Conference Agenda

All European countries have signed the UNCRPD and, as a result, they are challenged to “develop an inclusive education system at all levels” (Art. 24). Inclusive education reforms and change processes have to be understood as complex phenomena that pertain different levels of historically grown education systems worldwide. Confronted with the same global demands, actors of education systems in European states and regions follow different strategies for this transformation process. The Erasmus+ Project Governance In(clusive) Education aims to foster the dialogue between European countries on educational reforms towards inclusion, change-management strategies, the structure and constellations of actors in the governance systems and their role for an inclusive education reform. Furthermore, it seeks to increase the quality and coherence of governance in inclusive education reforms in European countries. As the Global Education Monitoring Report 2020 shows, delivering inclusive education requires multiple actors to work together. Indeed “Weak collaboration, cooperation and coordination of stakeholders can impede implementation of ambitious laws and policies” (UNESCO, 2020, 90). While many countries have developed legislative frameworks to establish more inclusive education systems, “neither laws nor policies are sufficient, as the implementation record remains weak” (UNESCO, 2020, 57). This leads to the question of which other aspects actors perceive as relevant for the successful implementation of attempts to steer inclusive education reforms. The educational governance perspective as an analytical approach understands steering processes not as linear top-down or bottom-up procedures. Instead, it perceives them as a multidimensional product of actors’ coordination. It allows a comprehensive description and analysis of steering processes and related issues in education systems. Educational Governance therefore “aims to understand these changes by concentrating on the question of how regulation and performance of school systems is achieved, sustained and transformed under the perspective of coordination of action between various social actors in complex multi-level systems” (Altrichter, 2015, 10). As “Achieving inclusion requires a whole-system approach” (UNESCO, 2020, 57), to ensure true innovation and sustainability, all players, agents and stakeholders need to be actively committed and involved, moreover updated on the entirety of ongoing change-processes. The agents and stakeholders in inclusive education reforms are institutions and individuals in education policy and practice - with and without special needs all together - such as school administration, school leaders, teachers, parents, students, as well as tertiary institutions, like training institutions, colleges and universities. The universities are responsible for the qualification and professionalization of many professionals within the future inclusive education system. From a governance perspective, rights and aims, obstacles and challenges, guidance and different control functions of every subsystem and institution involved need to be considered in change processes. The substantial differences between the 4 participating countries (Austria, Germany, Italy, Spain) in terms of the development-stage of inclusive education, the actor constellations in governance and the strategies for the reform-processes are essential. Yet, these differences represent a significant resource due to the possibility of comparing, discussing, exchanging and reflecting upon examples and experiences in the field of inclusive education governance. The research goals are to explore how and why coordination or implementation does or does not work in all levels of the governance system (multi-level-analyses of governance) and to gain knowledge and expertise that can be shared through professionalization of stakeholders on governance of inclusive education. The consortium consists of higher education institutions, representatives from regional school-authorities, communities of practice established in all of the 4 participating countries, comprising all systemically relevant actors e.g. parents, teachers, diversity managers, school supervisors, ministry representatives etc. All are invited to contribute originally and to validate the project outcomes consensually within the countries first and foremost targeting the international comparison.

This Ground Work Case in Albania aims to reveal how adults talking with children can build relationships and support children’s appropriate development through the four phases of Bowlby’s attachment theory (1980).

Phase 1 0–3 months - babies seek proximity from caregiver.

Phase 2 3–6 months - babies demonstrate preference for a caregiver over another

Phase 3 6 months–3 years - babies without trauma are likely to develop fully functional attachments of trust with others, if trauma is experienced beyond their control and beyond the control of the caregiver the child will require healing by taking them back to the time of the trauma through reflection and carefully and slowly exploring the damage and re-layering healthy relationships of trust.

Phase 4 3 years-childhood ends - dependency on the primary caregiver is exchanged for self-determining/managing in making good decisions with good faculty of judgement about personal regulation moving from fear to problem solving in solidarity with others.

If trauma is experienced, which is not the fault of the child or the preferred caregiver, the child can become stuck and unable to develop the mental models required to reach phase 4. This has implications for adults who may have experienced trauma, through no fault of their own, who have not passed through the 4 phases of attachment theory. These adults are expected to support children through the phases of attachment theory, with no working personal mental model or social theories, frameworks or guidelines of what that looks like. A survey of 863 kindergarten-staff with a response rate of 78% revealed i) the curriculum of kindergarten-staff’s qualification did not include Bowlby’s attachment theory in four phases, ii) kindergarten-staff were unaware of attachment theory or how to apply it in practice. Findings reveal the Covid 19 pandemic has caused trauma and there is a history of trauma in Albania caused by war after moving to a market economy and this conflict causing trauma continues between Albania and Kosovo coupled to loss/damage caused by climate change.

Our new contribution to knowledge is A Blueprint for Character Development for Evolution (ABCDE) (Taysum et al, 2020) is recommended to be implemented in further funded research. ABCDE is an incremental model to enable adults and children to evaluate progress through the phases of attachment theory and move from ‘fear’ of the self, the other and the environment to ‘good faculty of judgement required for self-determining homeostasis’ and building security attachment capital. ABCDE builds ‘security attachment capital’ by developing kindergarten-staff culturally responsive self-review of their knowledge of attachment theory and how to apply it through talk. This needs to be coupled to an informed responsible historical and cultural consciousness of the impacts of trauma and the impacts of trauma on the children’s previous generations (ancestors). There are circa 120,000 Roma in Albania and Kostka (2022, p.2) identifies across Europe ‘many Roma families have little or no access to social support and high numbers of children are removed from their parents due to poverty rather than as a last recourse where up to 60% of Roma children are represented in care homes from populations of 10%’. This prevents Albanian diverse communities working together to become self managing of food, energy, fair labour markets and value chains where diverse groups with an identity of ‘Albanian’ and ‘European’ can combat all discrimination including anti-Gypsyism, experienced over generations, and support real and effective equality (European Commission, 2023). Thus security attachment capital needs to be built, starting in Kindergartens and continuing through to lifelong learning as a foundation to implementingThe Council of Europe Strategic Action Plan for Roma and Traveller Inclusion (2020-2025) in Albania.

The special education system in Finnish basic education is currently referred to as Learning and schooling support (Basic Education Act 628/1998 Amendment 642/2010). Since 2011, the three levels of support have been general (Tier 1), intensified (Tier 2) and special (Tier 3) support. The support methods and tools are almost the same at all tier levels; however, the intensity of the provided support increases from one level to the next (Thuneberg et al., 2013). The Finnish 'Education for All' reform was completed in the late 1990s when the responsibility for the education of children with the most severe intellectual disabilities and children in reformatory school was moved from social services to the education system. From a legislative perspective, all comprehensive school pupils are in the same education system. The idea of a ‘least restrictive environment’ has been one of the guiding principles of basic education since 1970; nevertheless, totally inclusive schools are rare in Finland (Jahnukainen, 2015). The Finnish support system is somewhat comprehensive; alongside other support, pupils are entitled to remedial teaching and part-time special education at all tier levels.

Governance of Finnish basic education is decentralised. However, legislation and one national-level core curriculum describe the overall objectives and guidelines of basic education (BEA 628/1998; FNBE, 2016). In line with the core curriculum, municipalities (N = 309) have their own municipal-level curriculums to meet their own local needs and circumstances. Finnish municipalities are very diverse; e.g., the number of inhabitants, the population with immigrant background, age composition and geographic features vary considerably. Regarding school-aged children, the number of pupils in basic education range from under 50 to over 50 000 per municipality. Moreover, the Finnish population is concentrated in Southern Finland.

The fundamental idea of the Finnish education system is that everyone has the right to basic education. According to the BEA (628/1998), pupils are entitled to sufficient support for learning and schooling whenever the need arises. The UN Convention article 3.1. on the Rights of the Child obligates the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration in all actions concerning children. Finland ratified the Convention in a law in 1991 (60/1991). In 2022 a new section was added to the BEA (163/2022), thus strengthening national regulation of the best interests of the child in education. One of the aims of basic education is also (BEA 628/1998) “to secure adequate equity in education throughout the country”.

Based on official statistics the provision of learning and schooling support varies between the municipalities. For example, at the national level 8.5 percent of pupils in basic education received Tier 3 support in the year 2019 and the municipal level variation was 0 to 16.4 percent (OSF, 2020). In addition, the place of provision of support also varied. For example, the national average of pupils receiving Tier 3 support fully in special classes was 2.3 percent of pupils in basic education and at the municipal level, the range was 0-10 percent (OSF, 2020).

There is an ongoing public debate on the need for legislation to define the learning and schooling support more precisely, in particular the support provided at Tier 2 and Tier 3. One of the objectives is to reduce the variation of the support between municipalities.

In this study, we are aiming to use different types of municipal level data to examine how the principles of learning support and practices used in municipalities reflect the diversity of municipalities in Finland. We also intend to find out if it is possible to describe the criteria for different support levels more precisely based on the results.