinki City education department. The process of formulating the curriculum took 2.5 years. Honkanen-Rihu can claim a long career in the field of education, first as a teacher and then as a principal in three different schools in Helsinki. She has participated in all of the national curriculum processes in Finland.

The City of Helsinki education department provided schools with the frameworks and guidelines to help them develop their own school-based curriculum. That said, the teachers at Honkanen-Rihu’s school were a little bit hesitant to start the curriculum work because of the additional workload. Honkanen-Rihu, however, convinced the teachers that the in-depth discussions about the value base of education that the school provides, plus the myriad goals and objectives for learning and other curriculum related matters, would help their school to become a considerably better institution for both learning and teaching.

This seemed to be the case in all of the schools covered in this case study. The principals described a situation whereby due to the heavy workload that the curriculum process created, the teachers were not too eager to start the work. All of the cities in Finland seemed to have a similar working style with regards to the curriculum preparations: each teacher participated in one sub-working group. The theme of the sub-working group was either a school subject or related to the transversal competences or value base of the curriculum. Furthermore, the municipalities had somewhat different resources to invest in the curriculum work. A few municipalities had the financial budget to allow the hiring of a curriculum coordinator.

The process of translation from the national level to a local and even school level creates ownership and investment in the core principles. “The curriculum is something that is built together with your colleagues. Everything we do is based on the curriculum,” comments Honkanen-Rihu (Johanna Honkanen-Rihu, personal communication, May 24, 2016).

Students at the Raattama school in Lapland, Finland

Outi Ruotsala from Raattama school, describes the process of creating the local curriculum in rather a different tone: ‘The process itself was quite disorganised. There were several months of meetings that were of no use because no one knew what to do. I was trying to find some instructions from the internet in order to make the work we were doing consistent between different subjects, but I did not find anything. We even had a joke that someone knows what we should do, but they just won’t tell us.’ Despite the difficulties that occurred during the local curriculum process, Ruotsala states that many teachers were enthusiastic about the new curriculum. ‘It is almost like there is now permission to do things differently in school,’ Ruotsala opines (Outi Ruotsala, personal communication, August 30, 2016).

From the authors perspective, it seems that the way in which the Finnish National Agency for Education gave freedom to the municipalities, cities and individual schools to define the curriculum themselves, embodied the spirit of the new curriculum; learning transversal competences to cope and thrive in a complex society and world. That said, teachers seemed to hope for some structure and guidance. They wanted to know that they were doing the right thing and that they were providing equal learning possibilities for every child.

When the author visited Saunalahti school to interview the principal Hanna Sarakorpi, there was a palpable sense of her passion for her work when she spoke about the practices in her school. On the walls of her office she had old Finnish poems that described the uniqueness of every child. The school is located in Espoo, which is a 250,000-strong residential city located next to the capital Helsinki.

Saunalahti school has been the focus of numerous magazines and articles around the globe because of the progressivity of both the architecture and surroundings of the school and the pedagogics. Sarakorpi is of the opinion that the new curriculum challenges every school in Finland to take a new perspective, for example, on the role of the students themselves. The majority of schools are located in small cities and municipalities. 2 There are many schools in Finland that have not yet reached the former curriculum cycle objectives, Sarakorpi states (Hanna Sarakorpi, personal communication, May 24, 2016).

School Cultures Support (Or Do Not Support) The Implementation of the Curriculum

This brings this case study to the theme of actually implementing the curriculum i.e., in terms of bringing the policy to life in classrooms around the country. Most teachers support the contents of the curriculum and appreciate the future-orientation of the document, but what they yearn for is support to help with the implementation—namely how to make the curriculum’s progressive principles a reality in classrooms around Finland. Aki Luostarinen and Iida-Maria Peltomaa write in their book that the most essential part of the whole process is that the professionals in the field do not allow the curriculum to become simply just paperwork with no genuine links to the classrooms (Luostarinen and Peltomaa 2016 , p. 28).

Hannu Simola, Professor of Education Sociology at the University of Helsinki, writes in his book The Finnish Education Mystery: Historical and Sociological Essays on Schooling in Finland , about the prerequisites for school reform projects to succeed. These are: a majority of the teachers, students and parents in every school have to understand what the reform is about and accept it; the reform has to somehow fit into the school’s institutional practices and traditions, i.e., the reform has to be designed so that the school is able to implement it. The reform also has to open up new societal learning possibilities for the students. Simola adds that only when the school is understood as a historical, political, cultural and social institution, it becomes possible to change it (Simola 2015 ).

Education manager Tuija Viitasaari, and director of early childhood education and basic education, Kristiina Järvelä, from the City of Tampere education department, state that the culture inside a school defines how the curriculum is perceived and ultimately how it is practiced. The school culture largely determines if the new curriculum is perceived as a threat, an opportunity, something to get excited about or simply another additional burden. The key themes for curriculum work from the school’s point of view are participation, creating a sense of belonging for students, and strengthening the interaction between school and other parts of society (Kristiina Järvelä, Tuija Viitasaari, personal communication, January 2016)

Both Honkanen-Rihu and Sarakorpi highlight the same challenge in curriculum implementation in their schools, as the Finnish National Agency for Education has taken up as a challenge for Finnish schools: strengthening students’ agency and role as learners responsible of their own learning. The teachers’ roles have traditionally been one of control and power. Shifting into a different kind of role of a coach or guide, or less hierarchical style ‘educator’ that supports children to find their own ways of learning requires a considerable amount of ‘unlearning’ and the willingness to change.

Another challenge regarding the teacher’s role, is persuading teachers to work collaboratively in teams. The lack of a team-centric approach may well be seen as a byproduct of high teacher autonomy. That said, the objectives of the new curriculum cannot be met without teachers working together. This, needless to say, will prove to be difficult for those Finnish teachers who are used to doing everything on their own. However, the interviewees for this case study revealed that the teacher’s role and school culture are slowly changing to a more communal way of working. In some schools, teachers already work in pairs or in small groups.

Pedagogical Leadership Needed

Despite the challenges, a distinctive success factor of the curriculum and the Finnish school system, in general, is the bottom-up culture that allows new practices to scale up from individual teachers classrooms to the level of an entire school. In principle, anyone from the community can influence the development of the school.

It is the opinion of principal Sarakorpi that in addition to the co-creative working style of the whole school community, a strong pedagogical leadership is needed at the implementation phase of the curriculum. States Sarakorpi, “The new curriculum challenges teachers and principals to develop a more student-centric school where students really feel like they are valued. This means that we should really put some attention to how children and adults in the school interact with each other” (Hanna Sarakorpi, personal communication, May 24, 2016).

Sanna Schöning is one of the three principals in Laihia, a municipality with 8000 residents. She states, “The effects of the new curriculum on schools is big and thus it has created all the elements of a change process: resistance to change and being skeptical if the new curriculum can bring anything valuable or new to schools.” Schöning continues that her strategy was to give space to these feelings and engage in discussion related to them:

The concepts from the curriculum have to be brought to the teacher’s room step by step. We need to constantly keep up the discussion, otherwise nothing is going to change. It requires a little bit of a shaking up of the status quo and a small amount of anxiety is natural in this process. It means that change is actually about to happen. We started having conversations about the concepts of the curriculum already early on in the process. I gave teachers homework. We, for example, read various chapters from the curriculum and had pedagogical discussions about the texts. I also asked teachers to present to others what was the most important part of the curriculum to them, and how they wanted to practice it. This exercise really opened up the imagination of the teachers when they heard what their colleagues valued in the curriculum and why. (Sanna Schöning, personal communication, August 25, 2016)

Outi Ruotsala makes a valued point that the culture and community of teachers is different in each school. She has negative experiences from her previous career in certain schools where doing things in a new way were ‘prohibited’. “Everything had to be done like it always had been done. You have to be a real pioneer in order not to give in under the group pressure found in these kinds of schools,” Ruotsala states (Outi Ruotsala, personal communication, August 30, 2016).

Among Finnish teachers there is a joke that if you want to hide a 500 euro note, hide it between the pages of the national core curriculum, because no one ever opens or reads it. The joke is at least partly challenged by the over two-year co-creational process of building the Finnish national core curriculum in 2014. The aim of the Finnish National Agency for Education was to make teachers, principals and other stakeholders experts on the contents of the curriculum.

The national core curriculum has ambition, progressive content and it provides support and momentum for schools to renew or develop their pedagogies and practices. What is now needed is the courage to act and implement, as well as commitment and pedagogic leadership. The school principals’ role in creating the settings for the curriculum to start emerging in practice is important. They need to be enabling leaders who support the whole school community to make a shift toward more collaborative ways of working with the community and society, more collaboration between the teachers and between parents and schools and strengthening students’ agency.

There are variations in terms of the levels of commitment and implementation in schools across Finland and even among cities. Even so, it still has to be acknowledged that when looking at global comparisons, the Finnish school system is uniform and equal. There are still those taboos, like teachers’ fixed working hours, that do not allow for much development work and that creates an incentive for teachers to defend the amount of teaching hours their subject gets in the curriculum. This is especially true in secondary schools. This is not the easiest starting point for project-based learning approaches. That said, it is now defined in the curriculum that every Finnish student needs to have one project-based learning module a year.

The curriculum states that personal growth, studying, work life and being a citizen require know-how that surpass the limits of individual subjects. The overall starting point of updating the curriculum has been a deep understanding of our rapidly-changing society and the demands that this puts on the individuals and society both from the point of view of skills and character. This understanding has created an encouraging atmosphere for discussions of the purpose of schools and education, values and principles.

The curriculum has enabled change to start emerging. One sign of this are increasingly common questions by the media that focus on the teacher’s current and future role—questions that, amongst others, postulate whether teachers are truly allowed to be ‘teachers’ anymore when they have to be more like guides and co-learners. It is likely to be a much-debated question in the years to come and clearly reveals that the implementation of the new national curriculum then, has unequivocally begun to challenge conventions.

Information Box 1: A Teacher Explains: The Curriculum as a Tool for Teachers

School principal Pekka Rokka, now retired, writes in the foreword to his dissertation (2011) about his professional journey with the national curriculums of 1985, 1994 and 2004. In his dissertation he studied, with the help of these three documents, how schools integrated students into society, what kind of civic and societal skills and knowledge students learned, and what kinds of political themes were to be found in the curriculums from different decades. Rokka writes that national curriculums can be considered ‘bibles’ to teachers. “In my daily work as a teacher, I felt that the curriculum is the document that gives ground to my whole work and for my role as a teacher,” (translation by author) he states (Rokka 2011 , p. 3).

Rokka posits that the curriculum of 1994 was a radical event in the education field in Finland because each school was supported to produce their own curriculum. This made it possible to do in-depth development work in schools and it made many schools able to take steps forward in their pedagogical and operational practices. Conversely, the curriculum of 2004 felt like a step backwards because it was not as co-creational as the previous one, Rokka explains. The work consisted of reading and commenting on material that others had written, but the deep participation was not there. The core curriculum of 1994 was school-specific, but there was little space for school-specificity in the core curriculum of 1985 and 2004. The core curriculums are guided by pendulous policy since the openness of the curriculum of 1994 was returned back into a more restrictive policy in 2004 (Rokka 2011 , p. 9).

Rokka states that individuality, consumer citizenship, entrepreneurship, integration, internationality, the future and encountering the future, emphasis on equity, information technology and technology, effectiveness of media, youth culture, concern for the environment and nature, healthy life and safety awareness, as well as the assessment, development and effectiveness of education, all emerge as central political themes in national curriculums ( 2011 ).

Information Box 2: Me & My City—Learning by Doing

Me & My City is a Finnish learning concept for 12-year olds (6th graders) and 15-year olds (9th graders) developed by a former teacher, Tomi Alakoski, and his colleagues. The goal is to give the students the opportunity to develop their understanding of the economy, society, working life and entrepreneurship and transitioning to a circular economy and to strengthen their preparedness in these areas. Me & My City has operated for since 2010 in different cities in Finland. During that time around 250,000 students have visited Me & My City reaching around 75% of the 6th graders and around 40% of the 9th graders in Finland. In 2017 Me & My City started a big collaboration with the Finnish Innovation Fund Sitra. Me & My City concept is updated so that it simulates the kind of sustainable practices needed in the future societies. In this circular economy and sustainable business models are emphasized.

Me & My City is organised by the Economic Information Office (TAT) and funded by the Ministry of Education, The Finnish Innovation Fund Sitra, companies, municipalities and foundations. The learning environment created by Me & My City simulates a city with a post office, city hall, supermarket, local newspaper and businesses. The goal is to give children a learning experience that is rooted in the everyday-life practices and operations of society. For one day, the young students work in different positions in the city and have tasks that they are responsible for. The pupils generate an income from their job which they can use to purchase groceries or small items that they can take with them at the end of the day. The young students who work in companies have to consider the reputation of the company and the status of their corporate social responsibility strategy.

Before the day spent on site, teachers and students prepare for the experience by working through job applications, simulating job interviews, learning about the economy, taxation and more. The learning concept includes teacher training and learning materials for ten lessons. An important part of the concept is to develop collaborative skills, learn more about what it means to be a consumer and to deepen the students’ media literacy.

Alakoski and his colleague, Minna Ala-Outinen, explain that one of the advantages of Me & My City is that it is made easy for schools to participate. Schools are an institution often seen as an answer for many different kinds of developments in society and schools are contacted frequently by different kinds of organisations. Often it is not clear why the proposed project would be beneficial for the school. Me & My City does not have that problem since it has been designed to directly support the goals of the national curriculum.

There is a new Me & My City learning environment for 9th graders focused on the global economy. In this concept, 9th graders work as the board of directors of a Finnish multinational industrial company Metso. Alakoski and Ala-Outinen explain that it is interesting to see how Me & My City has an impact on different students and teachers. For one day, the teachers’ role is simply to sit and watch how the students run the city. Often those lively students, who might have certain difficulties concentrating in the classroom, perform exceptionally well in Me & My City. The teachers are often astonished by how good these students are when they are in the right kind of learning environment. As a result, it is empowering for the 12-year olds as well as the 15-year olds to visit Me & My City. They are given responsibility and begin to understand their parents’ world a little bit better. Ala-Outinen adds that Me & My City has made some teachers realise what kind of resource the parents, companies and other organisations could be for learning purposes. This way, Me & My City is bridging the gap between schools and the rest of the society (Tomi Alakoski, Minna Ala-Outinen, personal communication, May 2016).

Questions Asked in Interviews with School Principals:

What does the curriculum mean for your school’s strategic plan?

What does the curriculum mean for your day-to-day work?

How do your teachers react to and work with the curriculum?

Do your staff feel like they have an ownership stake in the curriculum?

What is the most innovative aspect of the curriculum?

What needs more work?

What part do you value the most?

Should national education priorities be set in another way?

Does the curriculum pull schools closer towards their purpose?

How did you participate in the new national curriculum process?

Do you feel that it is relevant for your school?

What do you think about the value base in the new curriculum?

How are you going to implement the new curriculum?

What is going to change with this new Curriculum?

People Interviewed for this Case Study:

Irmeli Halinen, Head of National Curriculum Development, Finnish National Agency of Education (now retired)

Arja-Sisko Holappa, Counsellor of Education, Finnish National Agency of Education

Johanna Honkanen-Rihu, principal, Lauttasaari School, Helsinki

Hanna Sarakorpi, principal, Saunalahti School

Sanna Schöning, principal, Laihia School

Janne Hirvonen, principal, Simpele School, Rautjärvi

Outi Ruotsala, principal and teacher, Raattama School, Kittilä

Education manager, Tuija Viitasaari, & director of early childhood education and basic education, Kristiina Järvelä, City of Tampere Education Department

Executive director Tomi Alakoski & product manager Minna Ala-Outinen, Me & My City, Economic Information Office.

The Finnish National Agency for Education ( www.oph.fi ) is a national agency that is responsible for the development of early childhood education and care, pre-primary, basic, general upper secondary, vocational upper secondary and adult education in Finland. The Finnish National Agency for Education is subordinate to the Ministry of Education and Culture and its tasks and organisation are set in legislation.

In 2016 there were 2339 schools in Finland. The figure also includes secondary schools.

European Commission report. https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/survey-schools-icteducation .

Aalto, M. (2016, August 6). Kouluissa on kesän aikana tehty vallankumous – mitä uudesta opetussuunnitelmasta pitäisi ymmärtää? Retrieved May 1, 2018, from https://www.hs.fi/kaupunki/art-2000002914514.html .

Finnish National Board of Education. (2016). National Core Curriculum for Basic Education 2014 . Helsinki, Finland: Finnish National Board of Education.

Google Scholar  

Halinen, Harmanen, & Mattila. (2015). p. 139. http://www.oph.fi/download/173262_cidree_yb_2015_halinen_harmanen_mattila.pdf .

Honkonen, S., & Lehmuskoski, J. (2015, October 30). Systeemiajattelun keinoista apua ilmiöpohjaiseen oppimiseen . Retrieved May 1, 2018, from https://www.sitra.fi/blogit/systeemiajattelun-keinoista-apua-ilmiopohjaiseen-oppimiseen/ .

IFTF. (2011). http://www.iftf.org/uploads/media/SR-1382A_UPRI_future_work_skills_sm.pdf .

Luostarinen, A., & Peltomaa, I. (2016). Reseptit OPSin käyttöön (1st ed.). Jyväskylä, Finland: PS-kustannus.

Rokka, P. (2011). Peruskoulun ja perusopetuksen vuosien 1985, 1994 ja 2004 opetussuunnitelmien perusteet poliittisen opetussuunnitelman teksteinä (Doctoral dissertation, University of Tempere, 2011). Tampereen Yliopistopaino Oy, Tempere, Finland.

Simola, H. (2015). The Finnish Education Mystery: Historical and Sociological Essays on Schooling in Finland . London: Routledge.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

The Finnish Innovation Fund, Sitra, Helsinki, Finland

Jenna Lähdemäki

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jenna Lähdemäki .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Sitra, The Finnish Innovation Fund, Helsinki, Finland

Justin W. Cook

Rights and permissions

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Lähdemäki, J. (2019). Case Study: The Finnish National Curriculum 2016—A Co-created National Education Policy. In: Cook, J.W. (eds) Sustainability, Human Well-Being, and the Future of Education. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-78580-6_13

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-78580-6_13

Published : 18 September 2018

Publisher Name : Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-319-78579-0

Online ISBN : 978-3-319-78580-6

eBook Packages : Education Education (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

• For Librarians
• For Publishers
• For Researchers
•   OAPEN Home

Finland’s Famous Education System

Unvarnished Insights into Finnish Schooling

Contributor(s)

Publisher website

Publication date and place, classification.

• Imported or submitted locally

Export search results

The export option will allow you to export the current search results of the entered query to a file. Differen formats are available for download. To export the items, click on the button corresponding with the preferred download format.

A logged-in user can export up to 15000 items. If you're not logged in, you can export no more than 500 items.

To select a subset of the search results, click "Selective Export" button and make a selection of the items you want to export. The amount of items that can be exported at once is similarly restricted as the full export.

After making a selection, click one of the export format buttons. The amount of items that will be exported is indicated in the bubble next to export format.

Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research

• Download PDF (English) XML (English)
• Alt. Display

Towards inclusive schooling policies in Finland: a multiple-case study from policy to practice

• Sonia Lempinen
• parental views
• multiple-case study

Introduction

The worldwide inclusion movement is evident in Finland, especially in the new educational system that has been introduced in kindergartens and schools. The Special Education Strategy of 2007 (Ministry of Education 2007 ), the Basic Education Act ( 642 / 2010 ) and Programme reflect the Salamanca Agreement, an equality movement (UNESCO 1994 ) that states that all children should be taught in the regular educational system when possible. The central idea in this system is that all children should be provided with education and support in their catchment area (Finnish National Board of Education 2011 ) through the three-tiered framework for support: basic education, intensified support and special support (642/2010).

All children are entitled to basic educational support as part of a regular education. Intensified education is indicated when a pupil needs support on a regular basis in order to attend school. A pupil with intensified support studies according to a general syllabus and has a right to assistants, part-time specialized education and student welfare services. If intensified support is not sufficient, which is decided by administrational and pedagogical evaluation, the pupil is entitled to special educational (SE) support. Pupils attending special education are entitled to student welfare support, part-time and full-time special education, learning instruments and assistant services while they receive personal education plans to support their individual needs. The three-tiered system in Finland was organized to ensure flexibility in the support system and to distance pedagogical decisions from medical decisions.

Municipalities in Finland decide on matters that include the budgets for education, health and social services and creating curricula that are suitable for the local schools; they can also execute their own self-evaluations. Municipalities can also decide whether school principals have managerial power or are more pedagogical leaders. The principal, together with the teachers, decides how the laws, curriculum, teaching methods, special education and continuing education are applied in their school (Juusenaho 2004 ). Consequently, there are wide variations in the types of classrooms and schools even within a city.

Although inclusive education has multiple definitions and therefore practices, most researchers agree on the background factors for inclusion, such as justice and involvement (Ainscow, Booth, and Dyson 2006 ). Avramidis and Norwich ( 2002 ) stated that inclusion is sometimes favoured as a term because it represents a range of assumptions about the meaning and purpose of schooling. Inclusion is not used in Finnish law as a term; rather, the practicalities are explained in detail as to how special education should be provided alongside regular education when possible (SA 1998/628, 17 §).

Ainscow, Booth, and Dyson ( 2006 ) suggested six different ways of viewing inclusion: disability, expulsion, pupils not being able to attend school (for example, due to economic factors), mainstream education being for everyone, ethnic and minority movements and inclusive ideology. According to the definition by Ainscow, Booth, and Dyson ( 2006 ), the inclusion used in the present study falls in the category mainstream education being for everyone.

In the Finnish context, kindergartens are seen as inclusive. There are no special education kindergartens as such, but there are special education classes within them or no special education classes at all. Schools, on the other hand, may be segregated and have only pupils with SE needs. The complexity of research on inclusive practices in kindergartens and schools in Finland derives from the differences in educational practices provided by each municipality (Pihlaja 2009 ). Studying both policy and experiences often gives a contrasting and diffuse picture of what inclusion is in practice (Haug 2010 ) and highlights the importance of conducting case studies from macro to micro levels of society, from laws to street level.

The aim of this study is to investigate the effect of the new laws on SE support practices by analysing interviews that consider the views of parents, teachers and assistants on the educational settings and practices of three children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). I also assess whether the new laws provide more inclusive schooling practices in the three municipalities where these children attended their first years of education and examine whether the changes in the laws match the participants’ views of educational practices and settings. This study contributes to the field of education by demonstrating how the laws translate from the municipal level to the classroom level; this can be considered unequal on the one hand and flexible on the other hand.

Three children with ADHD, aged 6–8 years, their parents, three teachers (one a special education teacher) and two assistants were interviewed around the period of transfer from kindergarten to school. Children started their education in the same small integrated group in a kindergarten in the city (A); this group had both 5- and 6-year-old preschoolers. After this small integrated group was closed, these children were allocated to regular kindergarten groups in the catchment area. Due to the parents’ work situation, two of the children moved to different municipalities (B and C) to start first grade.

In this multiple-case study, semi-structured interviews were conducted with the participants. As a qualitative research method, an interview seeks to portray the meaning of specific topics in the life of the subject (Kvale 1996 ). A trial interview was conducted to examine the validity of the interview questions. The approximate interview time was 45 minutes for the adults and 20 minutes for the children, and the same interview protocol was used for both children and adults. The interviews with children were used as additional data rather than primary data.

All interviews were conducted in Finnish except for one, which was in English. One interview was conducted by a former personal assistant for comfort, and the rest were completed by the researcher. The interviews were semi-structured, allowing for a more relaxed atmosphere. The questions for adults focused on the children’s educational paths, the changes in those paths, characteristics of beneficial classrooms and future hopes and concerns in education. The children’s questions were about what classrooms they attended. The interviews were recorded and transcribed. The most relevant answers from the interviews are presented in this paper.

A thematic analysis (Braun and Clarke 2006 ) was chosen because it is a flexible way to code and theme a data set, especially to find similarities and differences in the data. This method was used from a constructionist standpoint to examine how meaning, realities and experiences are the effects of discourse in society. Furthermore, it allows assessing how inclusive discourse and practice have affected the experiences of the participants, meanings and realities of schooling. This method is used from an essentialist standpoint as the views are also strongly coloured by personal experiences. The transcribed interviews were read and re-read several times to identify themes.

Organizing SE support in each municipality was examined from the official websites. These official websites were used as a source of information, for example, for parents about applying to schools and classrooms.

The children’s parents gave their consent for the interviews with their children, and the children were asked if they wished to participate. The names of the participants and the municipalities have been changed to pseudonyms for ethical reasons. The head of the city educational department in city A granted permission for this researcher to proceed with the study.

Joonas is an 8-year-old boy with an ADHD diagnosis (American Psychiatric Association 2013 ). This condition was formally known as Asperger syndrome and is now called Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) (American Psychiatric Association 2013 ). Joonas always had a personal assistant. After his small integrated class was discontinued, he moved to another kindergarten where special arrangements were tailored for him; he was free to join the regular class when he could with an assistant. The teachers interviewed in his case were from his preschool year during which time he spent mostly with an assistant and a special education teacher. In the current situation, Joonas has moved to a smaller city (city C) and is attending the first grade in a special education classroom with an assistant. Joonas is not attending his catchment area school.

Kristiina is a 7-year-old girl who has just started first grade in the largest of the three cities (city B). Kristiina was diagnosed with ADHD and is currently on medication. During her time in the small integrated class in the kindergarten in city A, Kristiina was 5 years old and had learned how to settle down and play. When the small integrated class was discontinued, Kristiina transferred to a regular preschool class in a kindergarten on the other side of the city. The interview with her teacher is from this period. When the family moved to city B, Kristiina began first grade in a class that was aimed at children with special support needs. This class is called hyvä alku-luokka (good start class) and has around 25 children, 2 teachers and 2 assistants. Kristiina’ school is in her catchment area.

Harri is an 8-year-old boy also diagnosed with ADHD and is on medication. During preschool in his small integrated class, Harri spent some time in the psychiatric children’s hospital and attended preschool there. Harri was the first of the children in the preschool class who learned to read and write. After the small integrated classes, Harri attended first grade in his catchment area and attended a special education class in city A. The interviewed personnel are from this period.

Organizing SE support in the three municipalities

There are three different municipalities in this study, referred to as A, B and C. The middle-sized (population under 100,000) municipality (A), where the children attended the small integrated preschool, is located in the western part of Finland. The largest (under 250,000) of these municipalities (B) is located in the urban southern part of Finland. The smallest (under 50,000) municipality (C) is located in the northern part of Finland where the municipal areas are large geographically but not by population.

In city A, the principle of the catchment area school is encouraged. Children are viewed on an individual basis to support their needs. There are special education classrooms in schools and kindergartens, and children have the possibility to attend part-time special education. However, the children who are allocated to different specified units of SE schooling are mostly not attending their catchment area school.

City B is the largest in the case study, and it seems to be most flexible in terms of support practices. In city B in general, children with intensified or SE support are integrated with other children in preschool, and children are guaranteed to attend a school in their own district. The schools have the option of reducing the number of children in the classroom (re-arranging classes), and there is a possibility for an assistant. There are small integrated classes and special education classes in city B’s kindergartens and schools.

The municipalities offer specialized classes for specific difficulties. In city C, children with SE support are located in kindergartens chosen by their parents, educational staff and the peripheral special education teacher. City C, the smallest of the cities, has adopted the three-tiered support framework but still has one school that provides special education. Thus, the likelihood of that school being the catchment area’s school is low. A pupil receiving SE support has the option to attend SE part time in those subjects that need attention or participate full time in SE.

The three different cities in this study all presented distinct ways of organizing SE practices. City B, the largest of the cities, presented the most alternative classroom types, reflecting the three-tiered framework for support. City C, the smallest of the three, used a full-time or part-time educational system but did not use settings, such as integrated classes or other types of settings, as used by cities A and B.

Thematical analysis of the interviews

As these children are individuals, their families have different demands and wishes for the children as the school staff also has different demands on the children. In the thematical analysis, the same themes arose and were intertwined but from different viewpoints in each case. The recurring themes were (1) smaller class sizes benefit children and (2) catchment area schools are important.

Theme 1. Smaller class sizes benefit children

In each of the children’s cases, fewer children in classrooms was an important element of supporting the child’s learning. In Joonas’ case, fewer children in classrooms was seen as beneficial as he could adapt flexibly to the group with an assistant. Joonas expressed that he would like to be in a class with fewer children. Along with ADHD, he has been diagnosed with an ASD. He seemed sensitive to his surroundings, and sometimes he left the classroom with an assistant to calm down. Joonas was slowly introduced to peers in order to learn and accept others ( Figure 1 ).

Theme 1. The participants felt that having fewer children in classrooms benefits children as it enables flexibility to organizing support, one-on-one interaction with the teacher, structure and calmness; furthermore, classes with both children with and without SE needs give pupils the chance to learn and support each other. There are improvements to be made as the medicalized language could be seen in some of the participants discourse, and there is a lack of support for teachers.

Joonas’ parents explained the importance of having fewer children in the classroom:

Worst situation would be that an SE child would be put – on their own – in a regular classroom and made to feel that he is very different from others. The best case scenario would be where the same number of children with and without SE support were in the classroom in order for them to realise the different working methods by different people. The best kind of classrooms are those where Joonas can leave the group with an assistant when needed. All previous classrooms had their faults, but the current one, due to the small number of children, works best for him.

He should be in a small regular classroom with a personal assistant who would slowly back away; this would work best for him. In this class, there should be a great teacher … an SE is unnecessary for him as he needs to have peers as role models.

He should attend small SE classrooms because being in regular classrooms did not make a difference in my eyes. He seemed to suffer when there were many people around him … Recently, there were two such classes that made me want to change professions. Are there any normal children left? It is up to these special educators to decide which classrooms the SE children go to.

Regular children also are entitled to a certain amount of support; this can be overridden by an SE child in the class who may need even more support. A calm and structured setting, especially in the beginning, is important.

More staff and smaller classes is how it should be. All classes of 20 should be reduced to no more than 15 children. In this economical climate, classrooms are certainly not becoming less crowded. These kinds of classrooms should not be some kind of replacement for the small integrated classes (that were shut down), but there should be great staff with children who benefit from being in smaller classrooms.

In Kristiina’s case, fewer children in classrooms were considered to be beneficial because one-to-one interaction with adults, the quality of instruction and the structure would support her learning. Fewer children in classrooms allowed more flexible teaching and learning arrangements. Kristiina expressed in her interview that she would like to make many friends at school.

Kristiina had attended a variety of classrooms. The parents explained her early educational path and what they thought of the classrooms she attended. Here, the parents acknowledged that children having the same diagnosis as Kristiina could provide her with understanding and support in the classroom:

Kristiina was transferred from a larger (kindergarten) class to a small integrated class. In the larger class there were a lot of children, and after this transfer we saw a major change in her. Other ADHD kids in the small integrated classroom made her feel more comfortable and not feel alone.

… Kristiina did not develop much during this period (the move from one city to another) and even deteriorated in her play. However, this probably was due to the move and the new environment rather than the class. Still, there is a big difference if a classroom is 25 children or 12 children.

The thought of a teacher not having enough time to attend to her and give her extra work to keep her interest, her getting frustrated and then being told off at times would make her a troubled child. I think it is really important that these first two school years are successful and that Kristiina will get the so-called joy of learning as well as her self-esteem to a high level. This is why positive feedback is important – so that she would like going to school. It feels like we won the lottery with this class where she is now. The great thing about this class is that they are divided into groups depending on the ability of the children.

For Kristiina and other children, the role of adults is important as they set the tone and the mood. The interaction between an adult and the child is important. A suitably-sized class shouldńt be more than 15. In this particular kindergarten, I feel lucky to have 14 children and three adults in the classroom. This ensures one-on-one time with the teacher or the adult, but in general less children and more adults as well as keeping in mind that disturbing factors are minimised in smaller classes.

Harri’s mother described the classrooms that Harri has attended and what happened during the transition from first to second grade. Harri’s mother described the classroom environment with a strong emphasis on diagnosis:

Harri was the only one with behavioural problems, and it seemed everyone else had mild learning difficulties and were sweet as pie. Harri’s problems in the classroom with his peers ended when the occupational therapist organised sessions during school time with all three boys and a psychiatric nurse one hour a week for 8–10 weeks. This year there are 5 kids with behavioural problems and major problems, kids winding each other up and fighting. He needs a quiet, safe, structured and nice environment around him – ideally a small class or regular class with an assistant, but certainly not children with similar problems.

Harri’s teacher commented:

The children in this class need a calm environment and a small group around them, whereas now they are the ones who pay the bill so to speak. In a small group or when there are two of us, he is great … The composition of these groups should be re-thought very carefully. I believe that there can be only one child suffering from socio-emotional and conduct disorders per class. Then the rest of the group can support this child in his/her behaviour. There are also need to be enough adults to deal with the problems.

I think that children with SE support should be part of regular classes; I would say from three to five SE children per class, depending on the difficulty. There should be twice as much regular children as SE children. This would give them support and peer models. We have been thinking of integrating him into a regular classroom, but it has 26 children.

Many classrooms are put together, and as a consequence many assistants are laid off. I appreciate the line of work that I am in, and therefore this is not a good idea. Even if there were two teachers in the classroom, it is still different when there is an assistant. All classes should be as small as possible. SE children deserve the extra help they need, and there should be enough people to cater to those needs.

Theme 2. Catchment area school

The general view of the participants was that the catchment area school rule is important. Two of the three parents felt that this factor was most important as it improves collaboration between schools and kindergartens, and the environment is familiar for the child. For some participants, however, support was more important than the catchment area ( Figure 2 ).

Theme 2. The general view of the participants was that the catchment area school rule is important as it improves collaboration between schools and kindergartens. In addition, the area, the school and other children are familiar. For some participants, however, support was more important than the catchment area.

Joonas’ parents placed the emphasis on classrooms with fewer children with specialized support rather than catchment area schools:

The village where we live is small but geographically large. I would rather have it this way, meaning that everything is planned there for SE, rather than having him thrown in a general education classroom where he would not receive the help that he needs. But of course I would certainly prefer having all this support in the nearest school to us, although it is not a priority.

I don’t know how it is going to work as this whole thing is so new, but it makes the collaboration between the school and the kindergarten much easier. It is easier to talk about the children and also the children will get to know each other better; going from preschool to first grade will also be easier.

Collaboration between preschools and schools has become better, but I do not agree that SE children should be located to different places around the city (and not in the catchment area schools).

Now many of the SE children also attend catchment area schools. In general, the changes happening are great … nevertheless, from the view of the child, a smaller group is always best.

The kindergarten group was the right place for him, but Kindergarten was too far; if it had been a catchment area kindergarten, the transfer would have been easier. Learning to read and write has a lower priority compared to whether he can walk from the shop without a fight.

When the children go to catchment area schools in a way the groups have become much more difficult. Now, children who have socio-emotional problems are put in with all the other children, whereas before our classroom was focused on children who have neurological problems. This group of children could not be in a regular classroom. I would have located these children completely differently when it comes to classes. The difficult part was that, unexpectedly, two extra children were located here. One of them moved to this neighbourhood, and it was suggested that the other one wait a year, but the mother did not want that.

The cases were formed from the stories of early educational paths of three children with SE needs, influenced by the municipalities organizing special education that is set by law. The effect of the new laws varied depending on the municipality. The larger municipality had a more flexible SE organization and hence was more inclusive. This is an indication of the power held by municipalities (Juusenaho 2004 ). The interviews of the participants indicated that classrooms with fewer children were beneficial for children with SE support because these classrooms enabled a flexibility to organize support, ensuring one-on-one interaction with the teacher in a catchment area school.

A significant effect of smaller groups being beneficial learning environments (8–15 pupils) has been reported in studies with smaller children and students with SE support (Bussing et al. 2002 ; Klonsky 2002 ; Nye, Hedges, and Konstantopoulos 2000 ; Stasz and Stecher 2000 ). Bussing et al. ( 2002 ) noted that especially children with an ADHD diagnosis benefit from personal instruction, which an assistant and a fewer children can provide. Furthermore, carefully planned groups ensure structure and calmness to the learning environment; classes with children with and without SE support give pupils the chance to learn and support one another. Although there is evidence that, student engagement improves when the class size is reduced (Finn, Pannozzo, and Achilles 2003 ) and there are fewer behavioural problems in smaller classrooms (Wheeler 1993 ), in Harri’s case, well thought-out group dynamics were considered more important than class size or attending the catchment area school. According to Finn, Pannozzo, and Achilles ( 2003 ), engagement consists of such elements as ‘learning behaviour’ and pro- and antisocial behaviour.

The use of the catchment area rule is municipality-dependent as is the organization of SE practices. One of the main principles of inclusive education is attending a catchment area school. Although some regarded attending a catchment area school as the most important factor, others considered support in classrooms to be more important. Kivirauma, Klemelä, and Rinne ( 2006 ) found that parents of children with severe disabilities preferred their children to be in SE classrooms, whereas parents of children with milder disabilities preferred regular education classrooms. Parents of children with severe disabilities wanted their children in an SE setting because the teachers and such classrooms were better prepared for support compared to general classrooms. This finding is also supported by Dockrell, Shield, and Rigby ( 2003 ). Joonas’ parents placed the emphasis on a classroom with fewer children with specialized support rather than catchment area schools. Of the three children in this study, he was given the most support.

The new three-tiered framework for support was introduced to give more flexibility in organizing support and moving away from practices of medicalization. This study demonstrates that some of the participants described children through a dualistic view of ability/disability or normal/abnormal, referring to diagnosis and individuals rather than being inclusive. This shows that the changes towards a more inclusive school environment as specified by the law will take more work and that change is a lengthy process. There is an ongoing debate on whether having SE children in regular classrooms burdens teachers or whether teachers just want fewer children in their classrooms. Studies conducted on teachers’ attitudes (Koay et al. 2006 ; Kuorelahti and Vehkakoski 2009 ) concerning inclusive education show that teachers are apprehensive of having children with SE support in their classrooms; they consider the workload to be overwhelming and they are unsure of their abilities to teach and support children with SE support (Sapon-Shevin 2007 ). This study shows that teachers also need support as inclusive practices become more common. Another issue is the reference to ‘normality’, which can be detected in many of the excerpts in the text. There is an increasing amount of evidence that although inclusive education is more common, the notion of normality is narrowing, which then affects educational structures and policies (Brunila 2012 ; Kivirauma 1999 ; Mietola 2014 ; Teittinen 2008 , 2011 ; Tomlinson 2012 ; Vehkakoski 2006 ). Normality versus abnormality could be linked with medicalization and how children are often seen through their diagnoses; this suggests a problem with the individual (Conrad and Schneider 1992 ) rather than the shortcomings of the environment.

As bureaucracies are further dismissed by the governments and municipalities are given more power, the organization of schooling changes. This power shift can create inequalities in municipalities in organizing SE support. The line between SE and regular education is blurred due to the three-tiered framework for support and more flexible ways to give support, although the number of pedagogical statements from experts and administrative decisions has increased. As the flexibility in giving support increases, more children can be given support without being labelled as special. Graham and Jahnukainen ( 2011 ) in their cross-cultural research argued that up to 30% of Finnish students from kindergarten to the third grade are in part-time SE. Graham and Jahnukainen argued that because the number of students receiving some form of SE is high, SE becomes less of an issue and a label. Early intervention and considerable support can therefore be described as a cornerstone of Finnish education; the idea is to catch academic problems early to prevent further difficulty. The children in this study had early intervention, which helps in receiving needed level of support. Receiving special support seemed easier with diagnosis, however, concurrently can lead to being labelled, which can be seen in some of the excerpts.

According to Lipsky ( 1980 ), policy is best made at the street level in offices rather than by legislatures. This multiple-case study demonstrates that these children were allocated to schools on an individual basis. This individual aspect needs to be maintained to tailor school paths in order to support children reaching their full potential. As can be seen in Harri’s case, this individual planning was obscured by the strict policy pursued. Kristiina’s case is an example of policy intention translating into practice. Kristiina was given support in her catchment area, and the support was tailored to the level needed. Joonas’ case shows how perceptions can differ about what is thought to be beneficial for a child. The people who are most familiar with the child should therefore choose what is best for the child collectively, and to do so they should have a wide range of supportive practices offered by the municipality to choose from.

Nonetheless, there are some limitations to this study. More teacher’s from the children’s school paths could have been interviewed to produce a more comprehensive picture, as now most of the information about the paths comes from parents. Originally, the plan was to obtain four cases instead of three; however, the fourth participant did not respond. Furthermore, the children’s interviews could have been structured better instead of merely talking about topics; for example, picture drawing could have been used to obtain more information. It is important to include the small amount of data from the children’s interviews as there have been few studies that have included pupils’ own opinions about inclusive settings (Dyson, Howes, and Roberts 2002 ).

Conclusions

There is evidence of a transition stage in the Finnish educational system where new policies are translating into practice. The strong municipal power and differences in organizational support could be detected in this study. The policy to practice is being translated by the stakeholder, the parents, the teacher and the schools, and to make it more inclusive much work is needed regarding attitudes and values. What is beneficial for the child in terms of schooling depends on the stakeholders. As this study shows, the flexibility of organizing support at the right level for each child in classrooms with fewer children is one of the key elements.

It is important that future studies examine the differences in support practices among municipalities for all children in Finland to ensure equality in the basic educational system.

Acknowledgements

I would like to warmly thank Beata Stach-Lempinen, Sevcan Hakyemes and Joel Kivirauma for support and advice.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes on contributor

Sonia Lempinen is a PhD Candidate in the Department of Education with a concentration in school choice and special educational support. More specifically her work examines social justice, policy and practice of the school choice phenomenon concerning children with intensified and special educational support.

Ainscow, M., T.Booth, and A.Dyson. 2006. Improving Schools, Developing Inclusion . [city: London ] : Routledge.  

American Psychiatric Association . 2013. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders . 5th ed. [city: Arlington ] , [state: VA ] : American Psychiatric Publishing.  

Avramidis, E., and B.Norwich. 2002. “Teachers’ Attitudes Towards Integration/Inclusion: A Review of the Literature.” European Journal of Special Needs Education 17 (2): 129–147. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/08856250210129056  

Basic Education Act (642/2010) . Accessed May 4, 2014. http://www.finlex.fi/en/laki/kaannokset/1998/en19980628.pdf  

Braun, V., and V.Clarke. 2006. “Using Thematic Analysis in Psychology.” Qualitative Research in Psychology 3 (2): 77–101. doi: https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa  

Brunila, K. 2012. “From Risk to Resilience: The Therapeutic Ethos is Youth Education.” Education Inquiry 3 (3): 451–464. doi: https://doi.org/10.3402/edui.v3i3.22046  

Bussing, R., F. A.Gary, C. E.Leon, C. W.Garvan, and R.Reid. 2002. “General Classroom Teachers’ Information and Perceptions of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder.” Behavioral Disorders 27 (4): 327–339.  

Conrad, P., and J.Schneider. 1992. Deviance and Medicalization: From Badness to Sickness . [city: Philadelphia ] : Temple University Press.  

Dockrell, J. E., B. M.Shield, and K.Rigby. 2003. “Acoustic Guidelines and Teacher Strategies for Optimising Learning Conditions in Classrooms for Children with Hearing Problems.” In Access: Achieving Clear Communication Employing Sound Solutions , edited by D.Fabry and C.DeConde Johnson, 217–229. [city: Chicago ] , [state: IL ] : Phonak.  

Dyson, A., A.Howes, and B.Roberts. 2002. “A Systematic Review of the Effectiveness of School Level Action for Promoting Participation by All Students (EPPI-Centre Review, Version 1.1*).” In Research Evidence in Education Library . [city: London ] : EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education. http://www.forskningsradet.no/servlet/Satellite?c=Rapport&cid=1253986430399&lang=no&pagename=kunnskapssenter%2FHovedsidemal  

Finn, J. D., G. M.Pannozzo, and C. M.Achilles. 2003. “The ‘Why’s’ of Class Size: Student Behaviour in Small Classes.” Review of Educational Research 73 (3): 321–368. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3516038 doi: https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543073003321  

Finnish National Board of Education . 2011. Equal Education . Accessed May 4, 2014. http://www.oph.fi/english/education  

Graham, L. J., and M.Jahnukainen. 2011. “Wherefore Art Thou, Inclusion? Analysing the Development of Inclusive Education in New South Wales, Alberta and Finland.” Journal of Education Policy 26 (2): 263–288. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2010.493230  

Haug, P. 2010. “Approaches to Empirical Research on Inclusive Education.” Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research 12 (3): 199–209. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/15017410903385052  

Juusenaho, R. 2004. Peruskoulun Rehtoreiden Johtamisen Eroja Sukupuolien Näkökulma . [city: Jyväskylä ] : Jyväskylä University Printing House.  

Kivirauma, J. 1999. “Oppivelvollisuuskoulun vammaispolitiikka.” In Pyörätuolitango. Näkökulmia vammaisuuteen , edited by S.Nouko-Juvonen, 49–76. [city: Helsinki ] : Edita.  

Kivirauma, J., K.Klemelä, and R.Rinne. 2006. “Segregation, Integration, Inclusion – The Ideology and Reality in Finland.” European Journal of Special Needs Education 21 (2): 117–133. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/08856250600600729  

Klonsky, M. 2002. “How Smaller Schools Prevent School Violence.” Educational Leadership 59 (5): 60–65. http://ehis.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.utu.fi:2048/ehost/detail?vid=32&sid=bec30a7a-db09-4959-84928ed4c176f2f0%40sessionmgr115&hid=115&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=trh&AN=6503385  

Koay, T. L., L.Lim, W. K.Sim, and J.Elkins. 2006. “Learning Assistance and Regular Teacher’s Perceptions of Inclusive Education in Brunei Darussalam.” International Journal of Special Education 21 (1): 131–143.  

Kuorelahti, M., and T.Vehkakoski. 2009. Tukitoimet kunnossa perusopetuksessa? Erityisopetuksen toimivuus ja kouluviihtyvyys oppilaiden, vanhempien ja koulun opetushenkilöstön arvioimana . [city: Kuopio ] : Snellman- instituutti.  

Kvale, S. 1996. Interviews: An Introduction to Qualitative Research Interviewing . [city: Thousand Oaks ] , [state: CA ] : Sage.  

Lipsky, M. 1980. Street-level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Services . [city: New York ] : Russell Sage Foundation.  

Mietola, R. 2014. Hankala erityisyys. Etnografinen tutkimus erityisopetuksen käytännöistä ja erityisyyden muotoutumisesta yläkoulun arjessa [Troubling Special. An Ethnographic Study on Practices of Special Education and Formation of Special in the Everyday Life of Lower Secondary School]. Helsingin yliopisto, Käyttäytymistieteiden laitos. Kasvatustieteellisiä tutkimuksia 255.  

Ministry of Education . 2007. Special Education Strategy . Reports of the Ministry of Education, Finland. Accessed May 4, 2014. http://www.minedu.fi/OPM/Julkaisut/2007/Erityisopetuksen_strategia.html?lang=fi&extra_locale=en  

Nye, B., L. V.Hedges, and S.Konstantopoulos. 2000. “The Effects of Small Classes on Academic Achievement: The Results of the Tennessee Class Size Experiment.” American Educational Research Journal 37 (1): 123–151. doi: https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312037001123  

Pihlaja, P. 2009. “Erityisen tuen käytännöt varhaiskasvatuksessa – näkökulmana inkluusio.” Kasvatus 49 (2): 146–157.  

Sapon-Shevin, M. 2007. Widening the Circle: The Power of the Inclusive Classroom . [city: Boston ] , [state: MA ] : Beacon Press.  

Stasz, C., and B. M.Stecher. 2000. “Teaching Mathematics and Language Arts in Reduced Size and Non-reduced Size Classrooms.” Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 22 (4): 313–329. doi: https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737022004313  

Teittinen, A. 2008. “Normaliteetin rajat ja rakenteet [The Borders and Structures of Normality].” In Muuttuvat marginaalit: näkökulmia vammaistutkimukseen [Changing Margins: The Disability Research Perspective] , edited by J.Kivirauma, 126–148. Kehitysvammaliiton tutkimuksia 1/2008.  

Teittinen, A. 2011. “Onko diagnoosi tarpeellinen? Pohdintoja lääketieteellisten diagnoosien yhteiskunnallisista merkityksistä.” In Alkoholin vaurioittamat: raskaudenaikaisen alkoholinkäytön vaikutukset lapsen elämään , edited by S.Vaarla, 164–181. [city: Helsinki ] : Kehitysvammaliitto.  

Tomlinson, S. 2012. “The Irresistible Rise of the SEN Industry.” Oxford Review of Education 38 (3): 267–286. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2012.692055  

UNESCO . 1994. The Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action on Special Needs Education . [city: Paris ] : UNESCO.  

Vehkakoski, T. 2006. “Ominaisuuksista oireyhtymiksi. Neuropsykiatriset diagnoosit ja neurotieteelliset selitysmallit vammaisuuden tuottajina.” In Vammaisuuden tutkimus , edited by A.Teittinen, 237–264. [city: Helsinki ] : Yliopistopaino.  

Warnock Report . 1978. Special Educational Needs: Report of the Committee of Enquiry into the Education of Handicapped Children and Young People . [city: London ] : HMSO.  

Wheeler, J. 1993. Kansas Class Size/Caseload Study . [state: KS ] : Northeast Kansas Education Service Center. Accessed May 4, 2014. http://nekesc.org/kids/CSCL/summary.html