Documenting pedagogical support measures in Finnish IEPs for students with intellectual disability

Recording Support Measures in the Sequential Pedagogical Documents of Children With Special Education Needs

“…The sequential descriptions of support were most typically repetitious (41%), meaning that recordings of children's support remained more or less the same. It is noteworthy and alarming that in 70% of the cases (both the missing and repetitious patterns), The results of this study confirmed what is known currently about varying, inconsistent, and vague documentation practices (see, e.g., Karvonen & Huynh, 2007;Ruble et al, 2010;Räty et al, 2018;Sanches-Ferreira et al, 2013) and about focusing on describing children instead of pedagogy (see Andreasson & Asplund Carlsson, 2013;Hjörne & Säljö, 2004;Isaksson et al, 2007). Moreover, the connections between children's needs, objectives, methods, and evaluations were unclear typically, which coincides with previous research findings (Blackwell & Rossetti, 2014;Ruble et al, 2010).…”

“…Earlier studies show that the descriptions of individualized instruction are not documented systematically (Espin et al, 1998;Yell & Stecker, 2003) and that the connection between learning objectives and instruction planning is weak or nonexistent (Blackwell & Rossetti, 2014;Rubler et al, 2010). In addition, support measures are described predominantly using imprecise language and exclude the specific allocation of responsibilities related to the provision of support (Räty et al, 2018;Rubler et al, 2010). Methods are also focused on efforts to improve children's skills instead of on environmental, organizational, or pedagogical aspects of support (Isaksson et al, 2007).…”

“…From the viewpoint of the effective planning and assessment of children's progress and the efficacy of the support provided, specific descriptions of exact, measurable objectives and support measures (Boavida, Aguiar, McWilliams, & Pimentel, 2010;Christle & Yell, 2010) should be contextualized to children's everyday lives and various learning environments (Boavida et al, 2010;Räty, Vehkakoski, & Pirttimaa, 2018). Additionally, knowledge about children's current achievement levels, situations, challenges, and strengths needs to be explicitly utilized to set goals and formulate appropriate measures (Michinowicz, Mcconnell, Peterson, & Odom, 1995).…”

Same vision – different approaches? Special needs education in light of inclusion in Finland and Norway

“…This includes a fairly long tradition of promoting research-based master's education for SETs (Decree on Qualifications Required for Teaching Staff 1998). SETs are employed and work at schools, and they are highly trusted experts in relation to SNE assessment and teaching (Räty, Vehkoski, and Pirttimaa 2019). While Norwegian schools may have teachers with some SNE competence, Norway does not prioritise or require formal SET competence in the same way that Finland does.…”

Ethics Of Interaction Of Adolescents At Risk In The Pedagogical Counseling System

“…Foreign researchers are also concerned about the problem of children at risk. Räty et al (2019) consider making an individual educational plan as an integral part of the education of children at risk. This plan is widely used in Western countries and contains counseling measures for Finnish children at risk.…”