Abstract
Our research concerns an inclusive model in early special education in Finland. We have many special children in ordinary day care without professional help. In our new model 14 ordinary kindergartens received a special teacher whose work was followed for three years (1996-1999). Encouraging results were received.
The role of the special educator was dependent on the needs in the kindergarten. She concentrated mostly on working with children and on consulting adults. The staff (N= 117) were satisfied because they had a professional to consult every day. They considered that the quality of day care had improved.
Parents were satisfied because their child received professional education and the progress of the children could be seen.
Some negative aspects were also found: children who had such problems that they did not benefit from this kind of an inclusive setting were, however, included. There were also too many special children in ordinary groups, the special teacher did not have enough time everyone. Also the role of this special teacher was not clear for everybody.
However, during the research period most of these aspects could be improved and this model is going to be permanent.
Backgroud
This research concerns an inclusive model in early special education in Finland. Finnish children go to school in the autumn following their seventh birthday. Before that most children attend day care. The children we are talking about here are between 3 and 6 years old. Most of our special children in ordinary day care are without any professional help. The only support is that the size of the group is diminished with one or two. In this new model 14 ordinary kindergartens received a special teacher (s-teacher) as an extra person in the day care centre. This meant that the special children could go into the nearest day care centre and received the special educational help there. The work of these 14 special teachers and their counterparts, meaning here the heads and the staff in the day care centre, have been followed up for three years (1996-1999). The opinions of parents as well as the development of the children have also been studied, but they are not reported here.
The Aims of the study
The main aim of this study was to describe the work of the s-teacher, the content of her/his work in the day care centre. The process that took place among the adults was also of interest: what happens when a new professional starts work in the team? Can co-operation be taken for granted and how does it function?
The Process
At the beginning of the project it was decided that one s-teacher could take care of about five special children. The work of the s-teachers was recorded in a form in which they wrote everything they did in the course of a week. The weeks in which this note-making occured were eight altogether, four in autumn and four in spring during 1997-1999. The first year (1996-1997) was an orientation year during which the research instruments were studied and the form was developed together with the s-teachers. The heads and the staff received a questionnaire annually in which they were asked about co-operation, positive and negative aspects of this new model, and the benefit of the model for the children.
The Respondents
Because some s-teachers left during the project, completed forms were received from twelve s-teachers. Their age ranged from 31 to 52 years, the mean age being 39 years. One s-teacher was male. In spring 1999 twelve heads, mean age 46 years, responded to the questionnaire. In 1998 94 members of the staff responded, and 117 in 1999, the response rate varying between 79 and 85 %. The mean age of the staff was 34 years in both, ranging from 19 to 59 (sd 9.8).
Results
The main tasks of the s-teacher
The work of this s-teacher could be divided into six tasks, which were: 1) General work with children without any special educational goal. This means such things as dressing or reading a story. 2) Work with children with some special educational goal, which included various educational and therapeutic activities which can be called early intervention. 3) Discussions with adults in the day care centre including discussions with the staff, health-care or educational professionals and with families. 4) Individual planning; the time when the s-educator plans the work alone. 5) Meetings with educational supervisors and researchers. 6) Other activities, including organizing parties at the day care centre.
The first three tasks occupied most of the working time of the s-teachers, only the proportion varying when the s-teachers were compared. Some worked largely without a special educational goal, their way of working resembling more an ordinary teaching job. Some reported that their work was mostly special education and that they used many different methods, e.g. theraplay, language awareness exercises, AAC methods, etc. Some s-teachers worked a lot with adults, having formed an indirect way of influencing the development of the special children. They talked a lot with the staff and parents.
The setting
The s-teacher concentrated mostly on working with children in either a big or a small group, and on consulting with adults. Individual teaching was seldom done. Usually the s-teacher was with the big group of children in the morning, while in the afternoon they taught in small groups.
The Heads
The heads (N=12) had a positive view of this new model. They said that the s-teacher took part in many meetings which the head had had to do before. They also said that they co-operate almost daily with the s-teacher. Many felt that they had acquired a counterpart, someone to work with, an educational head to share their work. Because there were so many s-children in some day care centres , the s-teachers were sometimes exhausted. The heads felt they had to help the s-teacher to limit her/his work because the expectations were often impossible to fulfil.
The staff
The staff (N=117) was generally satisfied with this s-teacher model, because they had a professional with whom to consult every day. This opportunity to have a professional to talk with when the need was urgent was really appreciated. They also considered that the quality of daycare had improved and they themselves had learned new ways to handle special children. Some negative aspects also emerged: some children had such severe problems that they did not benefit from this kind of inclusive setting. They should have been in segregated special groups. In some places there were too many special children in ordinary groups so that the s-teacher did not have enough time for everyone. This meant that the children were on the responsibility of the regular staff most of the time.
Conclusion
A special teacher in an ordinary day care centre was welcomed. Both a
direct way of working with special children, and an indirect way of working
with a lot with adults were the main elements of the s-teachers´ work.
The staff and the heads reported that the work had developed and had a new
perspective, including a special educational view. People had had to find new
ways of working, to co-operate more. In some places the work culture had
changed so that the staff discussed more. Some people felt the work was now
more difficult and that the responsibilities of the s-teacher were not clear.
However, during the research period the positive aspects exceeded the negative
ones. This new model of working was accepted and is now permanent in many day
care centres.
Contacts:
e-mail: marjatta.takala@helsinki.fi
 |
 |