This article examines the implementation of new special education legislation in Finland among students with significant disabilities. The data consist of a nationwide survey and field observations. In the analysis, a policy implementation framework is utilized as a theoretical lens. The findings suggest that schools and municipalities that had participated in long-term development projects had more capacity and willingness to reform special education practices substantially, suggesting that learning in one policy area can transfer to other domains across multiple levels of national and local governments. The key findings highlight the significance of professional trust as a policy instrument in implementation.
AhtiainenR.BeiradM.HautamäkiJ.HilasvuoriT.LintuvuoriM.ThunebergH.. . .ÖsterlundI. (2012). Tehostettu ja erityistä tukea tarvitsevien oppilaiden opetuksen kehittäminen 2007-2011. Kehittävän arvioinnin loppuraportti [Development of special educational needs education between 2007 and 2011] (Final report). Helsinki, Finland: Finnish Ministry of Education.
2.
Basic Education Act (642/2010). Finnish Ministry of Culture and Education.
CheckJ.SchuttR. K. (2012). Research methods in education. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
5.
CreswellJ. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
6.
CreswellJ. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
7.
ElmoreR. F.McLaughlinM. W. (1988). Steady work: Policy, practice, and the reform of American education. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
8.
FuchsD.FuchsL. (2005). Responsiveness-to-intervention: A blueprint for practitioners, policymakers, and parents. Teaching Exceptional Children, 38, 57-61.
9.
FuchsD.MockD.MorganP. L.YoungC. L. (2003). Responsiveness-to-intervention: Definitions, evidence, and implications for the learning disabilities construct. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18, 157-171.
10.
FullanM. (2007). The new meaning of educational change. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
11.
GrahamL. J.JahnukainenM. (2011). Wherefore art thou, inclusion? Analysing the development of inclusive education in New South Wales, Alberta, and Finland. Journal of Education Policy, 26, 261-286.
12.
GrinkerR. R. (2007). Unstrange minds: Remapping the world of autism. Philadelphia, PA: Basic Books.
13.
HillH. C. (2006). Language matters: How characteristics of language complicate policy implementation. In HonigM. I. (Ed.), New directions in education policy implementation: Confronting complexity (pp. 65-82). Albany: State University of New York Press.
14.
HonigM. I. (2006). New directions in education policy implementation: Confronting complexity. Albany: State University of New York Press.
ItkonenT.JahnukainenM. (2010). Disability or learning difficulty? Politicians or teachers? Constructing special education students in Finland and the United States. Comparative Sociology, 9(2), 182-201.
17.
JahnukainenM.KorhonenA. (2003). Integration of students with severe and profound intellectual disabilities into the comprehensive school system: Teachers’ perceptions of the education reform in Finland. International Journal of Disability Development and Education, 50, 169-180.
18.
KnappM. S.StearnsM. S.TurnbullB. J.DavidJ. L.PetersonS. M. (1991). Cumulative effects of federal education policies at the local level. In OddenA. R. (Ed.), Education policy implementation (pp. 105-123). Albany: State University of New York Press.
19.
KokkoT.PesonenH.PoletJ.KontuE.OjalaT.PirttimaaR. (2014). Erityinen tuki perusopetuksen oppilaille, joilla on tuen tarpeen taustalla vakavia psyykkisiä ongelmia, kehitysvamma-tai autismin kirjon diagnoosi. VETURI-hankkeen kartoitus 2013 [Intensive support for students with social-emotional problems, profound or severe disabilities, or autism. VETURI-project survey results 2013]. University of Helsinki & University of Jyväskylä, Finland: Yliopistopaino.
20.
LahtinenM.LankinenT. (2013). Koulutuksen lainsäädäntö käytännössä [Education legislation in practice]. Helsinki, Finland: Tietosanoma Oy.
21.
McDonnellL. M.ElmoreR. F. (1987). Getting the job done: Alternative policy instruments. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 9, 133-152.
22.
McDonnellL. M.WeatherfordM. S. (2013). Evidence use and the common core state standards movement: From problem definition to policy adaption. American Journal of Education, 120, 1-25.
23.
Ministry of Education. (2007). Erityisopetuksen strategia [Special education strategy] (Ministry of Education Report 2007:47). Helsinki, Finland: Yliopistopaino
24.
MitchellD. (2001). Paradigm shifts in and around special education in New Zealand. Cambridge Journal of Education, 31, 319-335.
25.
MorseJ. (2003). Principles of mixed methods and multimethod research design. In TashakkoriA.TeddlieC. (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research (pp. 189-208). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
26.
PihkalaJ. (2009). Oppilaan oikeus saada varhaista ja ennalta ehkäisevää tukea ja erityisopetusta vahvistuu [The student’s right to receive early support and special education services]. In IkonenO. (Ed.), Ainutkertainen oppija. Erilaisuuden ymmärtäminen ja kohtaaminen (pp. 20-23). Juva, Finland: Bookwell Oy.
27.
RytivaaraA.KershnerR. (2012). Co-teaching as a context for teachers’ professional learning and joint knowledge construction. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28, 999-1008. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2012.05.006
28.
SahlbergP. (2010). Rethinking accountability in a knowledge society. Journal of Educational Change, 11, 45-61.
29.
SpillaneJ. P.ReiserB. J.GomezL. M. (2006). Policy implementation and cognition: The role of human, social, and distributed cognition in framing policy implementation. In HonigM. I. (Ed.), New directions in education policy implementation: Confronting complexity (pp. 47-64). Albany: State University of New York Press.
StoneD. (2011). Policy paradox: The art of political decision making. (3rd ed.). New York, NY: W.W. Norton.
33.
ThunebergH.HautamäkiJ.AhtiainenR.LintuvuoriM.VainikainenM.-P.HilasvuoriT. (2014). Conceptual change in adopting the nationwide special education strategy in Finland. Journal of Educational Change, 15, 37-56. doi:10.1007/s10833-013-9213-x
34.
ThunebergH.VainikainenM.-P.AhtiainenR.LintuvuoriM.SaloK.HautamäkiJ. (2013). Education is special for all: The Finnish support model. Belltz Juventa, Gemeinsam Leben, 2, 67-78.
35.
WeatherlyR.LipskyM. (1977). Street-level bureaucrats and institutional innovation: Implementing special education reform. Harvard Educational Review, 47(2), 171-197.
36.
WilsonJ. Q. (1989). Bureaucracy: What government agencies do and why they do it. New York, NY: Basic Books.
